3 ms·
In the beginning, Bootcamp had a real job. It allowed a machine running Intel's EFI firmware (as Intel Macs have always done) to boot an OS that only understoo
by GeekyBear 20d ago
In the beginning, Bootcamp had a real job.
It allowed a machine running Intel's EFI firmware (as Intel Macs have always done) to boot an OS that only understood the older BIOS standard.
Once Microsoft and the various PC vendors started supporting UEFI directly, Bootcamp was just a bundle of existing Windows drivers from the component vendors.
If you put a specific Broadcom Wi-Fi chip in the Mac, Bootcamp included Broadcom's Windows driver that was best suited for that chip.
- izacus 20d agoAnd Linux support on M Macs would also have a "real job", what is your point exactly? I find it so bizarre that some of you here are defending a megacorporation that could have easily afforded to provide drivers for Linux Kernel like their competitors do. You're clapping for free volunteers to spend hundreds of hours reverse engineering Thunderbolt controllers when companies like Intel outright contribute them.
- lokar 20d agoThe reverse of that argument is why are you applauding Intel for doing something they had to do well in order to get any sales?
- izacus 20d agoThere is no "applause" in my post - please learn to read before you take up your bigcorp defender shield and think for a second why you're fighting against your own benefit.
- lokar 20d agoWft?
- GeekyBear 20d agoI'm pretty sure Intel is providing Xenon CPUs for free when they are used in Linux servers, so they have no financial interest in providing first party Linux drivers. Sure, they relied on community Linux drivers in the past, but that didn't have anything to do with money.