Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!

Boot Camp - Apple simplifies Windows XP on Intel Macs Pick of the Week
Tiger only hintBoot Camp imageThe macosxhints Rating:
9 of 10
[Score: 9 out of 10]
This week's Pick of the Week is obviously very late. However, the pick itself is the reason that the pick is so late, as I've been spending a lot of time using it, so at least I have an excuse.

Unless you've been away from the net this week, you probably heard about Boot Camp, Apple's new easy-to-use package that helps you get Windows XP running on your Intel-based Mac. As of a couple weeks ago, you could do this using the information from the OnMac project, but that solution was far from simple. It was also missing some key drivers, like those that provide native video, so gaming and high-end graphics programs were out of the question.

Boot Camp, by contrast, is about as easy to use as it gets, and includes all the required drivers. If you're one of those who needs occasional access to a Windows machine, Apple has now taken away pretty much any need to purchase another hardware box; install Boot Camp, partition the boot drive (no reformat required), install Windows XP, and boot into it when you need it. I've spent a few days playing with Boot Camp on my Core Duo mini -- I wrote about the install and first experiences in this First Look article for Macworld earlier this week.

Over the week, I've found that the Core Duo mini makes a fine Windows XP machine -- it's nearly silent, it boots quite quickly (about 40 seconds from boot to usable Desktop, though OS X is about twice as fast to boot on the same box), and everything that should work in XP seems to work just fine -- it's a true Windows XP box, so there are no issues with compatibility or speed (note that not all Mac hardware will work, such as the remote or built-in iSights on the iMac and MacBook Pro). I tested Office 2003, Photoshop, InDesign, and a number of games, along with periperhals such as printers, USB gaming devices, and FireWire hard drives. Everything just works.

And once you've figured out that OS X is where you'd like to spend 100% of your time, Boot Camp makes it very simple to remove the Windows XP installation as well -- no reformat required.

Although still a beta (back up your files!), I've had no issues with Boot Camp (nor XP, for that matter). For taking a complex task and making it simple, Apple's Boot Camp earns this week's Pick of the Week. But it's also here because it's a significant product in Apple's future -- it now allows anyone, regardless of their Windows or OS X preference, to choose an Apple hardware solution. I think this will have some interesting effects, both good and bad, on Apple's future direction. But that's not a subject for the Pick of the Week, but rather, a future editorial (but obviously, feel free to share your opinions in the comments).
    •    
  • Currently 1.89 / 5
  You rated: 2 / 5 (9 votes cast)
 
[28,706 views]  

Boot Camp - Apple simplifies Windows XP on Intel Macs | 42 comments | Create New Account
Click here to return to the 'Boot Camp - Apple simplifies Windows XP on Intel Macs' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Boot Camp - Apple simplifies Windows XP on Intel Macs
Authored by: club60.org on Apr 07, '06 08:19:37AM
There's even better alternative! Parallels launches "the first virtualization solution specifically designed to work with Intel-powered Apple computers". No need to reboot, it's possible to work in Mac OS X and use windows applications. Just like in Virtual PC.

[ Reply to This | # ]
Boot Camp - Apple simplifies Windows XP on Intel Macs
Authored by: robg on Apr 07, '06 08:30:16AM

I have this downloaded, but I'm waiting on more RAM to test it -- the mini is at 512mb, due to some bad RAM which is currently being returned.

When I tried it with 512MB, it told me it could only allow 148MB for the XP virtual session, which doesn't seem like nearly enough.

My big question with virtualizaiton is how well peripherals will work -- say you have a graphics tablet attached to a USB port. Will it work in OS X but not XP?

-rob.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Boot Camp - Apple simplifies Windows XP on Intel Macs
Authored by: JohnnyMnemonic on Apr 07, '06 08:38:20AM

Apparently, VT is disabled on minis due to a firmware bug.

Unless that was fixed with the latest firmware update, that'll mean that Parallels will kinda suck on minis; Parallels says as much in an interview.

http://appleintelfaq.com/#10.1

Would be interested to know if this is still the case of if the issue has been resolved.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Boot Camp - Apple simplifies Windows XP on Intel Macs
Authored by: Baggins on Apr 07, '06 09:57:13AM

When I updated the firmware for bootcamp, the virtualization worked on my mini. I've been spending the morning getting XP installed.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Boot Camp - Apple simplifies Windows XP on Intel Macs
Authored by: encro on Apr 09, '06 08:40:04AM

the VT issue seems to affect some Core mini's while others work fine.

http://forum.parallels.com/thread85-5.html



[ Reply to This | # ]
Boot Camp - Apple simplifies Windows XP on Intel Macs
Authored by: Baggins on Apr 07, '06 09:55:52AM

XP runs accetpably well in 128 MB, so go ahead and try it. You can always adjust the RAM in the VM at a later date.

Two caveats: Update the mini firmware, or Virtualization will not work.
Remove the floppy hardware component from the VM or you'll get kernel panics.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Boot Camp - Apple simplifies Windows XP on Intel Macs
Authored by: whenders0n on Apr 07, '06 08:37:04AM

This is good news for some of us. I just read that Apple is saying it <b>won't</b> be providing such a solution, and I think that is in their favor. If windows software can run on the mac, as seamlessly and in as many clicks as software does in classic, that could seriously undermine efforts to port software to the Mac (who here still has to boot classic to launch software? Now imagine having to do that for software that not just old, but is in fact still being updated - but only for windows...and for a lot more software, since this 'classic' will have the dominance of the PC marketshare).



[ Reply to This | # ]
Boot Camp - Apple simplifies Windows XP on Intel Macs
Authored by: wheeles on Apr 07, '06 09:31:20AM

Where did you read that? Please post the relevant link.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Boot Camp - Apple simplifies Windows XP on Intel Macs
Authored by: whenders0n on Apr 07, '06 10:25:47AM

Wired's article:
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/computers/0,70604-0.html?tw=rss.index



[ Reply to This | # ]
Boot Camp - Apple simplifies Windows XP on Intel Macs
Authored by: Peter Maurer on Apr 07, '06 04:03:32PM
Here's the exact quote:
"We are not providing a way to run Windows within OS X," Natalie Kerris, an Apple spokeswoman, said Wednesday.
Now, isn't this a typical Apple statement? No one said they won't. They just don't ;-)

[ Reply to This | # ]
Boot Camp - Windows XP on Intel Macs
Authored by: concrete on Apr 07, '06 04:13:06PM

I have to say this, is this site and others like Macfixit about to have WindowsXP Hints or WindowsFixit. XP on my Mac is not a want.
I come to MacOSXhints for Mac problems... not Windows running on a Mac. Sure having Windows on the great Apple box so the office can all be simulated like Borg is ok, tricking people into that you are on a Mac... sort of like those custom Lamborghini replicas. It's just not cricket. And it is good to see that MacOSXhints is not dominated by it... leading by not having Bootcamp and XP issues



[ Reply to This | # ]
Boot Camp - Apple simplifies Windows XP on Intel Macs
Authored by: Baggins on Apr 07, '06 10:01:32AM

Sigh. Running Windows in a window on OS X at native speeds is not going to affect Mac software development in the least because people want OS X software, not Windows software for their Macs, and software vendors will be happy to sell it to them.

I swear, I have never met so many insecure people in my life. Do you really think the OS X experience is so weak that people will WANT to use Windows or Windows software after they use it?

Here's what I see happening. More people buy Macs because the barrier to entry is now very low (runs your Windows software). They get a good exposure to OS X and realize just what a piece of crap Windows and windows software is. Demand for OS X software INCREASES as a result.

I mean, for crying out loud, just using Word for Windows after using it on OS X will make you want to hurl.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Boot Camp - Apple simplifies Windows XP on Intel Macs
Authored by: whenders0n on Apr 07, '06 10:33:54AM
While I think it's true that no one in their right mind would prefer a virtualized/dual boot solution to software compatibility issues, it is undeniable that such technology will lower the urgency and intensity (though perhaps not the volume) of the demand. This is especially true for games where the marketability time period is often almost as short as the time to port it, and GUI is not an issue, but it is also true for many other applications, especially large-scale corporate type software products (where code-base is large and most users are locked into windows). This move could definitely increase the amount of people demanding OS X native apps, but I would be surprised if it didn't make most people less outspoken about their wants if they can just run it in Windows.

[ Reply to This | # ]
Boot Camp - Apple simplifies Windows XP on Intel Macs
Authored by: Baggins on Apr 07, '06 12:31:52PM

People always want to believe the worst, I guess.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Boot Camp - Apple simplifies Windows XP on Intel Macs
Authored by: markuswarren on Apr 07, '06 10:34:29AM

Maybe Apple will, maybe they won't. Personally I have an inkling they will release/bundle their own virtualization solution when 10.5 is launched.

Dual boot is nice, but for my needs, virtualization is what's needed and right now, that need is fulfilled by Parallels.

I think we should wait until at least WWDC to see what is in 10.5 before taking Apple at it's word.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Boot Camp - Apple simplifies Windows XP on Intel Macs
Authored by: sophistry on Apr 07, '06 08:28:18AM

Rob,

I know this is a tiny thing, but it bothers me so I thought I'd bring it up.

Please update your scoring system as it is misleading.
You never give any POTW less than 8 stars anymore.

Why don't you switch to a 1,2,3 grade? That's how I read your scores anyhow.

1- Ok, but some serious issues (your 8)
2- Good all around, not perfect (your 9)
3- Perfect and does something really great in a great way (your 10)

my $0.02

---
soph



[ Reply to This | # ]
Boot Camp - Apple simplifies Windows XP on Intel Macs
Authored by: robg on Apr 07, '06 08:34:08AM

Actually, I've never given anything less than an eight (well, maybe one seven) -- the whole point of the PotW is that this is good stuff :). Somewhere in the mist of time, I explained this in a PotW posting, that everything would be biased to the high end of the scale.

I went with 10 boxes orginally because it was, well, OS X, and because it was easily understood without a key -- 10 out of 10 is perfect, etc. With a scale such as yours, I'd need to include the key each week.

I may just do away with the ratings entirely, given that every PotW is good enough to be a PotW, and just call out any concerns in my commentary.

Thanks for the feedback;
-rob.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Boot Camp - Apple simplifies Windows XP on Intel Macs
Authored by: whenders0n on Apr 07, '06 08:30:32AM

I think a lot of where this goes still has to do with where Apple decides to take this. This is a beta, after all. How will 'boot camp' integrate into leopard? Will there also be a virtualization layer as claimed elsewhere? Moreover, how well Apple advertises this functionality in the switcher context I think may be the biggest thing of all. There are a lot of people sitting on the fence that know enough about the Mac to make the switch now that boot camp is here, but I would say not more than 10% of users. Probably much less. The average user still thinks Macs can't run any software - so unless Apple makes it really clear to this population that they won't loose ANYTHING when they make the jump, I don't think it will be more than a neat trick for a few geeks and technologists. Apple's said they are not going to bundle Windows or anything like that (they also said they weren't interested in dual booting not long ago...) but that just means that have to do as close to "open the box, plug it in, run windows" as possible.
Also, there are obviously some bad point to this release. In general I think these bad points have to do with the possibility that 'boot camp' will contribute to eroding the concept of what it is to be a mac, what it is that makes macs 'different'. This was already a slight problem with the move to intel chips, because Apple's machine are now more directly comparable to PC machines. Of course this could be a good thing, but it means, for example, that there's not going to be any question really when it comes to benchmarks - Apple's going to have to stay really competitive (The PC mag review of Boot camp said it ran about as fast as a 'high-end laptop' on an iMac - which is pretty good but probably not what Apple would want). Really and truly though this could be a problem in the end, especially as Apple charges a premium for its hardware - which, while superior in some ways, is now more similar to windows boxes than ever. Hence, buying a mac could now be interpreted as paying more just to run Mac OS on basically the same hardware. Another issue that has already been stated, and popped in to my head as soon as I saw this announcement, was for Mac game developers. This threat applies to Mac developers porting Windows software in general. Is there still an incentive if developers know that there software will easily run in Windows on most macs, and is there such a demand if most users know that too? The more a Mac becomes just "a windows box that just happens to boot Mac OS as well", the bigger the problem will get. In fact, the danger here may be a direct correlation to how successful this technology is. On the other hand, the success of this technology, presumably, is more switchers - meaning a bigger market share and more demand for a native solution. Really it could work either way. In general I think Apple will face several issues that are a manifestation of this breakdown in the division, but it will be a long and interesting battle to stay on top.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Boot Camp - Apple simplifies Windows XP on Intel Macs
Authored by: ichweissnicht on Apr 07, '06 10:44:39AM

The availability of native Mac software going forward is a concern. But for most of us that use Macs there is very little reason to dual boot - and we represent a sizable enough market now that developers are willing to produce product. This shouldn't change, as I don't see posts saying it is about time people can ditch OS X to run 100% Windows.

Also, dual booting is very inefficient. Non-geek switchers will figure this out and decide to either commit to OS X or not pay the Mac premium (mythical or not) to run Windows.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Boot Camp - Apple simplifies Windows XP on Intel Macs
Authored by: syko on Apr 07, '06 05:22:42PM

You're absolutely right and it's a concern of mine I've had since the day they announced they were going to slap intel chips in Macs.

If xyz software runs fine on <insert parallel virtual, dualboot, etc.> in a Mac, then why should we hire people to port this software (game, etc..) over to the Mac?

The worst case scenario would be that no one would continue to write s/w (anything significant that doesn't 'exist' on a Mac) and the Mac would have one of their last great 'features' disappear: Macintosh software that works very well that we have all come to appreciate.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Boot Camp - Access one partition from the other?
Authored by: MtnBiker on Apr 07, '06 08:40:08AM

Did I read elsewhere that you can't see the Windows partition from OS X (or did I miss it in Rob's article)? And what about visa versa? If true this is major shortcoming. If you're just running games not a big deal, but if you happen to find something in one OS that you want to move to the other OS, what do you do, mail to yourself?

Also important if you need to use Windows for something you can't do in OS X (I'm assuming you spent the big bucks to have primarily a Mac), this is inconvenient at best. But before I rant anymore, I should await confirmation.

But I'm holding out for virtualization (simultaneous booting) in any case. Rebooting would be too inconvenient in most cases.

---
Hermosa Beach, CA USA



[ Reply to This | # ]
Boot Camp - Access one partition from the other?
Authored by: robg on Apr 07, '06 08:58:25AM

OS X can see both NTFS and FAT32 volumes (you can install XP on either). However, it can only write to FAT32.

But FireWire and USB devices work fine, so if I were doing this in a work setting, I'd just get an external drive and format it in FAT32 32gb chunks, and install XP on an NTFS partition on the boot disk.

From XP, you can't see the HFS+ OS X disk at all, unless you install MacDrive, a third-party app.

In all situations, there are no permissions on the 'other' OS's disk, so you can pretty much destroy it if you do something stupid. :)

-rob.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Boot Camp - Access one partition from the other?
Authored by: MtnBiker on Apr 07, '06 11:17:29AM

Thanks for the answer. More convenient than emailing, but if you forget to move a file to the external drive first--two more reboots. And don't forget to copy the file you're working on back to it's home folder.

My interest is a .gpx file. Mapping and GPSs are poorly supported on Mac OS X. Many interesting apps are on Windows. And trying to use Virtual PC through a USB port which is connected to a KeySpan device allowing the computer to talk to serial USB at best fraught with difficulties--meaning it doesn't usually work. So a dual boot may be necessary--one can hope that future virtualizations will be better.

---
Hermosa Beach, CA USA



[ Reply to This | # ]
Boot Camp - Access one partition from the other?
Authored by: bradleyd1971 on Apr 07, '06 08:58:59AM

I believe when you are running OS X you would be able to see the NTFS partition and read from it, but not write to it. So if you had a file you created in Windows, and then needed to use under OS X you could pull it from the Windows partition and then save it in the OS X partition.

I don't know about seeing the OS X partition from Windows though. I do know that on my Windows PC at home I can map drive letters to the drives on my macbook and my emac though (but that uses samba I believe).



[ Reply to This | # ]
Boot Camp - Access one partition from the other?
Authored by: brucio on Apr 07, '06 09:34:56AM

While a USB thumbdrive may be a workaround for laptop users, is it possible to create a 3rd partition on the boot drive? OSX>HFS+, XP>NTFS, and a FAT32 partition for tranferring files?

(Still waiting for virtualization.)



[ Reply to This | # ]
Disk Utility, why can't you do that...
Authored by: Pedro Estarque on Apr 07, '06 10:49:56AM

I know this is sort of a change of subject but if boot camp can create and delete a partition seamlessly, why can't DiskUtility? Why must we still reformat our drive just to change the partition scheme if Boot Camp just proved that it can be done?



[ Reply to This | # ]
Disk Utility, why can't you do that...
Authored by: syzygies on Apr 07, '06 11:00:06AM

For that matter, no one mentions above that Boot Camp insists on using the internal drive. Many of us boot our minis externally for speed; we're all waiting for the other shoe to drop on accessing the internal SATA connector, and using the mini as a mere component in a custom system.

So who's going to write the hint on tricking Boot Camp into using external partitions?

I'm happy to have Boot Camp play with its food, and diddle my internal drive, then trick it in a later step into instead using an external partition configured by Disk Utility. My internal drive is basically untouched, containing the shipped disk image and a few files that ended up there by accident. No backups needed!



[ Reply to This | # ]
Disk Utility, why can't you do that...
Authored by: sjk on Apr 07, '06 01:37:52PM
Non-destructive resizing can be done using diskutil from the command line:
% diskutil resizeVolume
Disk Utility Tool
Usage:  diskutil resizeVolume [Mount Point|Disk Identifier|Device Node] size
          ...
Non-destructively resize a disk. You may increase or decrease its size.
When decreasing size, you may optionally supply a list of new partitions to create.
Ownership of the affected disk is required.
Valid partition sizes are in the format of .
Valid sizes are B(ytes), K(ilobytes), M(egabytes), G(igabytes), T(erabytes)
Example: 10G (10 gigabytes), 4.23T (4.23 terabytes), 5M (5 megabytes)
resizeVolume is only supported on GPT media with a Journaled HFS+ filesystem.
A size of "limits" will print the range of valid values for the current filesystem.
Example: diskutil resizeVolume disk1s3  10G
         JHFS+ HDX1 5G MS-DOS HDX2 5G
Valid filesystems: "Case-sensitive HFS+" "Journaled HFS+" "Case-sensitive Journaled HFS+"
"HFS+" "HFS" "MS-DOS FAT32" "MS-DOS FAT16" "MS-DOS" "MS-DOS FAT12" "UFS" "Linux" "Swap"

No Intel Macs here so I haven't tried it. I've recently resized volumes on PPC Macs using iPartition.

[ Reply to This | # ]
Disk Utility, why can't you do that...
Authored by: sjk on Apr 07, '06 01:50:09PM
Disk Utility, why can't you do that...
Authored by: Pedro Estarque on Apr 07, '06 02:24:16PM

But why Intel only ?



[ Reply to This | # ]
Boot Camp - Apple simplifies Windows XP on Intel Macs
Authored by: RobLewis on Apr 07, '06 04:25:00PM

Whoa, I just realized something. Everybody acts like Boot Camp is a big surprise, but it's been part of the plan all along. What's the code name of the next Mac OS? Leopard. What's the cliché about leopards? They can't change their spots. What will ship with Leopard? The finished version of Boot Camp.

Steve wants to introduce the first Leopard that CAN change its spots!



[ Reply to This | # ]
Boot Camp - Apple simplifies Windows XP on Intel Macs
Authored by: Gabroil on Apr 07, '06 09:30:42PM

Yeah, I am sure that is what they were thinking. Oh my God.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Boot Camp - Apple simplifies Windows XP on Intel Macs
Authored by: joebeone on Apr 07, '06 06:47:12PM

It appears that the keyboard shortcut for the screen invert mode (CMD-OPT-CTRL-8) doesn't work with the new update (on my Powerbook G4).



[ Reply to This | # ]
My difficulty with Boot Camp
Authored by: horizonstar on Apr 08, '06 06:46:10PM

The only thing I wanted Windows for was to play the original Unreal Tournament from '99. The WinXP+SP2 installation went fine, as did the drivers and UT installation, but when I play, everything goes at about 5x the speed it should. The mouse, the computer AI ... as if the game doesn't have CPU timing logic.

Anyone have any ideas about how to fix this or heard of other people having similar problems? It's the one and only use I had for Boot Camp, and it didn't work. :(



[ Reply to This | # ]
My difficulty with Boot Camp
Authored by: Sith Happens on Apr 10, '06 11:26:47AM

I saw your post and registered JUST to tell you the solution, since I was in the same boat (even only wanted Windows to run the original Unreal Tournament - haha) and luckily found the solution on another forum.

The problem is that UT can't deal with your dual processors. What you have to do is launch UT and then minimize the window to get back to the Windows desktop. Right-click in the bar with Start Menu (the blue area to the right of the Start Menu) and open the Task Manager. Click on the Processes tab and sort by name to find Unreal Tournament in the list. Right-click on it and choose the "affinity" option. It'll show that UT is currently using CPU0 & CPU1. Uncheck one of thoe options, close that window and the Task Manager, and get back into UT in full-screen mode. Viola! Problem solved.



[ Reply to This | # ]
My difficulty with Boot Camp
Authored by: horizonstar on Apr 11, '06 02:01:56AM

Works like a charm, Sith Happens. Thanks so much for this tip!



[ Reply to This | # ]
Boot Camp - Apple simplifies Windows XP on Intel Macs
Authored by: webgodjj on Apr 09, '06 11:57:47AM

I think it's funny though, that apple could get almost every driver to work except for isight and the remote, which is their own equipment....



[ Reply to This | # ]
Boot Camp - Apple simplifies Windows XP on Intel Macs
Authored by: Superboy on Apr 09, '06 12:26:20PM

I suspect apple didn't want the remote & iSight to work, so no one can say that Windows works perfectly on an Intel Mac. You loose two prominent features without the iSight and remote, another reason to stay with OS X.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Boot Camp - Apple simplifies Windows XP on Intel Macs
Authored by: morespace54 on Apr 11, '06 12:44:21PM

My experience...

Windows Installer got stuck in the middle of the proccess... had to (force) eject the CD... computer was sill rebboting in XP installer (even without CD)... try to rebbot from OS X... HD couldn't mount... try an "install and achives" of OS X... Coudn't install OS X on the HD... retry... again...again... and again... reformat and re-install OS X...

...bad weekend...



[ Reply to This | # ]
Boot Camp - Apple simplifies Windows XP on Intel Macs
Authored by: mshirey on Sep 06, '06 02:18:59AM

Yeah, having my own bad time as well. Same situation, install problem, had to reboot, now I'm stuck booting to the windows install. If anyone can tell me how to get out of this loop, I'd sure appreciate it.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Boot Camp - Apple simplifies Windows XP on Intel Macs
Authored by: smkolins on Apr 11, '06 01:35:18PM

My installtion was fairly simple but the Apple drivers for the wireless card didn't let me join a LEAP authentication required network. So I went Hunting. The Windows system identified the hardware as an Atheros AR5006x card. Turns out to support a, b, and g networks! Don't know if the Apple implimentation limits joining an A network or not. But I hunted for an updated driver (the included one was 4.1 something.) Sure enough there is a 4.2something. But getting it from Atheros was impossible. Gigabyte Inc. turned out to have a nice update but the Amercan download failed. I had to go to Asia to get it downloaded (the Europe one started but ultimately failed.) But to find that I had to work through an eBay web page that actually had an old link but it kind of got me there.... quite the hunt.

But it worked great when done and rebooting and using the network seemed stable enough!

Here's where the driver was ultimately listed:
http://tw2005.giga-byte.com/Communication/Support/Driver/Driver_Wireless_GN-WI01HT.htm

I picked the 1.01 version which is the 4.2something version (versions of versions!?) and I used the Asia (not Asia(China)) and it installed and ran well. Yes I even had a virus checker check it!

---
Possess a pure, kindly, and radiant heart!



[ Reply to This | # ]
Boot Camp - Apple simplifies Windows XP on Intel Macs
Authored by: dbshrink on Jan 03, '07 07:19:10PM

Anyone had and/or found a solution to this problem: I installed Boot Camp according to the instructions, loaded Windows XP, ran the driver disc. Everything seemed to be going OK, but at the end of the process the iMac wireless keyboard (Intel dual core processor iMac) isn't recognized by Windows XP. I can get it to use a USB wired keyboard, but this one isn't recognized by Mac OSX. So every time I switch from Mac to XP or vice versa, I have to switch keyboards. Anyone know a solution? Is there an alternative download for the XP driver for the keyboard alone--all the drivers for XP appear to be bundled in one loader program so I don't know how to select it out or what to replace it with.



[ Reply to This | # ]