More on Booting Windows on the Intel Mac?

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Many believe that booting Windows on the new Intel Macs will become an eventuality, and are still to try to achieve it.

OpenOSX announced (http://openosx.com/wintel/) they are achieving "nearly native" performance on Intel Macs with OpenOSX WinTel 2.0 - a PC emulator. This appears to be a re-brand of the open source Bochs emulation project (http://bochs.sourceforge.net/). This sort of commercialization has been met with some controversy (http://fink.sourceforge.net/pr/openosx.php). User experience with this particular product is limited at this stage, but one comment (http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/01/17/wintel.2.0.for.mactels/#comments) claimed "It does seem to be working, but I am pretty positive that it is working nowhere near native speeds on this brand new Intel iMac."

Meanwhile, one user reports (http://nak.journalspace.com/?cmd=displaycomments&dcid=407&entryid=407) on his experience booting into the EFI (http://guides.macrumors.com/EFI) menu on an Intel Mac. This is of limited use at the moment, and of course, proceed at your own risk.

[EricNau]

I would never put Windows on my Mac, but if People could, it would be a great selling point for Apple.

[arn]

ya, I know some people don't like all this talk about Windows on the Mac... but it will be a big selling point for many.

arn

[MacRumoron]

actually i want to put linux,windows, and mac on my comp :D

[quigleybc]

Unless there is a way to not have to hack OSX to put windows on mac...it won't sell anything..


And unless it runs flawlessly, it will just be a gimick.

[Dr. Dastardly]

For many of us that do IT work on mainly windows machines, Windows on a Mac will be a huge boon for us. I can finally get rid of two computers I have that are just for Windows and Linux and now all I have to do is focus on one.

This is great for Apple and probably exactly what Phil was talking about because now I will use the money I would have normally used on those PCs and use it toward the purchase of a much more powerful (and expensive) Mac then the one I would previously been able to afford.

[SiliconAddict]

Chaos reins in Apple land! :eek: :D Seriously I expect to see a random report soon of OS/400 running at native speeds on the Macintels soon to be countered with oops my bad its OS/2 Warp. Soon after to be countered with. . .Sorry my friend was being a tool and lying to me. :D

[RichP]

Hmm..this is sounding promising... :D

[SiliconAddict]

ya, I know some people don't like all this talk about Windows on the Mac... but it will be a big selling point for many.

arn

Amen to that. I know of three people right NOW who are in a holding pattern. As soon as the news shows up that you can dual boot Windows onto the MacBooks they are ordering. Like it or not this is an important component to getting Windows users to purchase Apple hardware.

[GrannySmith_G5]

Great! Anything that puts more money in Microsoft's pocket has to be a good thing. Hopefully it becomes so simple to dual boot in the future that some developers abandon making Mac versions of their software.

[dejo]

At first glance, I thought the headline read:

"Moron Booting Windows on the Intel Mac?" ;)

[Randall]

This blog from Nakfull Propaganda (http://nak.journalspace.com/?cmd=displaycomments&dcid=407&entryid=407) that discusses how to get into the EFI boot menu on the new iMacs. Apparently there is no support in the Mactel EFI boot loader for UDF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Disk_Format) or El Torito (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Torito_%28CD-ROM_standard%29) volumes, which Windows falls under. It seems that currently only GPT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUID_Partition_Table) and APM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Power_Management) are supported in the Mactel EFI.

From the article...
First a word of caution. You can leave your system in a state where Mac OS X won't start up again. You can fix it by booting with the install CD (hold down C as you turn on your computer) then using the Start-up Disk utility).

Now, on to the instructions.

1. Download the EFI Sample Implementation (http://www.intel.com/technology/efi/main_sample.htm) from Intel.

2. Unzip the file to /efi (or anywhere else, but /efi is what I'll be using)

3. In terminal do 'sudo bless --folder /efi --file /efi/Binary/BIOS32/Bin/GraphicsConsole.efi --setBoot'

4. Reboot your computer.

5. You'll get the familiar chime and gray screen, wait about 10 seconds then hit the spacebar.

6. You're now in EFI!

Let's head over to the shell...

1. Select Boot Maintenance Manager

2. Select Boot From File

3. Select the option that begins with "NO FILE SYSTEM INFO", this is your start-up volume

4. Navigate your way to /efi/Binary/BIOS32/SHELLBios32/Shell.efi

To get your machine booting Mac OS X again, you have a few options. Probably the easiest is to put the restore CD in the drive, and reboot while holding down C. Once in Installer, go to Utlities, Start-up Disk and select the System folder on your hard drive. Another way to boot back in to OS X from the EFI menu is to follow the same steps as for launching the shell, except navigate to /usr/standalone/i386/boot.efi. Once back in OS X, change your start-up disk back to the system folder on your hard drive using system preferences.

[toneloco2881]

I too think this is a huge selling point for Apple. In a way I think it's a trojan horse to chip away "somewhat" at microsoft's dominance of the operating systems. Everybody that I show OS X to falls in love, and wants to run it, but has trepidation of losing all their window's programs. With the ability to dual-boot that would ease alot of people's fears so they can try out OS X but still have the safeguard of booting windows when necessary.

Case in point: My sister started law school last semester with an iBook. She was able to connect to all the wireless networks seamlessy, along with having a 5 hour battery. Alot of students in her section became very interested in getting a Mac because they thought it was just so "pretty" and it seemed to just work. That was until they found out that for their exams, they would HAVE to use a windows machine no questions asked. Some of them were very dissapointed but refused to spend the money on something they couldn't even take their exams on. Virtual PC was not an option as told to my sister by the administrators. With the ability to dual-boot I know at least 10-15 people that would have gotten a Mac. This is all good for Apple!

[wasimyaqoob]

I would never ever dream of putting that discusting operating system called Windows on my Mac.

[andrewm]

Boooooo on OpenOSX. :-(

[pgwalsh]

Unless there is a way to not have to hack OSX to put windows on mac...it won't sell anything..


And unless it runs flawlessly, it will just be a gimick.
Perhaps it'll be a gimick, but if you can emulate it and have it run near native speed, that's a boon for Apple. You could test software and web development easily. I'd love it. X86 on PPC is dead slow and not worth the admission price imo.

[Sunrunner]

I too think this is a huge selling point for Apple. In a way I think it's a trojan horse to chip away "somwhat" at microsoft's dominance of the operating systems. Everybody that I show OS X to falls in love, and wants to run it, but has trepidation of losing all their window's programs. With the ability to dual-boot that would ease alot of people's fears so they can try out OS X but still have the safegurd of booting windows when necessary.

Case in point: My sister started law school last semester with an iBook. She was able to connect to all the wireless networks seamlessy, along with having a 5 hour battery. Alot of students in her section became very interested in getting a Mac because they thought it was just so "pretty" and it seemed to just work. That was until they found out that for their exams, they would HAVE to use a windows machine no questions asked. Some of them were very dissapointed but refused to spend the money on something they couldn't even take their exams on. Virtual PC was not an option as told to my sister by the administrators. With the ability to dual-boot I know at least 10-15 people that would have gotten a Mac. This is all good for Apple!


That is exactly the point I think. Though Apple needs to fix up the boot loader to allow it to support the right volume types. I think they may be holding that back for the 10.5 release at the next MWSF. If that IS the case, then I think they are waiting too long, as the prime window of opportunity for converting users is now, before Vista gets released.

[Randall]

Why emulate when you can run the real deal?! I can see the point to emulating for web developers and other people that need to run just that one application that is only for Windows. Other then that, if you need hardware support (gaming) then there is no substitute to dual booting. :cool:

[Sunrunner]

Perhaps it'll be a gimick, but if you can emulate it and have it run near native speed, that's a boon for Apple. You could test software and web development easily. I'd love it. X86 on PPC is dead slow and not worth the admission price imo.


Thats a good point... the emulation may be done now with very little overhead. Perhaps we will see Apple release its own crossover emulator.... VPC-lite.

[McScooby]

With Apple remaining tight lipped on the whole scenario of Dual Boot & with Microsoft's continued presence at Apple Keynotes where the MBU mentions that they work closely with Apple Engineers, could it just be that Phil, Steve & co. know that the next version of Office Pro will still include Virtual PC, although there won't be anything virtual about it!
After all, if something is 'round the corner they're bound to know about it, maybe WWDC, they're just after keeping Microsoft sweet!

[pgwalsh]

Why emulate when you can run the real deal?! I can see the point to emulating for web developers and other people that need to run just that one application that is only for Windows. Other then that, if you need hardware support (gaming) then there is no substitute to dual booting. :cool:
For gaming you're probably right. I'm not into gaming, so peak performance isn't an issue for me. But not having to partition a drive and being apple run and test Windows 98,2k,XP, Linux with just a click of the button is a great. Access to all the same files and folders.

[nagromme]

Look at at this way:

* How many people will install Windows on their Mac and then NOT use Mac OS X or buy Mac OS X software ever again? Very, very few.

* How many people will buy a Mac who never would have before, just because they have the "comfort" of knowing they COULD run Windows if they want to? A much larger group! (And many of them won't bother installing Windows anyway--but knowing they CAN is a mental safety net that allows them to consider a "scary" new way of computing.)

For some individual users, the ability to run Windows will be a great tool of last resort.

For Apple, it means Mac sales!

For Mac developers, it means more Mac users! Users who are seldom willing to buy a Mac and then just give up Mac OS X. Users who are buying Mac software.

[yoda13]

Where I work and go to school is very Mac friendly, so my Powerbook works just fine. But I know some people that would get a Mac if they could boot into Windows. So I guess we'll have to see. I wonder if Mac gaming will be better now or if super serious gamers(which I am not) will still need Windows. That is the only reason that I might possibly be interested in having Windows on my Mac.:p

[skunkworks]

this is great news, at least its working. I for one would need it to run Autocad since autodesk has no plans for macs at this moment.

[shadowmoses]

I'm surprised they havent cracked it yet, shows its gonna be a hard job and therefore will never become easy for the mainstream to do, it will remain a thing for hackers to do to there intel mac's, therefore won't bring in buyers who want a mac just to run windows,

Shadow

[asphalt-proof]

Look at at this way:

* How many people will install Windows on their Mac and then NOT use Mac OS X or buy Mac OS X software ever again? Very, very few.

* How many people will buy a Mac who never would have before, just because they have the "comfort" of knowing they COULD run Windows if they want to? A much larger group! (And many of them won't bother installing Windows anyway--but knowing they CAN is a mental safety net that allows them to consider a "scary" new way of computing.)

For some individual users, the ability to run Windows will be a great tool of last resort.

For Apple, it means Mac sales!

For Mac developers, it means more Mac users! Users who are seldom willing to buy a Mac and then just give up Mac OS X. Users who are buying Mac software.


Exactly. This is my dad. When he comes to my house he absolutely drools over my iMac BUT he won't switch because he doesn't want to have to learn a new OS. Dual booting would allow him to have his Windows but play around with OSX. He wins!!

Kind of off topic.... Should we start a pool to guess when the first confirmed dual booting of OSX/Windows happens? My guess is that it will happen later next week. Thursday lets say.

Seriously, you know that some hackers are just working night and day to make this happen. It won't be long before versiontracker has a nice tight little program that enable this to happen easily.

[SiliconAddict]

I would never ever dream of putting that discusting operating system called Windows on my Mac.


Grow up.

[dejo]

Exactly. This is my dad. When he comes to my house he absolutely drools over my iMac BUT he won't switch because he doesn't want to have to learn a new OS. Dual booting would allow him to have his Windows but play around with OSX. He wins!!

If he doesn't want to learn a new OS, what will incent him to play around with OS X?

[nagromme]

Why emulate when you can run the real deal?! I can see the point to emulating for web developers and other people that need to run just that one application that is only for Windows. Other then that, if you need hardware support (gaming) then there is no substitute to dual booting. :cool:
Well I wouldn't want to "emulate" as such (slow), but I CERTAINLY would avoid dual booting.

Dual-booting is a fine option to have, and if some people want that, that's great--but there are also good reasons to choose another route if you need Windows.

I like my OS X security the way it is, and I do NOT want the Windows OS to be able to see my Mac hard drive. And when you boot Windows, it can. It can't access the contents or read the files, not without HFS software, but it CAN see that the Mac partition exists, and it CAN reformat it. And so can a Windows virus. For me, it's not good enough to know that "you probably won't get a Windows virus that wipes your drive." I'm spoiled, being used to Mac's freedom from viruses (which will always be greater than with Windows), and I like it that way. I want to be SURE that won't happen. If you dual-boot, the only way to keep your Mac safe from viruses totally is to physically disconnect the Mac hard disk, or never go on the Internet.

Plus if you dual boot you can't use your Mac and Windows apps TOGETHER. So much for workflow and sharing data. For everything but games, that matters.

I'd rather have Windows running at full speed at the SAME time as OS X, in a virtual hardware environment that protects the Mac partition from being reformatted by a Windows virus. Virtual PC--and probably others--will do just that. (It doesn't seem that Bochs does.)

[Photorun]

Grow up.

Would you prefer "I'd never put that OS full of mailware, spyware, some bugs, viruses, clunky interfaces, stupid noises, crashing, and productivity killing on my MacTel?"

Oh, but I'd still add "FUGLY as all get out XP," 'cause it is.

[asphalt-proof]

If he doesn't want to learn a new OS, what will incent him to play around with OS X?

He loves iLife on the mac and the way the whole pkg is integrated so tightly. But he know windows and doesn't want to change. My guess is that he would pick one up to use the iLife suite and Windows for everything else.

[bdkennedy1]

No one should believe ANYTHING that OpenOSX says. I purchased their emulator 2 years ago. I was never able to get it running on my G5. He never responded to e-mails and I never got the free upgrade to 2.0 offered on the website. As far as I'm concerned this product doesn't exist.

[Carlson-online]

it wouldnt surprise me if Microsoft actuall implement Vista so that it will run on a Mac. after all, if they can have a system that can be installed on Macs aswell, more people will buy it!

[SiliconAddict]

For Apple, it means Mac sales!



And that is the biggest deal of all. A sale vs. no sale is sort of a nobrainer when it comes right down to it. Something that many who groan about Windows on Mac simply miss.

Looking at it another way with a Windows user going and purchasing a Mac there is at least some chance of them reloading OS X at some point vs. them going out and buying a Dell Latitude. Small chance is better then no chance. This needs to be accomplished and if that means that Apple needs to nudge it along with some update to EFI then so be it.

[mdavey]

* How many people will buy a Mac who never would have before, just because they have the "comfort" of knowing they COULD run Windows if they want to? A much larger group! (And many of them won't bother installing Windows anyway--but knowing they CAN is a mental safety net that allows them to consider a "scary" new way of computing.)

Yup. I think this will be particularly important for the Enterprise. As an employee, being able to include the fact that it can run Windows (and therefore, could be used by other employees in the event I move on) might well be the deciding factor as to whether the IT department will sign off on the purchase.

I think that Apple have probably got the balance about right in dissuading customers and authorised resellers from installing Linux and Windows on the machine without actually outright preventing them. Essentially, for the next 12 months or so, it will only be geeks that will be running Windows or Linux on Apple hardware.

[Manatee]

I love my Powerbooks, but I wouldn't own them if Virtual PC didn't exist. There are certain PC apps that I must be able to run, which don't have file-compatible equivalents on OS X. These include Microsoft Project, Visio, and Access.

If the Intel Macs can run Windows apps at near-native speed, I'll look forward to running Visual Studio and SQL Server on them, and abandoning my PCs altogether. :)

[danny_w]

Well I wouldn't want to "emulate" as such (slow), but I CERTAINLY would avoid dual booting.

Dual-booting is a fine option to have, and if some people want that, that's great--but there are also good reasons to choose another route if you need Windows.

I like my OS X security the way it is, and I do NOT want the Windows OS to be able to see my Mac hard drive. And when you boot Windows, it can. It can't access the contents or read the files, not without HFS software, but it CAN see that the Mac partition exists, and it CAN reformat it. And so can a Windows virus. For me, it's not good enough to know that "you probably won't get a Windows virus that wipes your drive." I'm spoiled, being used to Mac's freedom from viruses (which will always be greater than with Windows), and I like it that way. I want to be SURE that won't happen. If you dual-boot, the only way to keep your Mac safe from viruses totally is to physically disconnect the Mac hard disk, or never go on the Internet.

Plus if you dual boot you can't use your Mac and Windows apps TOGETHER. So much for workflow and sharing data. For everything but games, that matters.

I'd rather have Windows running at full speed at the SAME time as OS X, in a virtual hardware environment that protects the Mac partition from being reformatted by a Windows virus. Virtual PC--and probably others--will do just that. (It doesn't seem that Bochs does.)
Right on! I don't want dual booting for the very same reason. Windows running in a sandbox (ala VPC) is what I want, but the current emulated versions have been very slow.

[nagromme]

Looking at it another way with a Windows user going and purchasing a Mac there is at least some chance of them reloading OS X at some point vs. them going out and buying a Dell Latitude.
In fact, I think only a few people will even SAY they plan to never run OS X on their Mac... and far fewer will actually go through with that: because they know they've just bought a ton of software (iLife). The motivation to peek at what you paid good money for instead of throwing it out is strong. And probably to keep it around "for the heck of it"--exploring in private even while you badmouth OS X to your friends. And then comes the day when you do something pretty cool with GarageBand (or whatever) and sheepishly just have to show them...

[stealthboy]

I just have to ask.... WHY?

Why in the world would someone want to buy a Mac just to put Windows on it? It's like buying a new sportscar and putting a 3-cylinder econo-engine in it. Honestly, if you want to play your precious computer games, just keep your cheap-o Dell.

Buy a Mac to *get away from the Windows world*. You'll never look back.

I can't believe people are so intent on pursuing this. It really is a travesty. The Mac experience is the combination of hardware and software, and the brilliant design in both. Am I the only one who sees this? Is the world going mad?

[Sunrunner]

In fact, I think only a few people will even SAY they plan to never run OS X on of their Mac... and far fewer will actually go through with that: because they know they've just bought a ton of software (iLife). The motivation to peek at what you paid good money for instead of throwing it out is strong. And probably to keep it around "for the heck of it"--exploring in private even while you badmouth OS X to your friends. And then comes the day when you do something pretty cool with GarageBand (or whatever) and sheepishly just have to show them...


Exactly. The dualbooting possibilities are definitely the best oportunity that Apple has had, probably ever, to reach out and convert masses of windows users.

[nxent]

actually i want to put linux,windows, and mac on my comp :D
yeh but since os x is based on unix, and apple just switched its hardware to intel, doesn't this mean you'll be able to install linux apps on macs with much greater ease?

[Sunrunner]

yeh but since os x is based on unix, and apple just switched its hardware to intel, doesn't this mean you'll be able to install linux apps on macs with much greater ease?

It does, to a certain extent. THe problems would be similar to those with Windows and the EFI... once those issues are worked around, a user could have a Mac booting into as many OSes as they have space.

[Randall]

I just have to ask.... WHY?

Why in the world would someone want to buy a Mac just to put Windows on it? It's like buying a new sportscar and putting a 3-cylinder econo-engine in it. Honestly, if you want to play your precious computer games, just keep your cheap-o Dell.

Buy a Mac to *get away from the Windows world*. You'll never look back.

I can't believe people are so intent on pursuing this. It really is a travesty. The Mac experience is the combination of hardware and software, and the brilliant design in both. Am I the only one who sees this? Is the world going mad?You just don't get it. There are countless software titles that are for windows only, and some people have a hard time letting go. Not only that, there are corporate in-house software applications that only run windows. On top of that, there are many great gaming titles that only run on windows. The macbook pro has enough horsepower to run a large portion of these games, and if you can have just one computer that can run all of the software you own, then why not do it?

[toneloco2881]

I just have to ask.... WHY?

Why in the world would someone want to buy a Mac just to put Windows on it? It's like buying a new sportscar and putting a 3-cylinder econo-engine in it. Honestly, if you want to play your precious computer games, just keep your cheap-o Dell.

Buy a Mac to *get away from the Windows world*. You'll never look back.

I can't believe people are so intent on pursuing this. It really is a travesty. The Mac experience is the combination of hardware and software, and the brilliant design in both. Am I the only one who sees this? Is the world going mad?
Yeah, I think you need to get over your blind prejudice. Step off that facade of a pedestal your on, and realize that we live in a world populated by windows users. Any incentive we give them to try out the Mac platform, is a win for Apple. Most people that try OS X grow to say they can't ever imagine going back to windows. Some Mac users seem like such elitist that I think they actually hurt the platform.

[SiliconAddict]

Would you prefer "I'd never put that OS full of mailware, spyware, some bugs, viruses, clunky interfaces, stupid noises, crashing, and productivity killing on my MacTel?"

Oh, but I'd still add "FUGLY as all get out XP," 'cause it is.

Funny I've had one virus in the past 10 years on Windows and that was on Windows 3.11. Spyware? Nope. Adware? None. Clunky interface? To each their own. I think I would rather slash my wrists then use Finder. Thankfully there are alternatives on OS X.
Stupid noises? o.O Riiight. Crashing? Right. Because OS X is perfect. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&hs=2Jc&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=OS+X+Kernel+Panic&spell=1) I can count on one hand how many times XP has crashed on me since 2001. Fugly? Again I'll repeat from the previous post. Grow up. Its a OS not a fricking religious icon. It’s a tool to do something. That is all. Stop being a zealot for a nanosecond and realize that. There are some of us that need the "tools" that Microsoft offers. If you can't wrap that around your shortsighted fanboi field of view I pity you. In the mean time those of us who use said tools in our profession will continue to do so without giving a crap what you think. However my original request stands to the author of the previous post: grow up. :rolleyes:

[treblah]

I just have to ask.... WHY?

Why in the world would someone want to buy a Mac just to put Windows on it? It's like buying a new sportscar and putting a 3-cylinder econo-engine in it. Honestly, if you want to play your precious computer games, just keep your cheap-o Dell.

Buy a Mac to *get away from the Windows world*. You'll never look back.

I can't believe people are so intent on pursuing this. It really is a travesty. The Mac experience is the combination of hardware and software, and the brilliant design in both. Am I the only one who sees this? Is the world going mad?

You are the stereotypical Mac fan boy. Congrats.

Some people here are geeks, get excited about all technology, and are intrigued by the possibility of having a desktop/laptop capable of running multiple OSes.

[Randall]

Would you prefer "I'd never put that OS full of mailware, spyware, some bugs, viruses, clunky interfaces, stupid noises, crashing, and productivity killing on my MacTel?"

Oh, but I'd still add "FUGLY as all get out XP," 'cause it is.Photorun has spoken. All hail the genius!

[treblah]

Funny I've had one virus in the past 10 years on Windows and that was on Windows 3.11. Spyware? Nope. Adware? None. Clunky interface?

I totally agree with you on the rest of your post but seriously, as a professional Admin you are not the typical user and your security record is unrealistic to the great unwashed masses.

[seashellz]

I'll bet hundreds of thousands of Offices, Gamers, IT Depts, schools and the general public, used to using XP, would switch to a Mac in a second if they could also run Windoze on their machines at native speeds

[VetteMan]

I just have to ask.... WHY?

Why in the world would someone want to buy a Mac just to put Windows on it? It's like buying a new sportscar and putting a 3-cylinder econo-engine in it. Honestly, if you want to play your precious computer games, just keep your cheap-o Dell.



Your analogy is flawed. Running Windows on an a Mac would be akin to having a V8/V12 engine in your sports car and allowing Displacement-on-Demand. You can have all the fun of the big engine (Mac) and still be able to run on only 4 or 6 cylinders (Windows) if you ever felt the need. In other words, the addition of Windows will in no way hamper the ability to run Mac apps.

I am waiting to pick up a Intel-based Mac until there are confirmed reports of Windows running natively or at least emulating at decent speed. If this does not happen, I will probably get one anyway since the 400MHz TiPB I am typing this on is starting to show its age.

I rarely have the need to run Windows apps but it would be great to have the option. Apple is always at the forefront of design and is usually pretty close to the cutting edge for performance. Best of both worlds.

$0.02

[paddy]

I just have to ask.... WHY?

Why in the world would someone want to buy a Mac just to put Windows on it? It's like buying a new sportscar and putting a 3-cylinder econo-engine in it. Honestly, if you want to play your precious computer games, just keep your cheap-o Dell.


Your underestimating what an obstacle to switching the lack of computer games is. With most people I know, the only argument they can beat me in, in the pc v mac debate is the lack of mac games available plus their cost. Most if not all of them, would seriously consider buying a mac but for the lack of games.

[Marx55]

Look at at this way:

* How many people will install Windows on their Mac and then NOT use Mac OS X or buy Mac OS X software ever again? Very, very few.

* How many people will buy a Mac who never would have before, just because they have the "comfort" of knowing they COULD run Windows if they want to? A much larger group! (And many of them won't bother installing Windows anyway--but knowing they CAN is a mental safety net that allows them to consider a "scary" new way of computing.)

For some individual users, the ability to run Windows will be a great tool of last resort.

For Apple, it means Mac sales!

For Mac developers, it means more Mac users! Users who are seldom willing to buy a Mac and then just give up Mac OS X. Users who are buying Mac software.

Absolutely RIGHT!!!

10 out of 10

[Marx55]

Great! Anything that puts more money in Microsoft's pocket has to be a good thing. Hopefully it becomes so simple to dual boot in the future that some developers abandon making Mac versions of their software.

Nope. Wrong. KO.

See previous post.

[BornAgainMac]

Running windows on a laptop along side with Mac OS would be valuable. I hate going on a trip and having two laptops. Virtual PC is a good step forward for existing Macs but Intel Macs should have something like it.

Otherwise having a separate desktop is fine. Keep the Mac pure.

[Marx55]

Would you prefer "I'd never put that OS full of mailware, spyware, some bugs, viruses, clunky interfaces, stupid noises, crashing, and productivity killing on my MacTel?"

Oh, but I'd still add "FUGLY as all get out XP," 'cause it is.

Maybe you do not see it, but dozens of millions PC-Windows users out there will buy a Mactel and fell in love with Mac OS X. See three previous posts.

[Damek]

Running Windows in/on a Mac is nice and all, but the big thing for most people is going to be: can it play Windows games? I think this is the unspoken hope of most people here, however much we fear game companies not directly porting to the Mac if it's easy to play Win versions on Macs.

The problem is going to be DirectX. The Intel chip does little to solve this, since Mac OS X doesn't support DirectX. Game companies will still have to port DirectX functions.

It seems to be there are three options to running games on the new Intel Macs:

1) Something like Wine that "pretends" to be Windows, running Win programs directly in OS X. But it'll have to have great DirectX support. TransGaming has made good progress here for Linux - but from what I understand, it could be much better. Plus, the installation and running of both the Wine-environment and the games will need to be very Mac-like and easy to use.

2) An emulator type environment like VMWare or Virtual PC that runs "real" Windows in an enclosed space on Mac OS X. This would be better, but again, it'll have to support DirectX with audio/video hardware drivers, and from what I understand, no such system supports DirectX and interfacing with Mac OS X's hardware (or Linux's, for that matter).

3) Running Windows directly on the machine by dual-boot. This would be ideal for games, as they would have native access to the hardware. But it would be acceptible only to geeks, not your average user. Unless the Intel Macs have some magic way of running two operating systems at the same time and switching between them...

The more I think about it, the less likely it seems to me that the Intel Macs will have much possibilities for more games on Macs, at least for another year or so.

Me, I'm waiting anyway because I have a perfectly functional 1.5 year old iBook and expect it will take some time for all the software to go Intel-ready...

[Marx55]

And that is the biggest deal of all. A sale vs. no sale is sort of a nobrainer when it comes right down to it. Something that many who groan about Windows on Mac simply miss.

Looking at it another way with a Windows user going and purchasing a Mac there is at least some chance of them reloading OS X at some point vs. them going out and buying a Dell Latitude. Small chance is better then no chance. This needs to be accomplished and if that means that Apple needs to nudge it along with some update to EFI then so be it.

Yes, yes, and yes!!!

[Marx55]

Yup. I think this will be particularly important for the Enterprise. As an employee, being able to include the fact that it can run Windows (and therefore, could be used by other employees in the event I move on) might well be the deciding factor as to whether the IT department will sign off on the purchase.

You said it right. Big sales in the corporate market!!!

[stealthboy]

Yeah, I think you need to get over your blind prejudice. Step off that facade of a pedestal your on, and realize that we live in a world populated by windows users. Any incentive we give them to try out the Mac platform, is a win for Apple. Most people that try OS X grow to say they can't ever imagine going back to windows. Some Mac users seem like such elitist that I think they actually hurt the platform.

Yeah, and you know what? I have multiple computers. At work I use a windows box and my PowerBook.

If we can't get people to switch from windows to mac os x, they'll buy a mac, put windows on it, and os x marketshare will drop, while mac sales may increase. Is that really what you want?

[nagromme]

Ther's a certain amount of argument back and forth surrounding this issue, among people who in fact do AGREE on the two main things:

* That there are good reasons for a great many computer users to prefer OS X over Windows.

* That there are also reasons why some people would have to--or choose to--or like the idea of being able to--run Windows at times.

Some people may like to focus on one of the above and ignore the other, but they still know both are true :)

[Sunrunner]

Your underestimating what an obstacle to switching the lack of computer games is. With most people I know, the only argument they can beat me in, in the pc v mac debate is the lack of mac games available plus their cost. Most if not all of them, would seriously consider buying a mac but for the lack of games.

You make a very good point... this is the same thing I hear all the time...

[Glen Quagmire]

I just have to ask.... WHY?

Why in the world would someone want to buy a Mac just to put Windows on it? It's like buying a new sportscar and putting a 3-cylinder econo-engine in it. Honestly, if you want to play your precious computer games, just keep your cheap-o Dell.

Buy a Mac to *get away from the Windows world*. You'll never look back.

I can't believe people are so intent on pursuing this. It really is a travesty. The Mac experience is the combination of hardware and software, and the brilliant design in both. Am I the only one who sees this? Is the world going mad?

You need to broaden your horizons somewhat. Not everyone has the same needs you do. And what's with all the over-the-top language? "Travesty"? Come off it. And is anyone talking about just putting Windows on a Mac? No. Most of us are thinking about the dual (or triple, with Linux) boot opportunities.

Some of us need to use Windows. I work as a programmer, developing .NET-based applications. Last time I looked, you can't get .NET for the Mac (and Mono really, really doesn't count). I also use Chief Architect to do design work. Can't get that for the Mac.

I would love to switch totally to the Mac, but there are a few hold out applications that aren't available and show no indications of so becoming.

If, by the time the PowerMacs come out, you can boot XP (or Vista) on Apple hardware and everything works fine (or thereabouts), I would have no hesitation in replacing my nearly four-year-old PC with a top of the range PowerMac. Most of my needs could be met by OS X. Some of them would need me to use Windows, so I would dual boot or run the programs under emulation.

On the Apple Store, doing a BTO of the type of specification I'd go for if I wanted to buy a Power Mac today (quad 2.7s, etc, etc) would come to nearly £3000. That's £3000 going to Apple, instead of to some no-name PC shop or a load of faceless component manufacturers. Add in the software, OS upgrades and so on. Can't see how that could possibly be considered a "travesty". And then, eighteen months down the line and I decide I need a laptop, Apple would be in a prime position to supply it for me.

How horrid! All that tainted money rolling into Apple. Heavens forfend that I be so enamoured of my Mac experience that I get others to switch as well. Heavens forfend that I might transfer my Windows development skills to developing Mac applications at some point.

Sure, you Mac people can rightly show off about how great your computers are, but some of you are so disconnected from reality and common sense, it beggars belief. This sort of attitude made me hesitate for months and months before finally splashing out on a Mac mini (to test the water). Yet some people on here wonder why Mac users have such a bad reputation. Sometimes it's not hard to see where this view comes from.

[pgwalsh]

I am waiting to pick up a Intel-based Mac until there are confirmed reports of Windows running natively or at least emulating at decent speed. If this does not happen, I will probably get one anyway since the 400MHz TiPB I am typing this on is starting to show its age.

$0.02

Kudos to you for stick with an old machine! :)

I think you have a great piont on running windows natively or emulation at a decent speed. Hopefully will have both options which I think is the best of both worlds.

[nagromme]

If we can't get people to switch from windows to mac os x, they'll buy a mac, put windows on it, and os x marketshare will drop,

But do you really believe that will be a big percentage of computer buyers?

And do you believe it will be SO big that it will surpass the number of new Mac buyers who DO use Mac OS X and OS X apps?

Because unless both of those things are true, OS X usage will increase, and Mac developers' sales will increase.

There are three BIG reasons why Mac users will NOT be willing--on a large scale--to settle for running Windows on their Macs instead of demanding a Mac-native app. And with the Mac market growing (especially after the Intel change), developers will be more motivated than ever to sell to us :) (Besides, if they already have Mac experience and Mac apps to leverage, why throw them out?)

1. Cost. You have to BUY Windows. And possibly some helper app, either for installation or to actually host Windows like VPC. (Which also means a whole extra set of setup steps you have to go through before you can run Windows apps--not too difficult I'm sure, but not something your Mac can do out of the box.) And potentially an extra hard disk as well. More expense--unless you don't mind erasing and reformatting your Mac to get two partitions.

2. Usability. You give up the benefits of OS X, which gets better all the time and is the reason you HAVE a Mac. You either accept the time and effort and inconvenience to dual-boot--in which case you give up OS X entirely for those times, and cannot use those apps in conjunction with your Mac apps... or else you run Windows and Mac simultaneously (with a fast new VPC, or even WINE to run--some--apps without Windows itself). Running both at once is cool in a geeky way, but it's terrible usability: working back and forth between two GUIs at once! That's not Mac user friendliness. Working in ONE environment is more productive if you have the choice. Not to mention a possible performance hit when running multiple OS's together.

3. Security and privacy. The advantages of NOT running Windows in this regard have been much discussed ;)

When you stop and think about it, can you really imagine most Mac users settling for Windows?

For these reasons, users will continue to DEMAND Mac apps. (Even games, to a lesser extent. The GUI is not always an issue for those, but the other issues remain. I know I'll give my money first for native Mac games.)

Running Windows on Mac WILL be great for certain things--such as to give a comfort zone to people fearful of straying from Windows, and thus grow the Mac platform hugely. And it's great as a last-resort option for Mac fans who need a certain Windows app for work or whatever. We already use VPC for that, and VPC (or something) will soon be full-speed and work even better! But it won't make us LIKE running Windows, and won't make us want to buy Windows apps. We'll do it only when we HAVE to.

And we already do: if we HAVE to--and often by choice for games--we run VPC or simply own a PC. No change there. (And neither option is free!) So the people most likely to accept a Windows app or game on their Mac are the very people ALREADY buying Windows apps--for their PC game systems, or their old PC they keep around, or VPC to run some app from their employer, or whatever.

Conclusion: the market for native Mac apps is about to grow, not shrink, and developers will deliver! :)

[MacTruck]

All these people trashing the idea of putting windows on a mac need to zip it. Real computer users need windows. Its not the operating systems folks, its the apps and "THE APPS" that some of us NEED are not built for OSX. OSX threading for database apps SUCKS. This is why Databases and servers are a windows world kids. Don't give me a bunch of junk about how oracle works on osx, it doesn't. Oracle is an enterprise database. No IT director in the world would attempt such a disaster especially for the price oracle charges for its licences and support. So far OSX is only good for movie making. All graphic work can be done on a pc as the apps are similar if not identical.

In a perfect world windows would not exist but then macs would be $20,000 for a quad G5. Competition is good don't forget that.

Apple really needs to get the new intel macs able to load windows without hacks. This is why I was excited about the move. Without that then this move is a waste of time and money for everyone.

Keep in mind that many developers built software for OSX as a one time shot. They might not port their apps to intel. It took many many years for all the apps to finally go OSX that are needed. I'm talking FTP apps, graphics apps, science apps. Look how long it took Quark to port their stuff to OSX. Like over a year.

No, the world needs windows. There are millions of apps out there that are windows only and the mac and all its glory can never account for that loss.

Give windows users the ability to install windows on a mac and everyone will buy macs. Take that ability away by making it impossible without some geek hack and not only will you not get windows users to buy macs but you will lose some apple customers in the process as they won't go out and purchase all new apps for a minimal speed increase.

Sorry apple zealots, windows is here to stay, apple should start to play.

[stealthboy]

You are the stereotypical Mac fan boy. Congrats.

Some people here are geeks, get excited about all technology, and are intrigued by the possibility of having a desktop/laptop capable of running multiple OSes.


In fact, I'm not the stereotypical Mac fan boy. What I care about is design. There is not enough good design in this world. People put up with mediocrity every day, and most people don't care about it. That's fine for them, but for me I care about things just looking and feeling right. I care that a company put effort into making things look sleek, simple, elegant. Attention to detail is something that really means a lot to me.

This is why I recoil in horror at the thought of Windows on a Mac. It's that simple. I think there is an elegance to the Mac and its operating system that are just.... right. I guess I want other people to share in that experience. Someone buying a Mac for the first time would do themselves and the Mac a disservice by putting Windows on it.

I mean, honestly... Just think about this. Am I wrong?

[Marx55]

I'll bet hundreds of thousands of Offices, Gamers, IT Depts, schools and the general public, used to using XP, would switch to a Mac in a second if they could also run Windoze on their machines at native speeds

We are one of those. We wll purchase several thousand of Mactels for our University if they can boot Mac OS X, Linux and Windows at native speed. Otherwise, we will keep on purchasing PC boxes. Apple: do you get the message? Please, release Mactels that boot natively any OS Intel can boot. And then, as previously said, once people taste Mac OS X, they will switch from Linux and Windows by millions. That is for sure. No problem with developers, because increasing Mac OS X market share can only make them release more titles for Mac.

Apple: go for it. Now!!!

[stealthboy]

You need to broaden your horizons somewhat. Not everyone has the same needs you do. And what's with all the over-the-top language? "Travesty"? Come off it. And is anyone talking about just putting Windows on a Mac? No. Most of us are thinking about the dual (or triple, with Linux) boot opportunities.

Some of us need to use Windows. I work as a programmer, developing .NET-based applications. Last time I looked, you can't get .NET for the Mac (and Mono really, really doesn't count). I also use Chief Architect to do design work. Can't get that for the Mac.



Just for the record, I use Windows, Mac, and Linux computers EVERY DAY. I am a software developer, and use all platforms for my work. I've been using Linux every day since 1993 (pre-1.0 days), but there's no way I would want to put Linux as a dual-boot on my Mac.

Hey, if I'm the only one thinking this, fine, I'll just shut up. I just see it as a possible dilution of the Apple brand.

[Airforce]

We are one of those. We wll purchase several thousand of Mactels for our University if they can boot Mac OS X, Linux and Windows at native speed. Otherwise, we will keep on purchasing PC boxes. Apple

Wow, your university is willing to pay for 3 OS licenses for each machine? Must be nice having all that money allocated to your department :(

[Marx55]

Running Windows in/on a Mac is nice and all, but the big thing for most people is going to be: can it play Windows games? I think this is the unspoken hope of most people here, however much we fear game companies not directly porting to the Mac if it's easy to play Win versions on Macs.

The problem is going to be DirectX. The Intel chip does little to solve this, since Mac OS X doesn't support DirectX. Game companies will still have to port DirectX functions.

It seems to be there are three options to running games on the new Intel Macs:

1) Something like Wine that "pretends" to be Windows, running Win programs directly in OS X. But it'll have to have great DirectX support. TransGaming has made good progress here for Linux - but from what I understand, it could be much better. Plus, the installation and running of both the Wine-environment and the games will need to be very Mac-like and easy to use.

2) An emulator type environment like VMWare or Virtual PC that runs "real" Windows in an enclosed space on Mac OS X. This would be better, but again, it'll have to support DirectX with audio/video hardware drivers, and from what I understand, no such system supports DirectX and interfacing with Mac OS X's hardware (or Linux's, for that matter).

3) Running Windows directly on the machine by dual-boot. This would be ideal for games, as they would have native access to the hardware. But it would be acceptible only to geeks, not your average user. Unless the Intel Macs have some magic way of running two operating systems at the same time and switching between them...

The more I think about it, the less likely it seems to me that the Intel Macs will have much possibilities for more games on Macs, at least for another year or so.

Me, I'm waiting anyway because I have a perfectly functional 1.5 year old iBook and expect it will take some time for all the software to go Intel-ready...

Concerning 3, that is possible and is called Intel virtualization technology built-in the new Intel chips to come out by the middle of this year. Wow, our dreams come true!!!

[snkTab]

Question: What's the difference between dual-booting Windows and a root-kit.

Answer: Dual-booting windows would require another partition.

(Not trying to be a fanboy, just saw everyone else having fun cracking on Microsoft and felt like joining in)

The similarities: Both are hidden from the OS and allow virii to come in.

[PtMD]

I mean, honestly... Just think about this. Am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong!

There, Im glad I could solve this with such an easy answer. :)

[Randall]

This whole thread is turning into an OS flame war. I thought the point of it would be to discuss the new Mactel's EFI and how to get other x86 based OSes booting off it. I guess I missed the point...

[Marx55]

Wow, your university is willing to pay for 3 OS licenses for each machine? Must be nice having all that money allocated to your department :(

Windows we have had an unlimited campus-wide license for years. Linux is free. Mac OS X comes with the Mactels. No problem!

[PtMD]

Just for the record, I use Windows, Mac, and Linux computers EVERY DAY. I am a software developer, and use all platforms for my work. I've been using Linux every day since 1993 (pre-1.0 days), but there's no way I would want to put Linux as a dual-boot on my Mac.



Ok, so let me get this striaght... You use Linux every day? Yet you dont see the advatage of dual booting to Linux on your Mac? I dual boot to Debian on my PB and I wouldnt have it any other way.

Why should I take 2 laptops with me when I can take 1? Now when my MPB arrives in Feb and we work out the Windows boot issues, I will be able to take my games along with me. And dont give my any line about running Mac games. I don't see Battlefield2 avaliable yet after how long?

[pgwalsh]

This whole thread is turning into an OS flame war. I thought the point of it would be to discuss the new Mactel's EFI and how to get other x86 based OSes booting off it. I guess I missed the point...Exactly.

I'm sure someone will get a version of windows running sometime if for no other reason than notoriety. Then the next big thing will be to have OS X run on non Apple hardware. I'm perfectly aware that 10.4.3 version are, but what about 10.4.4?

[VetteMan]

Kudos to you for stick with an old machine! :)

I think you have a great piont on running windows natively or emulation at a decent speed. Hopefully will have both options which I think is the best of both worlds.

Thanks! Funny thing is, this old PB can run circles around my aunt's 1yo Toshiba notebook and my uncle's 3yo Compaq desktop doing basic web browsing and email - average user-level things. Both running XP. Heaven help them if they try using somthing like PhotoShop that my Mac runs just fine - v7.0 is pushing it but still very usable. This is exactly the reason I have a Mac.

Running Windows on a Mac would be a godsend. I have a few friends that have seen what I can do with this old PB and are amazed with the power of OSX. The only problem is that they have to use some Windows only apps - mapping software mainly. If Mac could emulate this software at reasonable speeds, Apple would have a few extra converts.

Many people really love the interface and stability of OSX but they can't live without some of the business apps only available for Windows. Not everyone cares about gaming. If I cared about gaming I would by an Xbox, PS2, etc.

[arn]

This is why I recoil in horror at the thought of Windows on a Mac. It's that simple. I think there is an elegance to the Mac and its operating system that are just.... right. I guess I want other people to share in that experience. Someone buying a Mac for the first time would do themselves and the Mac a disservice by putting Windows on it.


You're missing the forest for the trees.

The same person who you don't want to buy a Mac and load Windows on it, would never buy a Mac if it didn't boot windows.

The bottom line is which of these would you prefer:

a) Have someone buy a Mac and try Mac OS X alongside windows
b) Have that person not buy a Mac and instead buy a generic PC and keep using windows

arn

[Scottyk9]

This whole thread is turning into an OS flame war. I thought the point of it would be to discuss the new Mactel's EFI and how to get other x86 based OSes booting off it. I guess I missed the point...

I hear you... I was hoping to find out more details, but instead waded through personal opinions and biases. I just want to be able to use the one (yes only one) piece of software that only runs under windows, and would like to be able to run it faster that I currently can (i.e. under VPC).

Perhaps we should have separate threads - one the moral / ethical / personal opinion / venting / airing of personal agendas, and a second for useful, technical information on using windows apps on intel Macs.

[pgwalsh]

Thanks! Funny thing is, this old PB can run circles around my aunt's 1yo Toshiba notebook and my uncle's 3yo Compaq desktop doing basic web browsing and email - average user-level things. Both running XP. Heaven help them if they try using somthing like PhotoShop that my Mac runs just fine - v7.0 is pushing it but still very usable. This is exactly the reason I have a Mac.

Running Windows on a Mac would be a godsend. I have a few friends that have seen what I can do with this old PB and are amazed with the power of OSX. The only problem is that they have to use some Windows only apps - mapping software mainly. If Mac could emulate this software at reasonable speeds, Apple would have a few extra converts.

Many people really love the interface and stability of OSX but they can't live without some of the business apps only available for Windows. Not everyone cares about gaming. If I cared about gaming I would by an Xbox, PS2, etc.

I totally understand that. I currently running a powerbook with 1.5 ghz ppc and love it. VPC is a little too slow for my tastes, but it does allow me to get certain things done.

I just converted a friend over a few months ago who has an iMac G5. She's totally happy, but ran into one problem. The intuit accounting site that allow collaboration only works with Internet Explorer for Windows. So she still fiddles with her PC until she gets everything converted to QuickBooks.

I'm suprised that Intuit would build a web based applicaiton that only works with PC's. I'm of the theory that web based applications should work with any OS that has a mondern browser. IMO it's serious shortcoming, but another reason why dual booting or emulation at native speeds is necessary.

I'm excited to see what develops through third parties.

[maverick808]

All these people trashing the idea of putting windows on a mac need to zip it. Real computer users need windows. Its not the operating systems folks, its the apps and "THE APPS" that some of us NEED are not built for OSX. OSX threading for database apps SUCKS. This is why Databases and servers are a windows world kids. Don't give me a bunch of junk about how oracle works on osx, it doesn't.

While I agree there are many Windows apps that don't have equivalents on OS X your example of databases and servers is a REALLY poor choice. The vast majority of servers which drive the Internet run Unix not Windows. Same with databases, most big database farms are running on Unix servers.

Oracle isn't only out for Windows, it runs on Unix too. And the other major databases like mySQL and Postgres have far more support on Unix than they do on Windows.

Same with servers. IIS is a really poor choice for a web server in my opinion. A far better choice is Apache.

All of these things do run on OS X.

Again, I'm not saying that there aren't apps which only run in Windows... just saying the choice of databases and servers as an example is a poor one. In particular, this...

This is why Databases and servers are a windows world kids

...is a complete fallacy.

[MacTruck]

Perhaps we should have separate threads - one the moral / ethical / personal opinion / venting / airing of personal agendas, and a second for useful, technical information on using windows apps on intel Macs.

The fact is there is no information on running windows on an intel mac because its not possible unless someone writes an efi firmware for the mac and nobody is going to swap out their efi firmware on their mac for a hacked one. Just forget about running windows natively on an intel mac for now. Apple will come around when they realize sales are slipping. The power of the dollar $$$ is the only thinkg that will change Steves mind. He could care less about the mac revolution nowadays.

[stealthboy]

Yes, you are wrong!

There, Im glad I could solve this with such an easy answer. :)


Cool! Thanks. Whew, now this thread is done. That *was* easy! ;-)

[SiliconAddict]

I totally agree with you on the rest of your post but seriously, as a professional Admin you are not the typical user and your security record is unrealistic to the great unwashed masses.

True. However I've found a good AV\spyware package that auto updates takes care of 90% of those problems. Windows update enable fills in another 7%. And a firewall the remaining 3%. Am I claiming that this is the cure-all for Windows? Hardly. Am I claiming that clueless users are in rock solid protection? As if. I'm well aware that OS X from a user standpoint is much more locked down then Windows. That was never my point. My main point right now I guess is that for the foreseeable future anyone who is technically minded enough to setup a Mac to dual boot is going to be smart enough to install SP2 which will turn on auto updates and the firewall and they should be smart enough to load an AV package.

Note: OK. I'm done. Back to REM or EMI, EFI or whatever. :)

PPS- Yes I'm away my very existence in this post may be wiped out at any second by an Agent of MR. http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/images/smiles/worried.gif But what needed to be said was said.

[MacTruck]

While I agree there are many Windows apps that don't have equivalents on OS X your example of databases and servers is a REALLY poor choice. The vast majority of servers which drive the Internet run Unix not Windows. Same with databases, most big database farms are running on Unix servers.

Oracle isn't only out for Windows, it runs on Unix too. And the other major databases like mySQL and Postgres have far more support on Unix than they do on Windows.

Same with servers. IIS is a really poor choice for a web server in my opinion. A far better choice is Apache.

All of these things do run on OS X.

Again, I'm not saying that there aren't apps which only run in Windows... just saying the choice of databases and servers as an example is a poor one.


You are wrong. OSX is not unix. It has unix underpinnings. You can't run unix version on osx successfully. You are just talking out of your... you know. I have worked for some of the largest corporations in the world. Some of those corps love the Mac but can't use them because of this problem. I know what I'm talking about. Call up Oracle for support and tell them that you are having trouble with Oracle on OSX. They will laugh you off the phone at a rate of $275 an hr.

[mark88]

I work on an XP workstation all day from Home. I simply have to because OS X doesn't run the applications I have to use. I like many, dislike Windows a huge amount.

Ideally I would like to use XP for work and OS X as my personal computer. At the moment everything is on my XP machine because I use it most and it's conveinient.

By having windows XP within a Virtual PC enviroment on an Intel Mac solves all of my troubles. When I need to work, XP sits within a window on my OS X desktop running at full speed, when I need to do something a bit more fun OS X is a click away.

Much more excited about virtual PC than I am about dual booting.

[BlizzardBomb]

I would never ever dream of putting that discusting operating system called Windows on my Mac.

:rolleyes: If Windows was really that bad, no-one would use it. Many people need it for the large library of software, regardless of whether they like it or not.


I just have to ask.... WHY?

Why in the world would someone want to buy a Mac just to put Windows on it? It's like buying a new sportscar and putting a 3-cylinder econo-engine in it. Honestly, if you want to play your precious computer games, just keep your cheap-o Dell.

Buy a Mac to *get away from the Windows world*. You'll never look back.

I can't believe people are so intent on pursuing this. It really is a travesty. The Mac experience is the combination of hardware and software, and the brilliant design in both. Am I the only one who sees this? Is the world going mad?

I think you're missing the point. People aren't doing this for fun, people want just one computer where they can run both Windows and Mac OS. We aren't being forced to put Windows on to Macs, it is simply there as an option for people... and its going to be a popular option too.

[shawnce]

But do you really believe that will be a big percentage of computer buyers?

And do you believe it will be SO big that it will surpass the number of new Mac buyers who DO use Mac OS X and OS X apps?

Because unless both of those things are true, OS X usage will increase, and Mac developers' sales will increase.

There are three BIG reasons why Mac users will NOT be willing--on a large scale--to settle for running Windows on their Macs instead of demanding a Mac-native app.

You forgot a 4th reason... Apple wont support the hardware when you are using Windows, they wont prevent you from using Windows but they wont support you when you do.

[MacTruck]

You forgot a 4th reason... Apple wont support the hardware when you are using Windows, they wont prevent you from using Windows but they wont support you when you do.


Ok, now that is just stupid. Apple won't fix a blown out screen because you put XP on it? I don't think so. Thats something sony does though.

[pgwalsh]

The fact is there is no information on running windows on an intel mac because its not possible unless someone writes an efi firmware for the mac and nobody is going to swap out their efi firmware on their mac for a hacked one. Just forget about running windows natively on an intel mac for now. Apple will come around when they realize sales are slipping. The power of the dollar $$$ is the only thinkg that will change Steves mind. He could care less about the mac revolution nowadays.There are some versions of windows with EFI. http://guides.macrumors.com/EFI

[jrhone]

Here is why.....SUPPORT. The amount of resources it would take to support Windows on the Mac hardware would be immense. The training of current support staff to now deal with WINDOWS ISSUES. The amount of time and energy solving windows based problems would greatly outweight the benefits. The amount of people trying to connect various devices and they are not working correctly, the amount of people getting strange errors, the flood of calls would be a nightmare. The only thing they could do to try and make more money would be to cater the machine MORE to windows for less problems, and now you are just giving microsoft more machines to run THEIR software on, and you have to do the hardware trch support. What you will see is a very good native speed emulator.

[Scottyk9]

I work on an XP workstation all day from Home. I simply have to because OS X doesn't run the applications I have to use. I like many, dislike Windows a huge amount.

Ideally I would like to use XP for work and OS X as my personal computer. At the moment everything is on my XP machine because I use it most and it's conveinient.

By having windows XP within a Virtual PC enviroment on an Intel Mac solves all of my troubles. When I need to work, XP sits within a window on my OS X desktop running at full speed, when I need to do something a bit more fun OS X is a click away.

Much more excited about virtual PC than I am about dual booting.

YES!!!!

[maverick808]

You are wrong. OSX is not unix. It has unix underpinnings. You can't run unix version on osx successfully. You are just talking out of your... you know. I have worked for some of the largest corporations in the world. Some of those corps love the Mac but can't use them because of this problem. I know what I'm talking about. Call up Oracle for support and tell them that you are having trouble with Oracle on OSX. They will laugh you off the phone at a rate of $275 an hr.

I am not wrong. Right now at this very moment I have Postgres with PostGIS, MySQL, PHP and Apache all running on my PowerBook.

Oh, and by the way, it's funny how Oracle themselves disagree with you on their webpage at http://www.oracle.com/technology/tech/macos/index.html...

Oracle Database 10g and Oracle JDeveloper 10g are fully certified on Mac OS X. Turn your Mac into a full-fledged development environment and deploy Xserve-based grids using the software and resources on this page.

Oh, and unsurprisingly Apple disagree with you too http://www.apple.com/server/resources/oracle/

Here's some links to OS X versions of the other things I mentioned too...

PHP: http://www.entropy.ch/software/macosx/php/
MySQL: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/mac-os-x.html
PostGRES: http://www.entropy.ch/software/macosx/postgresql/

And again I state that your claim that...

This is why Databases and servers are a windows world kids

...is a fallacy. If anything database and servers are a Unix world KID.

[PtMD]

There are some versions of windows with EFI. http://guides.macrumors.com/EFI

Right. I still have hopes for vista. I am waiting on my MacBook Pro before I can start playing around with my copy of CTP 5270.

I wonder if the people having trouble are running into an installation media problem or one with MS's implementation of EFI. My guess is the media format isn't support *out of the box* on the hardware and there may be other options avaliable.

Sadly, I fear someone will take all the fun away and solve the riddle before my hardware arrives. :)

[Randall]

I hope that somebody somewhere can write a driver that supports ctrl+click as a right mouse click for Windows, otherwise you will need to be getting a USB mouse to go with your new Windows partition. :(

[MacTruck]

I am not wrong. Right now at this very moment I have Postgres with PostGIS, MySQL, PHP and Apache all running on my PowerBook.

Oh, and by the way, it's funny how Oracle themselves disagree with you on their webpage at http://www.oracle.com/technology/tech/macos/index.html...



Oh, and unsurprisingly Apple disagree with you too http://www.apple.com/server/resources/oracle/

Here's some links to OS X versions of the other things I mentioned too...

PHP: http://www.entropy.ch/software/macosx/php/
MySQL: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/mac-os-x.html
PostGRES: http://www.entropy.ch/software/macosx/postgresql/

And again I state that your claim that...



...is a fallacy. If anything database and servers are a Unix world KID.

The crap you have on your mac is not enterprise stuff and Oracle on a mac is a novelty, it doesn't work the same. Like I said, threading on OSX SUCKS. Dude, do some real research.

[shawnce]

Like I said, threading on OSX SUCKS. Dude, do some real research. Sucks for what is the important thing to keep in mind... each operating system is optimized for different usage models... so "suck" is very much relative and context sensitive.

[shawnce]

Ok, now that is just stupid. Apple won't fix a blown out screen because you put XP on it? I don't think so. Thats something sony does though.

I was talking in a much more generic sense then you took my statement....

No they will support hardware failures (with in reason... they may require use of Mac OS X to prove some types of hardware failures) but they will not support software issue or driver related issues (e.g. "why can't I connect my wireless network when running Windows").

[shawnce]

I hope that somebody somewhere can write a driver that supports ctrl+click as a right mouse click for Windows, otherwise you will need to be getting a USB mouse to go with your new Windows partition. :( For MacBook Pros this would be an issue (only one mouse button) but for the iMac (and future Intel PowerMacs) it shouldn't be and issue given that they all ship with a Might Mouse now.

[PtMD]

The crap you have on your mac is not enterprise stuff and Oracle on a mac is a novelty, it doesn't work the same. Like I said, threading on OSX SUCKS. Dude, do some real research.

PostgreSQL == crap?

I would argue this point. I have been running PostgreSQL along side Oracle 10x and MSSQL for years (in a fortune 25 company), and I prefer using PostgreSQL whenever possible. More and more commercial product offerings are supporting it as a backend as well.

Next, Apache == crap?

LOL. That one is just toooo funny.

I admit php and mysql are no where near enterprise class, but come on, Apache? You do know how much of the internet (web) is running on Apache, right?

[jrhone]

I was talking in a much more generic sense then you took my statement....

No they will support hardware failures (with in reason... they may require use of Mac OS X to prove some types of hardware failures) but they will not support software issue or driver related issues (e.g. "why can't I connect my wireless network when running Windows").


Exactly, and if they wont officially suport Windows on the Mac, there is no benefit, they can't advertise it, or use it as a selling point.....

[shawnce]

The fact is there is no information on running windows on an intel mac because its not possible unless someone writes an efi firmware for the mac and nobody is going to swap out their efi firmware on their mac for a hacked one. Just forget about running windows natively on an intel mac for now.

Really you will not need to use an alternate EFI implementation on an Intel Mac to get windows working. From what I can see you simply need Windows on a partition format that Apple EFI supports with that version of Windows supporting EFI boot strapping (Windows Vista for example) and of course Windows drivers for the hardware (luckily most of that is standard Intel chipset).

Apple will come around when they realize sales are slipping. The power of the dollar $$$ is the only thinkg that will change Steves mind. He could care less about the mac revolution nowadays. You are reading Steve (and Apple) incorrectly. Yes they care about money (all companies do) but one thing that Steve (and Apple) cares about is the "solution"... and Mac OS X and Mac hardware is a critical aspect of that. Apple is wisely running with the success of the iPod but they are not ignoring the rest of the solution... I strongly believe the next two years will show this with increased relevant Mac products.

[Randall]

Really you will not need to use an alternate EFI implementation on an Intel Mac to get windows working. From what I can see you simply need Windows on a partition format that Apple EFI supports with that version of Windows supporting EFI boot strapping (Windows Vista for example).You're right, but where are you gonna find a Windows Vista install disc that is GUID or HFS+ formatted? I would think that there will have to be some sort of hack that can add UDF support to the Mactel's EFI implementation. I am actually quite shocked that it doesn't support UDF out of the box... what is the OS X 10.4.4 install disc formatted in? Anybody know? :confused:

[MacTruck]

PostgreSQL == crap?

I would argue this point. I have been running PostgreSQL along side Oracle 10x and MSSQL for years (in a fortune 25 company), and I prefer using PostgreSQL whenever possible. More and more commercial product offerings are supporting it as a backend as well.

Next, Apache == crap?

LOL. That one is just toooo funny.

I admit php and mysql are no where near enterprise class, but come on, Apache? You do know how much of the internet (web) is running on Apache, right?

Well I won't say apache is crap but those other apps are not for enterprise. When I say that OSX has no real enterprise server architecture for web and someone comes back and starts to show me apache and Oracle for mac thats just plain dumb. You know I'm right. That argument is no different then me saying that Windows doesn't run on a mac and some wise guy coming back with "No thats a fallacy, look at Virtual PC". Now this point doesn't even need to be argued because everyone reading this that is not a home user knows damn well what I am talking about. You one or two people out there that bucked the system, begged your IT Boss to let you setup a mac as a server or snuck it in under their noses, you are an anomaly and not the norm.

[Randall]

Well I won't say apache is crap but those other apps are not for enterprise. When I say that OSX has no real enterprise server architecture for web and someone comes back and starts to show me apache and Oracle for mac thats just plain dumb. You know I'm right. That argument is no different then me saying that Windows doesn't run on a mac and some wise guy coming back with "No thats a fallacy, look at Virtual PC". Now this point doesn't even need to be argued because everyone reading this that is not a home user knows damn well what I am talking about. You one or two people out there that bucked the system, begged your IT Boss to let you setup a mac as a server or snuck it in under their noses, you are an anomaly and not the norm.You guys are so far off topic at this point that it's not even funny. Let's talk about the purpose of the thread... Booting Windows on the Intel Mac. :D

[shawnce]

You're right, but where are you gonna find a Windows Vista install disc that is GUID or HFS+ formatted? I would think that there will have to be some sort of hack that can add UDF support to the Mactel's EFI implementation. I am actually quite shocked that it doesn't support UDF out of the box... what is the OS X 10.4.4 install disc formatted in? Anybody know? :confused: So far the set of folks actually writing about attempts have limited EFI experience... so I am taking everything said with a grain of salt. Personally I think it is more of an issue of "blessing" if your will the image and having the needed EFI boot strap.

I would be more interested in the partition format of the Mac OS X install CDs that came with the Intel iMac.

[sebaz]

From what I have gathered thus far from here:

http://nak.journalspace.com/?cmd=displaycomments&dcid=407&entryid=407

It appears that, and I quote:

As I discovered from poking around in the EFI there is no support for UDF or El Torito volumes. It seems only GPT and APM is supported.

Going with this, I stumble accross this .txt from Intel..

ftp://download.intel.com/technology/efi/docs/txt/EfiHowTo.txt

Within this txt it tells you How to Burn EFI Visible/Bootable CD-ROMs and DVDs!. One thing they use in the explanation is Nero Burning Rom, so it must be done on a PC.


Using Nero* Enterprise Edition to Burn EFI Visible/Bootable CD-ROMs
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Do the following to burn an EFI visible/bootable CD-ROM or DVD-ROM using Nero* Enterprise Edition:
1. Start Nero Enterprise Edition.
2. Close any wizard that pops up when the program started.
3. On the top menu, click File > New for a new compilation.
4. In the upper left pane of the New Compilation window, select CD-ROM or DVD-ROM.
5. In the lower left pane of the New Compilation window, select CD-ROM (EFI boot).
6. In the New Compilation window, click the Label tab. Fill in the CD-ROM volume label information and any other relevant text you want on the CD-ROM. The top pull-down should say ISO9660.
7. Click the New button in the New Compilation window, which should open a left-hand window pane with the contents of what will be burned on the CD-ROM/DVD-ROM. The right-hand pane should be the File Browser.
8. From the File Browser pane, right-click on any files/directories you want and drag them to the left-hand pane.
9. If you want the CD-ROM to be bootable, you must copy the boot file from the File Browser pane into the following directory and rename it as indicated:
10. For Itanium®-based systems: \EFI\BOOT\BOOTIA64.efi
11. For IA-32 processor-based systems: \EFI\BOOT\BOOTIA32.efi
12. After all the files have been copied to the left-hand pane, click the Burn button to burn the CD-ROM. The bottom bar will tell you how much of the CD-ROM will be used by the files that you have put into the left-hand pane or NEW FATISO1.


Where can we find this .efi files? Im guessing they are either here:

ftp://download.intel.com/technology/efi/docs/EFI_Toolkit_1.10.14.62.zip

Although I could be wrong..

Anybody willing to test it out? I'm sure if we get together can pull something out of this. I don't have an Intel Mac to test this out, so this is all in theory.

[maverick808]

I hope that somebody somewhere can write a driver that supports ctrl+click as a right mouse click for Windows, otherwise you will need to be getting a USB mouse to go with your new Windows partition. :(

Actually, I already posted on another thread that I've written an app that does exactly that. I can send it to you if you want. If anyone wants it then PM me.

[Randall]

I would be more interested in the partition format of the Mac OS X install CDs that came with the Intel iMac.Right. Is that not OS X 10.4.4? Anyway, that's what I ment to ask. Anybody know? :o

[PtMD]

Well I won't say apache is crap but those other apps are not for enterprise. When I say that OSX has no real enterprise server architecture for web and someone comes back and starts to show me apache and Oracle for mac thats just plain dumb. You know I'm right. That argument is no different then me saying that Windows doesn't run on a mac and some wise guy coming back with "No thats a fallacy, look at Virtual PC". Now this point doesn't even need to be argued because everyone reading this that is not a home user knows damn well what I am talking about. You one or two people out there that bucked the system, begged your IT Boss to let you setup a mac as a server or snuck it in under their noses, you are an anomaly and not the norm.


Not to stay off topic, but I didn't comment on OSX or it's role as an enterprise platform. I was responding to you calling PostgreSQL and Apache crap. You clearly stated that and I felt you needed to be called on it.

I'm sure we can all agree that any real enterprise presence is running off of big iron from a different market costing several times that of apple hardware/software.

[Randall]

From what I have gathered thus far from here:

http://nak.journalspace.com/?cmd=displaycomments&dcid=407&entryid=407

It appears that, and I quote:



Going with this, I stumble accross this .txt from Intel..

ftp://download.intel.com/technology/efi/docs/txt/EfiHowTo.txt

Within this txt it tells you How to Burn EFI Visible/Bootable CD-ROMs and DVDs!. One thing they use in the explanation is Nero Burning Rom, so it must be done on a PC.



Where can we find this .efi files? Im guessing they are either here:

ftp://download.intel.com/technology/efi/docs/EFI_Toolkit_1.10.14.62.zip

Although I could be wrong..

Anybody willing to test it out? I'm sure if we get together can pull something out of this. I don't have an Intel Mac to test this out, so this is all in theory.
Could it really be that simple? I would do this but I don't have an intel mac to test it on. It's starting to sound like EFI support for Windows XP 32-bit would be a piece of cake. Assuming that the IA-32 .efi file will work. :D

[maverick808]

Well I won't say apache is crap but those other apps are not for enterprise. When I say that OSX has no real enterprise server architecture for web and someone comes back and starts to show me apache and Oracle for mac thats just plain dumb. You know I'm right. That argument is no different then me saying that Windows doesn't run on a mac and some wise guy coming back with "No thats a fallacy, look at Virtual PC". Now this point doesn't even need to be argued because everyone reading this that is not a home user knows damn well what I am talking about. You one or two people out there that bucked the system, begged your IT Boss to let you setup a mac as a server or snuck it in under their noses, you are an anomaly and not the norm.

Yawn, I already said that my main problem was when you said Windows was THE system to run servers and databases on. My argument is that Unix is far far better for both databases and web servers. I'm sorry you have failed to pick that point up despite me directly quoting it very clearly in my two previous posts.

Anyway, can't be bothered arguing with you. Unix is better than Windows for databases and web servers and that's the end of the matter. I won't be replying to anything else you post about this matter in the thread since it's way off topic.

[PtMD]

Right. Is that not OS X 10.4.4? Anyway, that's what I ment to ask. Anybody know? :o

I don't have install media to check, but with TPM my guess would be GPT format.

[generik]

It can't access the contents or read the files, not without HFS software, but it CAN see that the Mac partition exists, and it CAN reformat it.

Actually it can't, if you would actually run with yourself as a limited user instead of administrator. Same deal with MacOS, I can open a terminal, type su, enter my password, type rm -rf /, and ZOMG, ALL MY DATA IS GONE!

What's your point again? Don't blame the OS for user ignorance.

[Randall]

Actually, I already posted on another thread that I've written an app that does exactly that. I can send it to you if you want. If anyone wants it then PM me.You should really make it publically avaliable and/or an open source project once the whole dual booting thing has been figured out. For the MacBook Pro there may even be a way to get scrolling in the touchpad working in Windows as well. :)

[mrplow]

Could it really be that simple? I would do this but I don't have an intel mac to test it on. It's starting to sound like EFI support for Windows XP 32-bit would be a piece of cake. Assuming that the IA-32 .efi file will work. :D

In theory, as no one has yet tested this (but I think there is a good chance re-burning VISTA on an EFI bootable disc will do the trick), you could create an XP-Install-bootable disc and initiate the installation, but the OS itself won't install anything that is EFI bootable... so I doubt it will work straight out. If Vista was burned in a manner that enabled intelmac to boot it, then it should also run once it's installed since it actually supports EFI. Also, I think someone could write a generic EFI loader-- in the sense, something that boots into FreeDos (in a manner that the EFI bootable cd can boot and launch EFI tools) and then from there auto-run a script that runs Windows XP or whatever..... there's probably a much simpler way to do this too, I just recall reading about someone who supposedly used FreeDOS to install XP on their imac (no proof offered)

[maverick808]

You should really make it publically avaliable and/or an open source project once the whole dual booting thing has been figured out. For the MacBook Pro there may even be a way to get scrolling in the touchpad working in Windows as well. :)

I'll definitely be making it public the second someone proves you can boot Windows on an Intel Mac. I also have no problem making the source available since it's such a simple app.

[sebaz]

Can anyone with an intel mac search their restore dvds for either of these files?
10. For Itanium®-based systems: EFIBOOTBOOTIA64.efi
11. For IA-32 processor-based systems: EFIBOOTBOOTIA32.efi

Or just .efi files..

Most likely they wil be hidden files, so you may have to search hidden files as well.

[mvc]

You're missing the forest for the trees.

The same person who you don't want to buy a Mac and load Windows on it, would never buy a Mac if it didn't boot windows.

The bottom line is which of these would you prefer:

a) Have someone buy a Mac and try Mac OS X alongside windows
b) Have that person not buy a Mac and instead buy a generic PC and keep using windows

arn


Arn, it's not like you to offer an OPINION!

Dangerous stuff for a God :p

[jarednt1]

Not me you wont see me tainting my brand new iMac Core Duo with Windows.

Why take a GREAT machine like the new iMacs remove a GREAT OS for XP or Vista.

If I HAVE to use Windows I will use the Dell OptiPlex 620 thats sits next to it.

[maverick808]

Can you install Vista to an external firewire drive using a Windows PC? If you could do that what would happen if you then plugged that firewire drive with Vista already installed on it into an Intel Mac?

[iMeowbot]

This blog from Nakfull Propaganda (http://nak.journalspace.com/?cmd=displaycomments&dcid=407&entryid=407) that discusses how to get into the EFI boot menu on the new iMacs.
Yay, someone found the shell. There will be a way to boot everything very soon now :)

[balamw]

Could it really be that simple?
Looks like the instructions on making bootable EFI optical media are essentially to put a small FAT32 file system on the CD with the appropriate files in \boot, kinda similar ot how OS X uses HFS+ on optical media.

Thus, you could probably make an image on a mac using newfs_msdos and cdrecord.

My guess is that if you can use an EFI happy bootloader like GRUB that also knows how to deal with the older partition scheme, you should be able to boot off of an external drive. (unless of course GRUB used BIOS callsto do its thing.) ;)

B

[asphalt-proof]

Your underestimating what an obstacle to switching the lack of computer games is. With most people I know, the only argument they can beat me in, in the pc v mac debate is the lack of mac games available plus their cost. Most if not all of them, would seriously consider buying a mac but for the lack of games.


Don't get me started on how much a mac game cost. It borders on criminal. $49 for a two year old game(pc world).

[Randall]

Can you install Vista to an external firewire drive using a Windows PC? If you could do that what would happen if you then plugged that firewire drive with Vista already installed on it into an Intel Mac?Not much, because there are hardware specific drivers that get installed when you install Windows. If you tried to boot it that way, it could work, but probably wouldn't.

[nagromme]

When I say that OSX has no real enterprise server architecture for web
Of course there are enterprise things that haven't come to Mac yet. But it's not very relevant here unless you would suggest that people buy a Mac and then use it as a Windows enterprise server :) People who would buy a Mac and then run Windows apps on it will be doing so for personal or office apps, not for enterprise servers :p

(And enterprises do use Apache, and Mac Web servers: the US Army (for one of many) serves their site from Macs.)

Anyway, Microsoft just more or less retracted their earlier informal commitment to bring VPC to Intel Macs:

http://www.macminute.com/2006/01/18/virtual-pc/

That doesn't mean they won't--they are looking into it and working with Apple on the issue. It means they aren't making a promise yet. I still hold out hope :)

[maverick808]

Not much, because there are hardware specific drivers that get installed when you install Windows. If you tried to boot it that way, it could work, but probably wouldn't.

Yes I know Windows installs hardware specific drivers. But isn't there a point in the XP install where it copies the basic stuff and then reboots into an install GUI? At this point it actually boots off the hard disk and, if I remember correctly, it's AFTER it boots off the hard-disk into this install GUI that it does all the driver detection. So if you took a copy of the disk at that point then maybe it would be able to boot into the GUI installer on an Intel Mac and complete the installation from there.

I don't know if that's how the Vista installer works since I haven't bothered trying the beta for it yet. But if it is the same it could be worth a try.

[shawnce]

Posted to http://nak.journalspace.com/?cmd=displaycomments&dcid=407&entryid=407

From Dave Schroeder
posted 01/18/06
1. No, cmd-opt-E-F or cmd-opt-E-F-I does not work to get into EFI. Apple does not provide an EFI shell with Intel-based Macs.

2. These menus do not represent something that is on the Mac; it's using a tool - the Intel EFI samples, in this case - to gain access to the EFI implementation on the system.

3. Vista (Build 5270 32-bit with EFI support) does not boot even from a FAT32 partition on a GPT partitioned volume. Selecting 'bootmgr.efi' hangs the machine, and 'cdboot.efi' simply dumps back to the EFI shell after a moment. I've been working with this all afternoon, and the iMac's EFI *can* see the volume, and the Vista EFI booters: it just can't do anything with them.

[nagromme]

What's your point again? Don't blame the OS for user ignorance.
I don't think you read my post--understandable, this thread is pretty chaotic :) -- but my point was clear.

I never blamed Windows for being able to erase a Mac partition. It SHOULD be able to erase a Mac partition.

But because it can do so, so can a Windows virus. And those are a wee bit more common than Mac viruses :p This shows one of several advantages to running a virtual environment like VPC, as opposed to dual booting. See my post you quoted for the rest of the explanation. The one phrase you took out of context isn't the whole story.

[Randall]

Posted to http://nak.journalspace.com/?cmd=displaycomments&dcid=407&entryid=407

From Dave Schroeder
posted 01/18/06damn.

[asphalt-proof]

In fact, I'm not the stereotypical Mac fan boy. What I care about is design. There is not enough good design in this world. People put up with mediocrity every day, and most people don't care about it. That's fine for them, but for me I care about things just looking and feeling right. I care that a company put effort into making things look sleek, simple, elegant. Attention to detail is something that really means a lot to me.

This is why I recoil in horror at the thought of Windows on a Mac. It's that simple. I think there is an elegance to the Mac and its operating system that are just.... right. I guess I want other people to share in that experience. Someone buying a Mac for the first time would do themselves and the Mac a disservice by putting Windows on it.

I mean, honestly... Just think about this. Am I wrong?

What is this 'elegance' you speak of in OSX? This 'elegance' would preclude all the GUI inconsistences that are present in OSX's present incarnation. Just look at the difference between Safari and Mail as just one example. Maybe referring to the 'physical design' of the enclosure.

[maverick808]

Yeah, it's not looking good so far.

I don't care about games. All I want to do is run Visual Studio and I know I'll be able to do that fine from a virtual machine running from inside OS X.

Still though, damn.

[EricNau]

OK, I'm all for dual booting Windows on a Mac, mainly because it would boost Apple's sales almost instantly. :) (and Microsoft's :( )

But I have two questions...

1) Would this bring all of the problems with Windows, over to Mac? For example, if I got a virus that was programed to reformat my HDD, would that wipe away the Mac section also? Would there have to be dual HDD to prevent this?

2) Could this end up hurting Apple in the long run? For example, since you could run any app on Windows, would this discourage companies from making Mac versions? So in the long run Windows takes over more than it has now?

[Randall]

OK, I'm all for dual booting Windows on a Mac, mainly because it would boost Apple's sales almost instantly. :) (and Microsoft's :( )

But I have two questions...

1) Would this bring all of the problems with Windows, over to Mac? For example, if I got a virus that was programed to reformat my HDD, would that wipe away the Mac section also? Would there have to be dual HDD to prevent this?

2) Could this end up hurting Apple in the long run? For example, since you could run any app on Windows, would this discourage companies from making Mac versions? So in the long run Windows takes over more than it has now?1) No. You could get that same virus, but unless Windows could see your HFS+ partition (it can't) then there is no way for this virus to do jack to your Mac partition because as far as it knows that partition doen't exist... Ok let me change that answer to maybe, because although Windows can't read the data on your HFS+ partition, it is aware that an unknown partition exists at that spot on the disc, and could still reformat it if it has administrative priviledges. But, there is no such virus... yet. Anyway, running Windows without some type of virus protection is a bad idea, unless you're using a VM and you don't care if your Windows gets screwed by a virus because you can just reinstall it anyway.

2) No. Because right now there are many software titles for OS X and it has a small market share compaired to Windows. I don't see how having the option to install Windows on your Mac would hurt software development in OS X. I just don't see this making one lick of difference when it comes to chosing which platforms to code to.

P.S. I never thought I would see someone with an Avatar like yours saying they're all for dual booting OS X and Windows. :p

[beatle888]

Funny I've had one virus in the past 10 years on Windows and that was on Windows 3.11. Spyware? Nope. Adware? None. Clunky interface? To each their own.
I think I would rather slash my wrists then use Finder. Thankfully there are alternatives on OS X.
Stupid noises? o.O Riiight. Crashing? Right. Because OS X is perfect. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&hs=2Jc&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=OS+X+Kernel+Panic&spell=1) I can count on one hand how many times XP has crashed on me since 2001. Fugly? Again I'll repeat from the previous post. Grow up. Its a OS not a fricking religious icon. It’s a tool to do something. That is all. Stop being a zealot for a nanosecond and realize that. There are some of us that need the "tools" that Microsoft offers. If you can't wrap that around your shortsighted fanboi field of view I pity you. In the mean time those of us who use said tools in our profession will continue to do so without giving a crap what you think. However my original request stands to the author of the previous post: grow up. :rolleyes:

now look who needs to grow up :D

seriously though. not everyone can maintain windows like you obviously can. you should be proud. but still, most people running windows dont want to have to maintain and protect their system like windows requires you to.

P.S. why are you so angry about Apple and OSX? GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

[digitalbiker]

I'm surprised they havent cracked it yet, shows its gonna be a hard job and therefore will never become easy for the mainstream to do, it will remain a thing for hackers to do to there intel mac's, therefore won't bring in buyers who want a mac just to run windows,

Shadow


This is not true at all. Once the IntelMacs are fully released and more mature there will be software companies even Microsoft with easy windows install software.

Either there will be dual boot loader software or Virtual machine software that will run windows. Microsoft will most likely update VPC for OS X on intel.

This will make it very nice for those who need windows for a certain application but want to use OS X for most of their computing needs.

Also think DirectX games, the Mac will no longer be a non-gaming machine.:D

[ChildOL]

I don't think you read my post--understandable, this thread is pretty chaotic :) -- but my point was clear.

I never blamed Windows for being able to erase a Mac partition. It SHOULD be able to erase a Mac partition.

But because it can do so, so can a Windows virus. And those are a wee bit more common than Mac viruses :p This shows one of several advantages to running a virtual environment like VPC, as opposed to dual booting. See my post you quoted for the rest of the explanation. The one phrase you took out of context isn't the whole story.

Maybe, just maybe, Apple is going to release a layer like rosetta but that allows you to run most windows programs under OSX.

[Randall]

Also think DirectX games, the Mac will no longer be a non-gaming machine.:DThat is why we need this bastard to dual boot. I bet you the EFI on the new iMacs will be dual booting OS X and Windows Vista beta by the end of the week. :D

[Randall]

Maybe, just maybe, Apple is going to release a layer like rosetta but that allows you to run most windows programs under OSX.
You mean WINE? Why bother. Even though it's technically not en emulator, it's still a re-write of the Windows API, which results in slooooowness and is a waste of time. There will be a dual boot option down the road, and most likely a VPC update that will work very fast compared to the PPC version. :)

[LagunaSol]

Amen to that. I know of three people right NOW who are in a holding pattern. As soon as the news shows up that you can dual boot Windows onto the MacBooks they are ordering. Like it or not this is an important component to getting Windows users to purchase Apple hardware.

Yep, I'm in this holding pattern too. I use my PC very little, but still need it. And since the iMac doesn't have video in, I need to be able to run Windows on it in order to dump my G4 tower and my PC (and all the wire mess running between the two).

The minute someone figures out how to either boot Windows or run it virtually on an iMac, I'm buying.

[ChildOL]

You mean WINE? Why bother. Even though it's technically not en emulator, it's still a re-write of the Windows API, which results in slooooowness and is a waste of time. There will be a dual boot option down the road, and most likely a VPC update that will work very fast compared to the PPC version. :)

Well that may be true now, but I think Apple and Intel are up to something major regarding OSX, windows, and the intel architecture separate from just switching to intel.

[Randall]

Well that may be true now, but I think Apple and Intel are up to something major regarding OSX, windows, and the intel architecture separate from just switching to intel.What makes you say that? :o

[iMeowbot]

Maybe, just maybe, Apple is going to release a layer like rosetta but that allows you to run most windows programs under OSX.
The Apple agreement with MS points to a VM with real Windows. that's a good thing, if the integration was too good the so-called OS/2 effect would be a concern.

[nagromme]

What is this 'elegance' you speak of in OSX? This 'elegance' would preclude all the GUI inconsistences that are present in OSX's present incarnation.
"Elegant" does not mean "perfect." Nobody would claim that OS X is perfect, not even in elegance or visual design. Merely better than Windows by enough to care about :) The inconsistencies you speak of ARE still annoying, no argument there.

(Even more O/T, but good news: Note that Apple has committed to a res-independent UI in OS X (developer.apple.com/releasenotes/GraphicsImaging/ResolutionIndependentUI.html), and that means they are re-drawing all UI elements for higher res or vector use--and THAT almost certainly means unifying the visual elements more: why do all the work to re-draw three metal themes instead of re-drawing just the newest?)


For example, if I got a virus that was programed to reformat my HDD, would that wipe away the Mac section also?
Yes. Or the virus could have software to scan the bits of a drive the way a disk-recovery app does, and thus extract and steal private data from your Mac files if they are not encrypted. It could look for email addresses, for instance.


Having your Mac stuff on a separate drive only helps you if you REMOVE the drive physically when you run Windows! Otherwise the Windows virus could erase the Mac drive and the Windows drive alike. A better solution is a virtual environment like VPC, which makes the PC side think there IS no other hard disk. But such options don't exist yet. They will come.

Note that most viruses these days don't just erase drives--they hide and turn your machine into a zombie for illegal activities. That's not to say pure vandalism viruses never happens anymore: it's still a risk I wouldn't want to take!


1) No. You could get that same virus, but unless Windows could see your HFS+ partition (it can't) then there is no way for this virus to do jack to your Mac partition because as far as it knows that partition doen't exist.
Not true: Windoes DOES know your HFS partition (or drive) exists physically. It can't READ the files from it directly (without additional software, or as I say, just scanning at a low level) but it CAN re-format the drive and do massive damage.


Could this end up hurting Apple in the long run? For example, since you could run any app on Windows, would this discourage companies from making Mac versions? So in the long run Windows takes over more than it has now?
No, that won't happen :) See: http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2069843&postcount=64

[cecirdr]

I'm waiting for Vmware. I'd love a virtualized environment running at nearly native speeds. It'd be compartmentalized and unable to affect the "health and safety" of my OSX partition. Plus, if it's nearly native, then it just might run most of my games which are a year or two old.

Dual boot is ok, but having another OS that's bubbled off and easy to backup/restore and keep from endangering my primary OS is "where it's at" for me.

[pgwalsh]

Maybe, just maybe, Apple is going to release a layer like rosetta but that allows you to run most windows programs under OSX.
Apple wants developers to port applications so they're native on OS X, so I don't see them building a layer to run windows based applications. You'll lose many of the benefits of OS X. It should be much easier for companies to port windows to X86 Mac then PPC mac, so hopefully we'll see more business and games supporting x86 Mac.

The ports from Windows to x86 Mac will most likely not be double binary for x86/PPC, but likely to be double binary WinTel/MacTel.

[MacTruck]

I won't be replying to anything else you post about this matter in the thread since it's way off topic.


Good because you are wrong. Now back on topic please.

[PtMD]

I'm waiting for Vmware. I'd love a virtualized environment running at nearly native speeds. It'd be compartmentalized and unable to affect the "health and safety" of my OSX partition. Plus, if it's nearly native, then it just might run most of my games which are a year or two old.

Dual boot is ok, but having another OS that's bubbled off and easy to backup/restore and keep from endangering my primary OS is "where it's at" for me.

Have you heard anything about when VMWare may be releasing a product to OSX as a host OS?

[LagunaSol]

Funny I've had one virus in the past 10 years on Windows and that was on Windows 3.11. Spyware? Nope. Adware? None.

Funny, because I've had to clean crippling spyware/adware off my mother-in-law's computer (after which she switched to a Mac mini), my uncle's computer (porn ads popping up in front of his young daughters while they did their homework? Nice!), and my brother-in-law's computer (his PC has the same specs as mine (AMD 2500+, 1G RAM) but was running like a 486/33 with 16MB of RAM due to the crap clogging his computer).

Because when you have a PC problem, call the Mac guy, right? :rolleyes:

Sounds like you've been 1) lucky, 2) extremely vigilant, or 3) both (most likely?). Security problems are going to drive people to Apple like waves of refugees from an oppressive regime, and the ability to run Windows apps on a Mac will give them a comfortable welcome. You feed a starving man a piece of bread before you sit him down to a steak dinner. :)

[cecirdr]

Nope..no idea as to when, but it's on their agenda. The project at least has a code name. But I think everyone is watching how things develop and not making promises right now. I do know that quite a few folks at Vmware have quite a "thing" for apple's machines. So they *personally* want to do this.

[dongmin]

I'd rather have Windows running at full speed at the SAME time as OS X, in a virtual hardware environment that protects the Mac partition from being reformatted by a Windows virus. Virtual PC--and probably others--will do just that. (It doesn't seem that Bochs does.)
This is what I'm waiting for before I plunk down $2000 for a MacBook. Right now I run a Dell box, in addition to my iBook, so I can run AutoCAD, Rhino, and 3DStudioMax. I know a lot of architects who'd get a MacBook in a heartbeat if they can run these apps. If there is one group of users that appreciate Apple's industrial design and build quality is architects. Too bad most of architecture software is for Windows only.

Anyways, back on topic, I'm surprised we haven't heard more about VMWare, Darwine, Codeweavers, Cedega, etc. I was expecting more of a splash by these folks at MWSF...

[pgwalsh]

Security problems are going to drive people to Apple like waves of refugees from an oppressive regime, and the ability to run Windows apps on a Mac will give them a comfortable welcome. You feed a starving man a piece of bread before you sit him down to a steak dinner. :)
Apple will have it's share of security problems, but they may never get to the scale Windows has.

On that note, I'd like to see Apple beef up it's security and control on OS X and now more than ever with switching to Intel. I think will see more users and with that a higher chance of malware/viruses.

I'd like to see:
1.) A better Advanced GUI for the firewall.
2.) IDS with warning and firewall port links.
3.) Inbound and outbound warning and protection ala Little Snitch.
4.) Virus Protection - not that there are any, but just in case.

Currently you need nagging shareware programs to achieve this security, unless you really know what your doing. The more we need this and rely on third party applications, the more we start sounding like Windows users, so build it in. I'm a rookie in the terminal, so I'd like to see full GUI support.

[GregA]

Yup. I think this will be particularly important for the Enterprise. As an employee, being able to include the fact that it can run Windows might well be the deciding factor as to whether the IT department will sign off on the purchase.Yes, some big departments require 2 sources for everything. From this they argue that the Mac is the only computer that can run OSX, and won't consider it. Running XP will put the Macs into consideration. Hopefully then their rules will require them to evaluate OSX too. Weird logic of course. (Oh, virtual PC doesn't count in this instance either!)

I'm surprised they havent cracked it yet, shows its gonna be a hard job and therefore will never become easy for the mainstream to do, it will remain a thing for hackers to do to there intel mac's, therefore won't bring in buyers who want a mac just to run windows,I don't think enough hackers have an Intel Mac yet to make that judgement! :)

Apple will come around when they realize sales are slipping. The power of the dollar $$$ is the only thinkg that will change Steves mind. He could care less about the mac revolution nowadays.Why would Apple's sales slip. Assuming they've gone from a computer that doesn't run Windows, to a faster computer that doesn't run Windows?

Personally, I believe there'll be a reasonable virtual-machine shortly which solves the disk format recognition and bios issues. I hope VMWare is working overtime on it :)

It seems that for dual boot, MS will have to release an install that has a different DVD format and recognises Mac hardware (including EFI, so maybe Vista only). Or Apple will need to do something.

[Randall]

I'd like to see:
1.) A better Advanced GUI for the firewall.
2.) IDS with warning and firewall port links.
3.) Inbound and outbound warning and protection ala Little Snitch.
4.) Virus Protection - not that there are any, but just in case. These are all good ideas, but unfortuantely Apple needs to worry about patching current security vaulenerabilities before they consentrate on these issues. In the meantime...

1) not really a big deal, the command line is your friend.
2) tail the system log
3) you can use Little Snitch (http://www.obdev.at/products/littlesnitch/index.html) for now like you said.
4) Clam AV (http://www.clamav.net/) is your friend, and free!

[php]

I just have to ask.... WHY?

Why in the world would someone want to buy a Mac just to put Windows on it? It's like buying a new sportscar and putting a 3-cylinder econo-engine in it. Honestly, if you want to play your precious computer games, just keep your cheap-o Dell.

Buy a Mac to *get away from the Windows world*. You'll never look back.

I can't believe people are so intent on pursuing this. It really is a travesty. The Mac experience is the combination of hardware and software, and the brilliant design in both. Am I the only one who sees this? Is the world going mad?

I don't know how many more times I'm going to have to say this, but there are certain speciality PC-only applications (appraisal, CAD, etc.) that ARE WINDOWS ONLY. If these applications were available for OS X, that would solve the problem. Unfortunately, they aren't, so Mac VPC or some dual-boot solution will keep me from having to buy a PC just for one or two apps.

[pgwalsh]

These are all good ideas, but unfortuantely Apple needs to worry about patching current security vaulenerabilities before they consentrate on these issues. In the meantime...

1) not really a big deal, the command line is your friend.
2) tail the system log
3) you can use Little Snitch (http://www.obdev.at/products/littlesnitch/index.html) for now like you said.
4) Clam AV (http://www.clamav.net/) is your friend, and free!

I have snort running via HenWen (http://seiryu.home.comcast.net/henwen.html).

The command line is sort of my friend. I don't like having to remember all the names and editing things in Pico sucks IMO. BrickHouse is available as well, but I think it should be built in. What do you mean about "tail the sytem log.

[nagromme]

there are certain speciality PC-only applications (appraisal, CAD, etc.) that ARE WINDOWS ONLY. If these applications were available for OS X, that would solve the problem. Unfortunately, they aren't, so Mac VPC or some dual-boot solution will keep me from having to buy a PC just for one or two apps.
I'll go one step further and venture to say that the ability to run Windows apps on Mac will help bring those apps to Mac natively!

* Windows on Mac boosts Mac sales.

* Mac sales boost OS X usage.

* OS X usage boosts OS X software sales.

* OS X software sales boost OS X software development. As the Mac market grows, more and more niche apps will be considered worth porting.

* Plus (a lesser factor) users of those apps who are on a Mac will wish they could just run them natively--much like people prefer OS X apps to Classic apps--and that feedback will be coming to those developers, direct from current customers.

[PtMD]

I have snort running via HenWen (http://seiryu.home.comcast.net/henwen.html).

The command line is sort of my friend. I don't like having to remember all the names and editing things in Pico sucks IMO. BrickHouse is available as well, but I think it should be built in. What do you mean about "tail the sytem log.


he means to use the tail command on the system log to manually watch it in a term window.

like such: "tail -f /path/to/file/to/watch"

[jrhone]

I'll go one step further and venture to say that the ability to run Windows apps on Mac will help bring those apps to Mac natively!

* Windows on Mac boosts Mac sales.

* Mac sales boost OS X usage.

* OS X usage boosts OS X software sales.

* OS X software sales boost OS X software development. As the Mac market grows, more and more niche apps will be considered worth porting.

* Plus (a lesser factor) users of those apps who are on a Mac will wish they could just run them natively--much like people prefer OS X apps to Classic apps--and that feedback will be coming to those developers, direct from current customers.


You forgot one thing....the COST to support Windows booting on a Mac. Unless you say that there is no support, and then no one would do it because it would be problematic. So Apple would have to train their tech support in Windows, then all the Apple Store employees, and then hire more people to deal with MORE PROBLEMS. It would be a nightmare, that would be more costly, and would only give Microsoft more Windows users. Those users that bought a Mac to run Windows, would get frustrated and migrate back to a cheaper Dell that was built for Windows....It could be a fiasco that in the end would prove to people that Macs are too difficult to learn and much too complex. Now if there is a emulation, the software company has to do the tech support, and if it doesnt work on everything, then Apple can point the finger.

[pgwalsh]

he means to use the tail command on the system log to manually watch it in a term window.

like such: "tail -f /path/to/file/to/watch"
I googled it.. Thanks..

Next thing is to learn what some of the stuff is... oogly boogly

[nagromme]

You forgot one thing....the COST to support Windows booting on a Mac.
Oh, Apple won't support it. (Microsoft very well might--certainly if Virtual PC comes out again.)

But it will happen anyway, and having the option will still benefit Mac sales--and thus Mac development.

[slb]

I haven't heard any word on the use of the Vanderpool virtualization technology built into the Core Duo. It automatically lets you partition off operating systems so they can run simultaneously.

[jrhone]

Oh, Apple won't support it. (Microsoft very well might--certainly if Virtual PC comes out again.)

But it will happen anyway, and having the option will still benefit Mac sales--and thus Mac development.


Not being pesimistic, but thats not too much different than it is now. A virtual PC type solution, but not dual booting....

[Peace]

So...any luck on ye olde dual-boot yet??

;)

I told you so!

[FaasNat]

I hope that somebody somewhere can write a driver that supports ctrl+click as a right mouse click for Windows, otherwise you will need to be getting a USB mouse to go with your new Windows partition. :(
I just wish Apple started releasing these laptops with two mouse buttons. Or at the least the one big button that acts as two similar to how the mightymouse is. Thought with the release of the mightymouse, Apple was going to start moving down the road of having at least two buttons..... :(

[mk14]

1. Install the EFI Shell as described here (http://nak.journalspace.com/?cmd=displaycomments&dcid=407&entryid=407).
2. When in the EFI Shell, add a new Boot Option as described in this (ftp://download.intel.com/technology/efi/docs/txt/EfiHowTo.txt) document (in the section "Boot Option Maintanance Menu") of type "Legacy Boot" for your Windows XP boot CD or something else.

I have NOT been able to verify this because I do not own an Intel-based Mac yet :( .
Would be great if someone tried it. At your own risk...

Michael

[killr_b]

Funny I've had one virus in the past 10 years on Windows and that was on Windows 3.11. Spyware? Nope. Adware? None. Clunky interface? To each their own. I think I would rather slash my wrists then use Finder. Thankfully there are alternatives on OS X.
Stupid noises? o.O Riiight. Crashing? Right. Because OS X is perfect. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&hs=2Jc&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=OS+X+Kernel+Panic&spell=1) I can count on one hand how many times XP has crashed on me since 2001. Fugly? Again I'll repeat from the previous post. Grow up. Its a OS not a fricking religious icon. It’s a tool to do something. That is all. Stop being a zealot for a nanosecond and realize that. There are some of us that need the "tools" that Microsoft offers. If you can't wrap that around your shortsighted fanboi field of view I pity you. In the mean time those of us who use said tools in our profession will continue to do so without giving a crap what you think. However my original request stands to the author of the previous post: grow up. :rolleyes:


What's that little note at the bottom????- "*Note: I refuse to use the title MacBook. While I’m not one to get hung up on names its stupid to change it for the heck of it when you have a perfectly good, and well known, name in use already. All asterisks in my post denote the substitution of MacBook with PowerBook. If you have a problem with that take it up with management."

Grow up? It's a MACbook now yo. I like Macbook. It's... mac. I like having Mac's... not Powers(?).

My OS X is better than a religous iCon(man)- I ask and shortly after receive.

B

[FaasNat]

I just have to ask.... WHY?

Why in the world would someone want to buy a Mac just to put Windows on it? It's like buying a new sportscar and putting a 3-cylinder econo-engine in it. Honestly, if you want to play your precious computer games, just keep your cheap-o Dell.

Buy a Mac to *get away from the Windows world*. You'll never look back.

I can't believe people are so intent on pursuing this. It really is a travesty. The Mac experience is the combination of hardware and software, and the brilliant design in both. Am I the only one who sees this? Is the world going mad?
I'm a big Mac user, maybe not as hardcore as some of the fans here on this site, but I'll happily say Windows sucks, Mac OS X is better, etc. However, I had a Windows system back in '99 - '01 and I keep looking back. Why? For the games. I had that system back then so I could play Half-Life TFC/Counterstrike. Until I see the popular games on the shelves at the Apple store (when they're still popular with the other crowd), I'll want something that can run Windows and the games for it. If I can minimize the number of systems to just one -- the Mac[in]Tel -- that would be great.

[nagromme]

Not being pesimistic, but thats not too much different than it is now. A virtual PC type solution, but not dual booting....
Pessimiestic? That's MUCH better than now. A virtual hardware solution (like VPC) is MUCH better than dual booting, for the many reasons discussed in this thread.

Only now, a virtual host environment can run at FULL SPEED. That IS much different from the way Windows has been on Mac in the past.

I'm sure dual-booting will be worked out as well, though--probably long before VPC is out for Intel Macs.

[balamw]

Only now, a virtual host environment can run at FULL SPEED. That IS much different from the way Windows has been on Mac in the past.
The lack of CPU emulation will definitely make things much better, but it still won't be quite as fast as running the same OS on bare metal. See for example http://usuarios.lycos.es/hernandp/articles/vpcvs.html the performance in the virtual environment seems to be about 90% that of bare metal for most benchmarks.

That said, I have also heard anecdoatally of some cases where WINE actually outperforms Windows in GDI calls. :confused:

I too am confident that dual booting will happen soon. (If nothing else to linux ;))

B

[jrhone]

Pessimiestic? That's MUCH better than now. A virtual hardware solution (like VPC) is MUCH better than dual booting, for the many reasons discussed in this thread.

Only now, a virtual host environment can run at FULL SPEED. That IS much different from the way Windows has been on Mac in the past.

I'm sure dual-booting will be worked out as well, though--probably long before VPC is out for Intel Macs.


OK we are on the same page....I agree 100%...there will be a software virtual environment WITHIN OSX that will allow windows to run at full, or near full speed. I don't think we will see a dual boot system for LOTS of reasons....I for one think people would go the OTHER way....use the mac more for Windows than OSX....even though OSX is better, people dont like change.....and if they dont HAVE to use OSX, they wont. there are some that would, but the masses would not.....

[Randall]

OK we are on the same page....I agree 100%...there will be a software virtual environment WITHIN OSX that will allow windows to run at full, or near full speed. I don't think we will see a dual boot system for LOTS of reasons....I for one think people would go the OTHER way....use the mac more for Windows than OSX....even though OSX is better, people dont like change.....and if they dont HAVE to use OSX, they wont. there are some that would, but the masses would not.....I can almost guarantee you that we will see a dual boot system, and most likely within the next couple of months. :D

[Randall]

Dave Schroeder is getting closer to getting Windows Vista to boot up. From Dave Schroeder
posted 01/18/06
A little more information. With the Vista EFI booter "cdboot.efi" on a Mac OS Extended partition on a GPT volume, the typical

"Press any key to boot from the CD..."

can be seen. However, you are then dumped back to the EFI shell. The booter is no doubt not finding what it is looking for, but my next step will be to attempt to construct an EFI bootable non-UDF volume with the current build of Windows Vista. In my opinion, since no legacy BIOS functionality has been included by Apple, working on Windows XP 32-bit is not worthwhile at this time.

The issue right now all seems to revolve around getting an EFI bootable instance on the right filesystem *with* all of the files in the right place. Once the initial bootstrapping is complete, hopefully more analysis can be done.

[maverick808]

Dave Schroeder is getting closer to getting Windows Vista to boot up.

Good news, thanks for the update.

[chuchin]

In fact, I'm not the stereotypical Mac fan boy. What I care about is design. There is not enough good design in this world. People put up with mediocrity every day, and most people don't care about it. That's fine for them, but for me I care about things just looking and feeling right. I care that a company put effort into making things look sleek, simple, elegant. Attention to detail is something that really means a lot to me.

This is why I recoil in horror at the thought of Windows on a Mac. It's that simple. I think there is an elegance to the Mac and its operating system that are just.... right. I guess I want other people to share in that experience. Someone buying a Mac for the first time would do themselves and the Mac a disservice by putting Windows on it.

I mean, honestly... Just think about this. Am I wrong?



Yes, you are wrong!!! Lots of people are perfectly happy with windows but not happy with their laptops (too heavy, too ugly, too hot,...). If windows were available in a mac, they would buy it in a heartbeat.

I have a toshiba qosmio and I have friends that have acer ferraris, dell inspirons 9300 and Hp pavillions. Trust me, we all looked at the 17 inch Powerbook. If the mac would have had windows, we would all have macs.

Same thing happened with the Ipods, we did not switch to apple to get the ipods. we waited until Ipods were usable in a windows experience and we all bought them.

this has nothing to do with Tiger, leopard, or Lion. It has to do with the superiority and beauty of apple hardware.

If apple sells macs preloaded with windows, do you think that people would be buying dell, hp, toshibas or acers??

[chuchin]

Wow, your university is willing to pay for 3 OS licenses for each machine? Must be nice having all that money allocated to your department :(


they would pay for only one and then would run it on apples

[AidenShaw]

they would pay for only one and then would run it on apples
And why wouldn't that be theft?

[maverick808]

And why wouldn't that be theft?

I suspect that some universities get licenses that cover "any machine located on the campus". Therefore, it wouldn't matter.

[nagromme]

OK we are on the same page....I agree 100%...there will be a software virtual environment WITHIN OSX that will allow windows to run at full, or near full speed. I don't think we will see a dual boot system for LOTS of reasons....I for one think people would go the OTHER way....use the mac more for Windows than OSX....even though OSX is better, people dont like change.....and if they dont HAVE to use OSX, they wont. there are some that would, but the masses would not.....
Well, I do think we will see people dual-booting--it's just not the method I would choose for running Windows! (For the security and productivity reasons noted.) Some people will do it, though--I expect it to be made to work sooner rather than later. (Not by Apple or MS, but by someone on the outside.)

As for most dual-OS Mac people (if I understand your comment) using Mac to run Windows rather than OS X, I disagree--some will, but most dual-OS Mac owners will lean towards OS X:

* People who PLAN to avoid OS X will still end up wanting to check out OS X and iLife that they just spent money on. Spending cash makes people curious :)

* Apple hardware is great, but it's not the main reason to buy a Mac. Some will buy a Mac for that alone but it would be a big trend.

* You're right that "the masses" won't bother learning a second OS if Windows is running on their Mac just fine. BUT "the masses" aren't the people who will be sneaking Windows onto their Macs in the first place. They're people who, if they manage to take the risk of trying a Mac, probably don't even know what an OS is. They'll stick with what's on there.

[dguisinger]

Have you heard anything about when VMWare may be releasing a product to OSX as a host OS?


I asked them. They said they wont comment on unreleased products.

[brepublican]

I just dont understand, but apparently this is a hot topic? Why would anyone want to run Windows on a Mac? :confused:

Am I the only one who is lost here or is this whole undertaking inconsequential?

[nagromme]

I just dont understand, but apparently this is a hot topic? Why would anyone want to run Windows on a Mac? :confused:

Am I the only one who is lost here or is this whole undertaking inconsequential?
Windows on Mac is indeed inconsequential for very many people, like yourself. They don't need Windows at all and they don't want it.

Why would OTHER people want (or need) to run Windows? I will refer you to pages 1-3, 5-7, and 8 of this thread. Also page 4. :)

I myself need it only rarely--mainly for testing Windows apps I build on Mac for Windows clients of mine.

[EricNau]

I just dont understand, but apparently this is a hot topic? Why would anyone want to run Windows on a Mac? :confused:

Am I the only one who is lost here or is this whole undertaking inconsequential?
Some people (sadly) are forced to carry around 2 laptops, their Mac (because they like it), and then a Windows for work.
This could save those people a lot of hassle and money.

[LGRW3919]

What's that little note at the bottom????- "*Note: I refuse to use the title MacBook. While I’m not one to get hung up on names its stupid to change it for the heck of it when you have a perfectly good, and well known, name in use already. All asterisks in my post denote the substitution of MacBook with PowerBook. If you have a problem with that take it up with management."

Grow up? It's a MACbook now yo. I like Macbook. It's... mac. I like having Mac's... not Powers(?).

My OS X is better than a religous iCon(man)- I ask and shortly after receive.

B

after a brief stint of hating the macbook pro name, i have come to realize that it is relatively unimportant. by talking about more adament protestors' signatures that mention they will boycott the macbook name, we flexible mac users empower their strike. we call attention to their struggle and it will just go on longer. why don't we just ignore it?

[kingtj]

Anyone who works in software Q.A. has a *major* need for emulation products like vmware or VirtualPC. It's simply impractical to reformat and reinstall every time you need to test a software application in a different localization of Windows, for example. (EG. How will our app really run on the Chinese version of Win XP? How about the Russian edition?)

There's also a need if you work as a computer consultant, like myself, and run into all sorts of unexpected situations needing resolution. For example, I had one client with an old Novell server running Groupwise as their in-house messaging system. The workstations all ran Windows and nobody had any Novell software loaded other than the essentials for mapping to shared drives.

The easiest way to take care of their occasional requests to add/change/delete a user account or mailbox was to install the Novell management software on my laptop. I had a PowerBook with VPC 6 on it that ran just fine with the Novell Client for Windows and Novell's "ConsoleOne" software installed on it. Otherwise, this simply wouldn't have been possible without owning a Windows laptop.

I also have some car analyzer software and a special (OBDII) serial cable that is only available for Windows, but I got it working in VPC using a KeySpan serial to USB adapter. Again, saved me a need for an otherwise unwanted Windows laptop.


Why emulate when you can run the real deal?! I can see the point to emulating for web developers and other people that need to run just that one application that is only for Windows. Other then that, if you need hardware support (gaming) then there is no substitute to dual booting. :cool:

[Randall]

Anyone who works in software Q.A. has a *major* need for emulation products like vmware or VirtualPC. It's simply impractical to reformat and reinstall every time you need to test a software application in a different localization of Windows, for example. (EG. How will our app really run on the Chinese version of Win XP? How about the Russian edition?)

There's also a need if you work as a computer consultant, like myself, and run into all sorts of unexpected situations needing resolution. For example, I had one client with an old Novell server running Groupwise as their in-house messaging system. The workstations all ran Windows and nobody had any Novell software loaded other than the essentials for mapping to shared drives.

The easiest way to take care of their occasional requests to add/change/delete a user account or mailbox was to install the Novell management software on my laptop. I had a PowerBook with VPC 6 on it that ran just fine with the Novell Client for Windows and Novell's "ConsoleOne" software installed on it. Otherwise, this simply wouldn't have been possible without owning a Windows laptop.

I also have some car analyzer software and a special (OBDII) serial cable that is only available for Windows, but I got it working in VPC using a KeySpan serial to USB adapter. Again, saved me a need for an otherwise unwanted Windows laptop.That's all well and good, but hardcore gamers want the ability to run Windows on bare metal. No emulation (dual booting) is the only way. Don't worry about it hurting OS X, because If I had a choice I would always use OS X. Just like I would always use Linux. The bottom line is that we live in a Windows world and there are many great gaming titles only on DirectX etc. Must...dual...boot...

[PtMD]

I just dont understand, but apparently this is a hot topic? Why would anyone want to run Windows on a Mac? :confused:

Am I the only one who is lost here or is this whole undertaking inconsequential?


Is this a joke? I mean really, this HAS been answered at least 100 different times.

[Lertie32]

Yeah... one of my most frightening and eerie computer moments was when I booted Windoze on my Mac via VirtualPC. It just seemed such a dirty corruption of my Mac's purity.

ok, ok... seriously... I think that booting Windows (natively-ish) on a Mac will have some advantages IF it works well. I could use it for the currently PC-only apps and plugins as I need them. This could probably bring hordes of switchers over too.

BUT... I want to know what the ramifications are for viruses and all of the Windoze security issues. Is Windoze on an Intel Mac going to be as horrific and unstable as it is on a PC box?

I'm not going to be one of the early adopters on this one...

[PtMD]

I asked them. They said they wont comment on unreleased products.

Thanks for the info. I expected we wouldn't know till they had a shipping product. :(

[MyLeftNut]

I guess by some of the responses from the more Macentric people is that why should we drop down to windows level when we should be dragging them up to Mac OS X? I can see that there are practical reasons for allowing this and although I am a Mac snob I grudgingly accept this. I'd suggest we just chillout a bit...

[FaasNat]

I just dont understand, but apparently this is a hot topic? Why would anyone want to run Windows on a Mac? :confused:

Am I the only one who is lost here or is this whole undertaking inconsequential?
I think the biggest point was to run software that's for Windows only. For me this is the case (games)......

[hsvguy]

Some people (sadly) are forced to carry around 2 laptops, their Mac (because they like it), and then a Windows for work.
This could save those people a lot of hassle and money.

Yeah, it is a sad day for all when a single person is forced to carry around TWO laptops against their will. :rolleyes:

In the end though, dual booting will have advantages for people that rely on some Windows apps to get jobs done. I may/may not run some flavor of it on my new Mac, but I can safetly say it won't be getting a boot unless its utterly required for me to use it to complete a task.

It's only a matter of time before some 12 year old from some obscure European nation (who's parents bought an iMac for his birthday) finds some way to boot an EFI capable version of Windows.

Only a matter of time...

[DeVizardofOZ]

I will buy an outside HD only for WIN applications, period. I know plenty of people, who have 1 or more outside HDs. Maybe there is a way in a few wekks/months to startup your Mac, then choose which way you want to go, Apple OS or Win OS. That way you have no WinCrap on your Mac! I am not a knowledgable in the techspecs, but maybe this is the best bet to keep your Mac clean.
Ciao
DeVizardof OZ:D

[alamar]

Yeah, I think you need to get over your blind prejudice. Step off that facade of a pedestal your on, and realize that we live in a world populated by windows users. Any incentive we give them to try out the Mac platform, is a win for Apple. Most people that try OS X grow to say they can't ever imagine going back to windows. Some Mac users seem like such elitist that I think they actually hurt the platform.

For sure. Show me one mac user who lives in an MS free world. MS is a pain in the butt, but a nessisary evil from time to time.

[ldburroughs]

I just dont understand, but apparently this is a hot topic? Why would anyone want to run Windows on a Mac? :confused:

Am I the only one who is lost here or is this whole undertaking inconsequential?

No, I personally like the hardware for asthetic reasons. The OS is not something that really matters to me. I've tried both and, while Tiger looks much nicer, Windows is still too mainstream to discount at this point. Don't get me wrong, I like all the widgets and the pretty interface but I can't get things done efficiently without Windows at this point in time. Who know? Maybe it will be different as Apple gets its footing in the OS market with the new intel processors. But for now, I'd at least like to use the hardware again. The 40lb Dell brick in my lap is cutting off my circulation, not to mention frying my khakis. At least I can be one step closer to a great experience without losing all functionality or, at best stifling productivity. A dual boot would be a nice compromise.

Now when is Apple going to introduce the smaller form factor Macbook? I'd buy one yesterday.

[mandis]

No, I personally like the hardware for asthetic reasons. The OS is not something that really matters to me. I've tried both and, while Tiger looks much nicer, Windows is still too mainstream to discount at this point. Don't get me wrong, I like all the widgets and the pretty interface but I can't get things done efficiently without Windows at this point in time. Who know? Maybe it will be different as Apple gets its footing in the OS market with the new intel processors. But for now, I'd at least like to use the hardware again. The 40lb Dell brick in my lap is cutting off my circulation, not to mention frying my khakis. At least I can be one step closer to a great experience without losing all functionality or, at best stifling productivity. A dual boot would be a nice compromise.

AGREED! It would be awesome if we were able to use all those windows apps on the mac. As an architect i use Rhino, Autocad and Solidworks all the time on my ugly grey P4 PC. Wouldn't it be great to have those apps running on a great looking computer like the mac?
I suppose I would still do all the web surfing and research with OSX but for everything else i would use windows.:D

[lucas]

rabid fanboys and paranoid nutjobs everywhere... who let you people have macs?

[cal6n]

No way is that POS actually booting any of my Macs, but...

It would be cool to have a sandbox that windows (XP, Fister, whatever. It'll be the same old piss in a different shaped bottle) could soil itself in without doing any damage.

VPC is too damn slow, even on a DP 2.5. I currently have an old stinkpad in a box. It gets dragged out maybe twice a year, when I REALLY need it. With a decent virtualisation setup, I could finally ditch it!

[OllyW]

If apple sells macs preloaded with windows, do you think that people would be buying dell, hp, toshibas or acers??

I think this will have to happen before you get the general public rushing out to buy macs.

Most computer users I know would have great difficulty installing windows onto a pc :)

[Randall]

Just another update. As the Windows experts around here know, Windows Vista requires ACPI support in order to boot. If you try to boot Windows Vista on an intel iMac you run in to a certain error over and over, C0000225. This error is basically "ACPI not found". So it looks like Vista might have booted, had it not required ACPI, or had Apple chosen to include ACPI. Unfortunately, there will need to be a workaround to support or spoof ACPI if we are to have any chance at booting up Windows natively on the Mactels. I suspect that once people get their MacBook Pros, they will join the struggle for eternal fame, because whoever gets this working first will surely be remembered in the computing world.

[maverick808]

Just another update. As the Windows experts around here know, Windows Vista requires ACPI support in order to boot. If you try to boot Windows Vista on an intel iMac you run in to a certain error over and over, C0000225. This error is basically "ACPI not found". So it looks like Vista might have booted, had it not required ACPI, or had Apple chosen to include ACPI. Unfortunately, there will need to be a workaround to support or spoof ACPI if we are to have any chance at booting up Windows natively on the Mactels. I suspect that once people get their MacBook Pros, they will join the struggle for eternal fame, because whoever gets this working first will surely be remembered in the computing world.

My iMac is supposed to ship by the 25th. Obviously if it's not been figured out by then I will be given it a go but since it's over a week at least until mine arrives I'm sure there'll be some more progress by then.

Where are you getting your info Randall?

[balamw]

Where are you getting your info Randall?
http://nak.journalspace.com/?cmd=displaycomments&dcid=407&entryid=407

b

[ClamIAm]

If you think it is a bad thing that Windows can possibly run natively on Intel Macs, you are either an elitist bastard or are as bad as Microsoft.

If you fall into the elitist bastard category, you believe that you must keep your precious Apple machines "pure". But never mind the fact that Microsoft has invested heavily in Apple. Never mind that computers are dumb machines, not some sort of holy artifacts. Never mind that the copyrights to both operating systems are owned by companies trying to make a profit, who have both engaged in business practices I consider unethical (maybe you disagree here), and both are closed-source. Yes, some of OS X is Free (as in Free Software), but the layers that really count aren't. There is really not much difference between these companies other than marketshare.

If you fall into the "as bad as Microsoft" category, you think that nothing should run on "your" platform, except your own things.

Shame on all of you who take this position.

[Epicurus]

To me there is very little confusion about why people are spending their time and energy to get Windows to run on Apple hardware. Put simply, they are doing it because it hasn't been done before. Let's say someone manages a sloppy hack and gets Vista to run. A month later someone will still be working to make the process easier and more "novice friendly". You work at it for days and weeks at a time because it is challenging. If, after you're done, someone uses your discovery to run Outlook on an iMac, so be it. For most this is not the primary motivation.

For some people, simply standing in awe of a majestic mountain is thrilling enough; others are compelled to climb.

Here's to getting Pro/E on a PowerMac by 2007!!

[bugfaceuk]

Why emulate when you can run the real deal?! I can see the point to emulating for web developers and other people that need to run just that one application that is only for Windows. Other then that, if you need hardware support (gaming) then there is no substitute to dual booting. :cool:

Well what would be nice is Apple supplied solution which goes like this: boot into os-x. Post boot you pick "Sleep Switch" which puts os-x into "software sleep aka Hibernate" and boots windows. When you hibernate windows, if os-x is already hibernating (sorry, soft sleeping) it comes back to life.

I guess what's in my head is the OS equivalent of "fast user-switching", i.e. "fast OS switching"

Pah, just thinking outloud

[bugfaceuk]

If you think it is a bad thing that Windows can possibly run natively on Intel Macs, you are either an elitist bastard or are as bad as Microsoft.

If you fall into the elitist bastard category, you believe that you must keep your precious Apple machines "pure". But never mind the fact that Microsoft has invested heavily in Apple. Never mind that computers are dumb machines, not some sort of holy artifacts. Never mind that the copyrights to both operating systems are owned by companies trying to make a profit, who have both engaged in business practices I consider unethical (maybe you disagree here), and both are closed-source. Yes, some of OS X is Free (as in Free Software), but the layers that really count aren't. There is really not much difference between these companies other than marketshare.

If you fall into the "as bad as Microsoft" category, you think that nothing should run on "your" platform, except your own things.

Shame on all of you who take this position.

I think that's over stating the case a little. Personally, I want to be able to run Windows on my Mintel (not intel mac, MINTEL, repeat after me, MINTEL). BUT it is foolish to ignore the business risk.

Let's say someone does something clever with virtualization and we get a dead easy dual-boot/fast os-switching solution. If people can run Windows software on their Mac hardware, why produce a mac version? The danger is that apple only manages to "half-transition" their users to the hardware, but not the OS. How much of a danger that is depends on SJ's medium->long term business plan, but a risk it is.

Based on my personal experience, people will only run Windows software "when they have to", but that needs to be reasonably rare to make sure they transition properly (i.e. os-x becomes their OS of choice).

[bugfaceuk]

I asked them. They said they wont comment on unreleased products.

They won't comment on unreleased products as in "we have a product, but it's not released"?

Sounds like they have a product to me. But it would TERRIBLE for Virtual PC to be gazzumped by a non-MS solution. Why oh why didn't Apple warn MS earlier, and why would they tell someone like VM ware first? Woe is me.

OK second bit is fantasy, and probably the first bit too... but you know, my iMac hasn't arrived yet.

[bugfaceuk]

I'll go one step further and venture to say that the ability to run Windows apps on Mac will help bring those apps to Mac natively!

* Windows on Mac boosts Mac sales.

* Mac sales boost OS X usage.

* OS X usage boosts OS X software sales.

* OS X software sales boost OS X software development. As the Mac market grows, more and more niche apps will be considered worth porting.

* Plus (a lesser factor) users of those apps who are on a Mac will wish they could just run them natively--much like people prefer OS X apps to Classic apps--and that feedback will be coming to those developers, direct from current customers.

I would certainly hope that is how it will pan out. Would be silly to ignore the risk factor however.

As I've said before, given I've been through the transition in the last month without the convience of being able to do both on a single machine, I would expect OS-X to win in the "what I want to use when I'm not forced" stakes.

[cgc]

actually i want to put linux,windows, and mac on my comp :D
I have them all...but Windows 2000 is run via VPX. Ubuntu Linux it a dual boot job and is sweet.

[lucas]

not intel mac, MINTEL, repeat after me, MINTEL
And that, folks, is why bugfaceuk isn't in marketing. geez, Mintel is worse than "macbook pro"

[maverick808]

And that, folks, is why bugfaceuk isn't in marketing. geez, Mintel is worse than "macbook pro"

Agreed, "MIntel" has to be one of the worst names I've ever read.

[bugfaceuk]

And that, folks, is why bugfaceuk isn't in marketing. geez, Mintel is worse than "macbook pro"

LOL, and the irony is, I am! Tsk. Don't suppose you think the new PowerMacs should be called Big Macs either then?

(P.S. just for my own pride's sake, the worst performing product line I market grew 29% during 2005, and the best 120%, so must be doing something right).

<<mutters>>

[cal6n]

LOL, and the irony is, I am! Tsk...

snip

...and the best 120%, so must be doing something right).

<<mutters>>

Are you perchance marketing confectionary products? That would explain much...

[bugfaceuk]

Are you perchance marketing confectionary products? That would explain much...

LOL, no, software. OK OK the shame is too much, I'll do my best to try and exit gracefully.

[cal6n]

Couldn't resist it, sorry!

:D

[bigandy]

If apple sells macs preloaded with windows, do you think that people would be buying dell, hp, toshibas or acers??


I agree with you, but i don't think it will happen - primarily because it would be pretty much giving up. Macs would lose their identity, something that comes as much from the hardware as from the software. You take half that away and you're not getting a Mac.

Apple will likely never sell Windows preloaded on a Mac. I believe that while it's going to be possible to chuck Vista and future OS's on it, direct selling of their biggest competitor's OS is about as likely as me coughing up a small rabbit.

[absurdio]

This isn't really the question at hand, but would it make any difference if you installed Windows to an external HD and then booted from that? I'm not really computer literate enough even to know if that's a stupid question. But I do have an external HD and a bunch of curiosity, so if anyone has an answer...

[Randall]

This isn't really the question at hand, but would it make any difference if you installed Windows to an external HD and then booted from that? I'm not really computer literate enough even to know if that's a stupid question. But I do have an external HD and a bunch of curiosity, so if anyone has an answer...Nope, it's been tried. An external HD won't help, the problems have to do with Windows needing ACPI support and Apple not having it in their EFI drivers. The EFI drivers on the new iMacs are completely stripped down and have only what it needs to boot OS X and nothing else. People are currently working on this for us. Don't give up hope yet. XP is looking unlikely, but Vista has some EFI support, so there is an outside chance somebody will get it working on Mactel.

[SmegFirk]

Has anyone considered the MacBooks may have more to their EFI than the iMacs.. Apple could give the 'pro' machines the option and not the consumer ones.. although that would suck if true.

[GregA]

I guess we can hope that when Microsoft releases VPC for Intel Macs, they allow you to run in a virtual machine OR dual-boot. Same desktop, different hardware configuration. You'd have to run off another partition for this to work obviously (not a virtual hard disk).

[strange days]

here's a link to a website offering thousands of dollars to the first person coming up with a solution for booting XP on the new Macs...

http://condoski.com/The%20Contest.html

...seems like a good idea to me :cool:

[bugfaceuk]

here's a link to a website offering thousands of dollars to the first person coming up with a solution for booting XP on the new Macs...

http://condoski.com/The%20Contest.html

...seems like a good idea to me :cool:

This proves something I've been trying to tell my wife since the announcement of the whole Apple Loves Intel thing... there are people more desperate and stupid than I am!

Great idea though :-)

[jblodgett]

I must be insane- but I am much more interested in the idea of loading the Apple OS onto my windows machines, rather than running windows on my Mac.

I like Apple for the OS, not for the hardware.

[peharri]

after a brief stint of hating the macbook pro name, i have come to realize that it is relatively unimportant. by talking about more adament protestors' signatures that mention they will boycott the macbook name, we flexible mac users empower their strike. we call attention to their struggle and it will just go on longer. why don't we just ignore it?
And it's not as if "PowerBook" is much better, the ultimate PHB name for a laptop (indeed, the prefixing of "Power" to everything is a sure sign the marketeers think, rightly or wrongly, that they have a tough sell on their hands. eg. PowerPoint, a slideshow creation and display program. PowerPoint? Geez.)

Those criticising the MacBook name should possibly count themselves lucky that Apple at least honoured the Mac enough to use its name, instead of calling it the XBook, or worse, the iBook Extreme, both of which would have fit into the current naming conventions in much the same way that PowerBook fit into 1990s naming conventions. (I just know someone's itching to tell me that the PowerBook was named after the CPU so just to pre-empt you, nope, it wasn't, the first PBs had 68000s. The "Power" prefix was pretentious marketing, as in PowerPoint, not as in PowerPC. The fact the next generation of CPUs had Power in the name was a nice coincidence.)

It's an ok name. I don't think it's wonderful, and I'm sure Apple can come up with better, but for now, it works and it does, at least, pay homage to the laptop's history. Far more so, in fact, than "PowerBook."

[FFTT]

Getting Windows to run natively on the Intel based Macs will certainly drive Apple hardware sales, but I also understand the driving force behind those who want to run OS X natively on their high end AMD Opteron Workstations.

To me there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting the best OS running on your finest gear.

[pgwalsh]

I must be insane- but I am much more interested in the idea of loading the Apple OS onto my windows machines, rather than running windows on my Mac.

I like Apple for the OS, not for the hardware.I'll be insane with you.

[eme jota ce]

some guy is offering a cash reward to anyone or group that can boot Windows XP on the intel macs.

Anyone here interested in contributing to or reaping the reward should see the link below for details.




http://winxponmac.com/The%20Contest.html

[artifex]

To me there is very little confusion about why people are spending their time and energy to get Windows to run on Apple hardware. Put simply, they are doing it because it hasn't been done before. Let's say someone manages a sloppy hack and gets Vista to run. A month later someone will still be working to make the process easier and more "novice friendly". You work at it for days and weeks at a time because it is challenging. If, after you're done, someone uses your discovery to run Outlook on an iMac, so be it. For most this is not the primary motivation.

For some people, simply standing in awe of a majestic mountain is thrilling enough; others are compelled to climb.

Here's to getting Pro/E on a PowerMac by 2007!!

That's not what confuses me. What confuses me is when idiots go and brick their systems, and then whine about it, claiming it's Apple's fault that they were able to screw them up.

[pawnstar]

It's getting reported on other sites eg

http://www.mobilegamefaqs.com/newsstory.php?id=385

btw there's some info here for people who may have messed up their intel mac's efi:

http://nak.journalspace.com/?cmd=displaycomments&dcid=407&entryid=407

[FaasNat]

I must be insane- but I am much more interested in the idea of loading the Apple OS onto my windows machines, rather than running windows on my Mac.

I like Apple for the OS, not for the hardware.
That's kinda how I feel......

I mean, their hardware is nice, but I'm okay with running OS X on "regular" looking hardware as long as it's OS X.

Though I'd still want to be able to boot Windows so I can play my games.... :D

[asherman13]

That's kinda how I feel......

I mean, their hardware is nice, but I'm okay with running OS X on "regular" looking hardware as long as it's OS X.

Personally, I'm addicted to both Mac hardware and software. I also, however, wouldn't mind being able to play a few games.

Anybody had any luck yet with dual booting?

[mercury26]

To me there is very little confusion about why people are spending their time and energy to get Windows to run on Apple hardware. Put simply, they are doing it because it hasn't been done before.


You must not work in a corporation where the majority of the users are Windows and MS Office users. I use a PowerBook and use the MS Office suite (Entourage, Word, Excel, etc), but the suite does not contain Visio or Microsoft Project. I get many, many, many files in MPP and Visio Drawing (vdx) format. For me to convert, requires me to VPN back into my office to convert to something my Mac will recognize, for instance Visio XML or JPG. Since I travel a lot this not always practical, but man would be great to boot into Windows so I can convert files. Also, I get technical tools for equipment I work with that is Windows only and not always work with VPC. So it would be great to boot in to Windows mode, do my work and then move on back to the Mac. A lot of people in the business community are forced to work in a dual world, having the equipment to handle it is invaluable.

Cheers,

CHuck