Boot Camp Software Update 3.2 for Windows 32 bit

[+Frank B. Subscriber²]

About Boot Camp Software Update 3.2 for Windows 32 bit

This update adds support for the ATI-Radeon HD 5870 graphics card, Apple USB Ethernet Adapter, MacBook Air SuperDrive, and addresses critical bug fixes. This update is highly recommended for all Boot Camp 3.1 users.

If you have an Intel-based Mac and there?s a PC application you need to use, you can run it using Boot Camp. You'll need to provide an authentic copy of Microsoft Windows but Boot Camp is included in Mac OS X Snow Leopard.

For more information, please visit this website: http://www.apple.com/support/bootcamp/

Download: Boot Camp Software Update for Windows 32 bit

Download: Boot Camp Software Update for Windows 64 bit

[Quillz]

Thanks for the notice, I use Boot Camp a lot.

[Shadrack]

I'm considering going back to bootcamp. VMWare Fusion is just too painfully slow for me to be productive in it. Just wish I had a larger hard drive...

Sure would be nice if they would improve their trackpad drivers for their MacBook Pro, as well as the battery life problems. Sucks to only get 2 hours on my MBP in Windows when I get 5+ hours in Mac OS X. I think Windows just sucks with battery life in general (judging by some Windows 7 laptops we have at work that get a measly 2 - 2.5 hours on a 6 cell battery).

[Quillz]

It's not Windows, it's the battery. I have used many laptops with Win7 on them that easily get 10+ hours with a good battery.

[.Neo]

Why is the title "Boot Camp Software Update 3.2 for Windows 32 bit" when an update for 64-bit is available as well? Gives the impression the update is for 32-bit Windows versions only.

  On 22/11/2010 at 18:19, Nidoking said:

It's not Windows, it's the battery.

How is it the battery if he gets many more hours out of it when running Mac OS X? It's either Windows or the Boot Camp drivers provided by Apple.

[Shadrack]

  On 22/11/2010 at 18:19, Nidoking said:

It's not Windows, it's the battery. I have used many laptops with Win7 on them that easily get 10+ hours with a good battery.

Because Windows requires a special battery or something? I don't understand how I'm getting 5.5 hrs on average in Mac OS X, load up Windows 7 and get 2 hours. Mind you, this is with the 9400M graphics only card. There are issues with the MBP's with duel display adapters (9400M and 9600M) where only the 9600M is used in Windows 7 and thus gives you lousy battery life. That isn't the case here.

In fact, I get better battery life running Windows 7 in VMWare Fusion within Mac OS X than I do booting directly to Windows 7.

My brand new Thinkpad at work only gets 2-2.5 hours as well.

Footnote: I get about 45 minutes to an hour more battery life if I turn off Aero... too bad it looks like absolute ****. Basically to get better battery life in Windows 7 you have to turn off its features.

[Quillz]

  On 22/11/2010 at 18:23, .Neo said:

Why is the title "Boot Camp Software Update 3.2 for Windows 32 bit" when an update for 64-bit is available as well? Gives the impression the update is for 32-bit Windows versions only.

How is it the battery if he gets many more hours out of it when running Mac OS X? It's either Windows or the Boot Camp drivers provided by Apple.

I would suspect it's the drivers, which were particularly bad until 3.x. In fact, Boot Camp was almost unusable, at least for me, on a daily basis until I got the drivers off the Snow Leopard DVD, which are much improved, especially in regards to the trackpad and scrolling.

  On 22/11/2010 at 18:27, Shadrack said:

Footnote: I get about 45 minutes to an hour more battery life if I turn off Aero... too bad it looks like absolute ****. Basically to get better battery life in Windows 7 you have to turn off its features.

Not in my case. Not using Aero Glass, I do, in fact, get slightly better battery life, but I find it adds minutes, only. What you really should do on any OS, whether it's Mac OS X, Windows or Linux, is adjust the default power settings, which sometimes are always best optimized for a portable machine.

[.Neo]

  On 22/11/2010 at 21:16, Nidoking said:

I would suspect it's the drivers, which were particularly bad until 3.x. In fact, Boot Camp was almost unusable, at least for me, on a daily basis until I got the drivers off the Snow Leopard DVD, which are much improved, especially in regards to the trackpad and scrolling.

That doesn't explain your previous post claiming that it has to do with the battery itself.

[Argi]

Noticed this unexpectedly yesterday.

[PyX]

Yeah the trackpad and scrolling were really bad before 3.0. And it also happens that running Windows 7 on my MacBook Pro eats up nearly twice as much battery as it does on OS X. It’s really incredible how things are anti-optimized in that OS. I doubt the drivers would do that...

Last time I tried Windows with Boot Camp 3.1, I had problems with my resolution. Setting it on my 27-inch at 1920x1080 would simply center the OS in the middle of the screen, and add huge black borders everywhere around it, which wouldn't make it much more useable.

By uninstalling Apple's driver and installing the complete mobile version of the ATI Catalyst software, I managed to find an option where this could be fixed. But I hope it's fixed now, it was one of the worst Boot Camp bugs I ever found so far.

Note : I don't know how people do to use the native resolution on the 27-inch. Everything is so small. I'm still waiting for resolution independance in OS X and Windows... the DPI settings in Windows are there already, but they are just as bad as they can be.

[Mr. Gibs]

  Quote

It’s really incredible how things are anti-optimized in that OS. I doubt the drivers would do that...

Too bad I can get about 4 hours of watching vidoes on a somewhat ancient core 2 duo 2.2ghz, 8600m gt 256mb 17in laptop right? 9 cell battery in case you're wondering.

Yup it's obviously the OS.

[PyX]

Well how can the drivers kill the battery so much? They were coded to actually make the components run without doing anything? I know how unoptimized drivers can make a difference in performance, but kill the battery so much, I?m in need of explanations here.

On the same laptop, in OS X with poor graphics drivers, 7 hours. On Windows 7, with awesome graphics drivers, 4 hours.

[Quillz]

Mac OS X would have an advantage of being optimized exactly for the hardware it's running on, which isn't the case as much with Windows. Also check what power plan your Win7 install is using. There should be two by default, Balanced and Power Saver. The latter works better by changing a few settings, such as dimming the backlight or turning off the transparency of Aero Glass (but not Aero itself.) Also check the age of the battery, the cells may not be holding as long of a charge as they used to be able to.

[Mr. Gibs]

  On 23/11/2010 at 04:28, PsykX said:

Well how can the drivers kill the battery so much? They were coded to actually make the components run without doing anything? I know how unoptimized drivers can make a difference in performance, but kill the battery so much, I?m in need of explanations here.

On the same laptop, in OS X with poor graphics drivers, 7 hours. On Windows 7, with awesome graphics drivers, 4 hours.

I have yet to hear someone say anything good about Windows performance under Boot camp..maybe battery issues exist as well?

Hell right now I'm watching a 720p video, balanced power setting, and windows 7 battery icon thingy is reporting 3hr05m battery life remaining. Now thats been pretty dam accurate for me in the past, since I travel long distance a good amount and use my laptops on flights. And the Macbook Pro has, at least from what I've read, a bigger battery than the 9cell in my laptop.

[giga Veteran]

  On 23/11/2010 at 04:34, /- Razorfold said:

I have yet to hear someone say anything good about Windows performance under Boot camp..maybe battery issues exist as well?

Hell right now I'm watching a 720p video, balanced power setting, and windows 7 battery icon thingy is reporting 3hr05m battery life remaining. Now thats been pretty dam accurate for me in the past, since I travel long distance a good amount and use my laptops on flights. And the Macbook Pro has, at least from what I've read, a bigger battery than the 9cell in my laptop.

A 9 cell battery is 85Wh. A 13” MBP has a 63Wh battery and a 15” a 77Wh one.

Anandtech actually did a comparison and found that its battery life was in line (average) with other Windows notebooks with similar batteries if you adjust for different processors and GPUs with different power requirements. The Acer, for example, dominated the entire group because of its CULV processor and integrated graphics. The others also benefited from ION or Optimus.

This isn’t to say that this is Microsoft’s fault — it’s just an advantage that Apple will have to be able to specifically optimize their own software and os for their specific hardware. That’s about all I can get from the 10 hour usage results that they can get with relatively modern specs in a small and thin package.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3889/apple-macbook-pro-13-as-windows7-laptop/6

[Mr. Gibs]

  Quote

A 9 cell battery is 85Wh. A 13? MBP has a 63Wh battery and a 15? a 77Wh one.

I was referring to this tidbit on Apple's website:

  Quote

A removable battery requires many parts that take up space: a separate battery compartment, latches, internal mechanisms, and more. By embedding the battery in the enclosure, Apple engineers gave the battery in the 17-inch MacBook Pro 40 percent more capacity without adding size or weight to the notebook

Considering they're an OEM I would assume they would be exaggerating the battery capacity by a bit, but to claim 40% more?

[giga Veteran]

  On 23/11/2010 at 05:08, /- Razorfold said:

I was referring to this tidbit on Apple's website:

Considering they're an OEM I would assume they would be exaggerating the battery capacity by a bit, but to claim 40% more?

I wouldn’t know actual physical dimensions, but the 17” MBP does have a 95Wh battery. Any other 17” notebooks with similar dimensions? (.98” x 15.47” x 10.51”) We could get a rough estimate of the difference that way.

Here’s the 17” battery: http://guide-images.ifixit.net/igi/sxKMnVcUksMysUGM.huge

[Mr. Gibs]

  On 23/11/2010 at 05:14, giga said:

I wouldn?t know actual physical dimensions, but the 17? MBP does have a 95Wh battery. Any other 17? notebooks with similar dimensions? (.98? x 15.47? x 10.51?)

We could get a rough estimate of the difference that way.

Dunno tbh. But going back to the issue about battery life, a google search on battery life on hackintoshs (even those with almost identical specs as a macbook pro) shows that the battery life is almost the same for both OSes.

Now obviously a hackintosh isn't an Apple computer, but it does seem to indicate that Apple does have a number of optimizations with their laptops (larger battery capacity being one of them). Whereas Microsoft, with Windows, really has no control over any hardware...they just have to make a general OS that can work on pretty much any hardware out there.

And then you have to take into account OEMs and their batteries, my previous dell laptop shipped with a pretty ****ty battery tbh...within 6 months the battery capacity dropped to less than 40% of its original. This new, well newer, one's battery lasted upto about a year before requiring an exchange. Apple claims their batteries can withstand a lot more wear.

Drivers also play a role in battery performance since you would expect a hackintosh (of similar specs as a macbook) to get similar battery life..but they don't, probably because of "hacked' kexts not being as optimal as Apple's.

[giga Veteran]

  On 23/11/2010 at 05:22, /- Razorfold said:

Dunno tbh. But going back to the issue about battery life, a google search on battery life on hackintoshs (even those with almost identical specs as a macbook pro) shows that the battery life is almost the same for both OSes.

Now obviously a hackintosh isn't an Apple computer, but it does seem to indicate that Apple does have a number of optimizations with their laptops (larger battery capacity being one of them). Whereas Microsoft, with Windows, really has no control over any hardware...they just have to make a general OS that can work on pretty much any hardware out there.

And then you have to take into account OEMs and their batteries, my previous dell laptop shipped with a pretty ****ty battery tbh...within 6 months the battery capacity dropped to less than 40% of its original. This new, well newer, one's battery lasted upto about a year before requiring an exchange. Apple claims their batteries can withstand a lot more wear.

Drivers also play a role in battery performance since you would expect a hackintosh (of similar specs as a macbook) to get similar battery life..but they don't, probably because of "hacked' kexts not being as optimal as Apple's.

I can agree with that and said something similar in a previous post. ;)

[PyX]

I'm not saying anyone is plain wrong, but I just don't get a thing here.

What kind of algorithm can OS X drivers use with MacBook Pros differently than with Windows drivers to consume less battery per unit of time?

They reduce the number of rpm in the fans or in the HD? They reduce the number of CPU cycles? They allocate memory differently?

One thing I noticed though, on my iMac, the luminosity set to the minimum is definitely brighter in Windows than in OS X. I can barely keep my eyes open in front of Windows. I don't know if it's the same with the MacBook Pros, as I don't boot in Windows so often on mine.

[Argi]

The difference in battery life is because Windows in BootCamp always uses the discrete graphics card while in OSX you have the option of using the onboard which uses significantly less power. If you use discrete in OSX the times are about the same. I thought this was well known?

[giga Veteran]

  On 24/11/2010 at 00:41, ArgiKitsune said:

The difference in battery life is because Windows in BootCamp always uses the discrete graphics card while in OSX you have the option of using the onboard which uses significantly less power. If you use discrete in OSX the times are about the same. I thought this was well known?

The 13” MBP, MB, and Air only have one GPU and exhibit much lower battery life in Windows.

[ObiWanToby]

The new MBA seems to have about the same battery life in Windows as it does in OS X for me. Pretty damn good battery life, about 6 hours 14 minutes is the last charge in Windows 7.

[Mr. Gibs]

  On 23/11/2010 at 22:09, PsykX said:

I'm not saying anyone is plain wrong, but I just don't get a thing here.

What kind of algorithm can OS X drivers use with MacBook Pros differently than with Windows drivers to consume less battery per unit of time?

They reduce the number of rpm in the fans or in the HD? They reduce the number of CPU cycles? They allocate memory differently?

One thing I noticed though, on my iMac, the luminosity set to the minimum is definitely brighter in Windows than in OS X. I can barely keep my eyes open in front of Windows. I don't know if it's the same with the MacBook Pros, as I don't boot in Windows so often on mine.

Well to list some things (I don't own a macbook so this may not exactly be the case):

1. The intel speedstep drivers for Windows on bootcamp aren't great..so the cpu spends more time at higher clock rate.

2. The powermizer in nvidia drivers is poor: for example a while back I used a driver that refused to overclock to 3d frequencies so basically I had great battery life but **** performance. Then I've also used a driver that never underclocked..great performance..not so great battery life.

3. Wifi power saving features, yet again controlled by drivers.

4. Hardrives spin down times (can hardrives "underclock" their rpm as well?)

5. Other optimizations that OSX has in their drivers, Apple has an advantage here since the hardware set is tiny compared to Windows.

Like I mentioned hackintoshes with near similar hardware has a macbook don't get greater battery life on OSX. Now I assume this is because Apple's kexts are much more optimized than the hacked kexts hackintoshes have to use.