This is what I have been waiting for. Not for Windows, that's junk, but for the ability to run GNU/Linux on a MacBook. The new firmware was one of the best things I've ever seen Apple do in a long time.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Intel Mac Firmware Update Brings BIOS Support
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
funny....
everyone always complains and moans about how bad windows is, and how Mac is the better operating system, but give mac users a chance to run windows on their computer natively and everyone is all or it. Oh well, i guess i'm one of them, because i think what apple did is great and will definately get more switchers.
everyone always complains and moans about how bad windows is, and how Mac is the better operating system, but give mac users a chance to run windows on their computer natively and everyone is all or it. Oh well, i guess i'm one of them, because i think what apple did is great and will definately get more switchers.
Disagree!
It has nothing to do with the notion that perhaps, Apple just started development of the XP boot capabilities "last month". The point is, Apple was likely not going to "show their hand" on any of this until OS X Leopard was released. But the hackers coming along as far and as quickly as they did on making XP boot on Intel Macs drove Apple to release a beta of *their* version of it. Otherwise, they'd simply look bad - because the masses would think they just "copied" off the other guys/stole their code.
It has nothing to do with the notion that perhaps, Apple just started development of the XP boot capabilities "last month". The point is, Apple was likely not going to "show their hand" on any of this until OS X Leopard was released. But the hackers coming along as far and as quickly as they did on making XP boot on Intel Macs drove Apple to release a beta of *their* version of it. Otherwise, they'd simply look bad - because the masses would think they just "copied" off the other guys/stole their code.
shamino said:
I mostly agree with your thoughts, although if Apple had released their solution later, I hope most folks would have realised that Apple's solution (adding BIOS support to the firmware) is totally different from the hackers solution.kingtj said:
JasonElise1983 said:
I've done the dual boot also but I can guarantee you OS X is a far superior O/S.
ymmv
kingtj said:
NO WAY YOU guys are getting the LAST PART ALL WRONG
The reason Apple needed to JUMP on this QUICKLY is because the MacBook Pro BENCHMARKED AS THE FAST WINDOWS XP MACchine ON THE PLANET
So they needed to ship that capability STANDARD so they can get OTHER VERY CREDIBLE BENCHMARKS with XP ...
... BECAUSE THOSE FACTS WILL SELL MACs LIKE CRAZY
At last Apple is responding to market opportunities like an ordinary WELL RUN COMPANY !!!
I really don't know what to make of the timing of this release. On the one hand it would seem Apple should take advantage of this groundbreaking capability with a media event, perhaps coinciding with a belated birthday celebration. However, unveiling this now may prove the superiority of Apple hardware and ramp up the momentum for a new release at WWDC.
Either way, I find the proper retort to any MS fans criticizing Apple users for the added BIOS support and Windows capability on Macintosh machines is to point out that they seem to run XP better than anything else out there.
Either way, I find the proper retort to any MS fans criticizing Apple users for the added BIOS support and Windows capability on Macintosh machines is to point out that they seem to run XP better than anything else out there.
Provided that I have updated the EFI firmware and that I have the BootCamp driver disc, can I simply install Windows XP directly on the Mac just like I would on any PC, in other words without the BootCamp bootloader utility or dual-boot setup?
As for the reason why, I use a Windows utility that installs its own bootloader for Windows XP and which doesn't work with any other kind of bootloaders, multi-boot setups or partitioned drives...
As for the reason why, I use a Windows utility that installs its own bootloader for Windows XP and which doesn't work with any other kind of bootloaders, multi-boot setups or partitioned drives...
bgd78 said:
I'm gonna guess that Boot Camp handles the Mac/Windows bridge between things... Macs use a different partition scheme, which changed again with EFI, and that must be held in check so that Windows doesn't mess up the Mac side of things.
Besides, the EFI bootloader (like the OF bootloader before it) isn't the first sector of your hard drive but rather a seperate part of the computer. Try it, but keep an OS X install disk handy.
OS X vs Windows Performance on a Mac [MacWorld Expo]
Oh baby with all of you still making me drool 3yrs & counting (brief 3 month excursion to Mac OS X 10.1.5) are any of you just waiting to see Apple present say 4 machines (Gateway, Dell, Dell's Alienware, etc) vs there's for WinXP performance on a Mac?!
Match this:
Photoshop on WinXP > Dell vs Alienware vs Gateway vs Apple
& Other OS Apps (likely on equal spec laptops just to show the disparity.)
Then offset that performance of doing the same Windows based task (ie movie to DVD authoring, etc) vs Mac OS X's tools to do the same and show the quality & timing variable.
Then finally bring out the BIG guns and show them up .... with ....
Alienware's then current (Aug '06) Top Desktop.
Dell's then current top XPS system.
Gateway's then current top Desktop.
vs
Apple's new DUAL quad-core Mac! (30th Anniversary celebrated machine)!!
Sorry with so many specific threads already showing this I wasnt sure if a new thread or post would be better.
PS this is the final straw .... no more cool cellphones (after the N80 - I have a cellphone fetish) until the MacBookPro is mine!
Oh baby with all of you still making me drool 3yrs & counting (brief 3 month excursion to Mac OS X 10.1.5) are any of you just waiting to see Apple present say 4 machines (Gateway, Dell, Dell's Alienware, etc) vs there's for WinXP performance on a Mac?!
Match this:
Photoshop on WinXP > Dell vs Alienware vs Gateway vs Apple
& Other OS Apps (likely on equal spec laptops just to show the disparity.)
Then offset that performance of doing the same Windows based task (ie movie to DVD authoring, etc) vs Mac OS X's tools to do the same and show the quality & timing variable.
Then finally bring out the BIG guns and show them up .... with ....
Alienware's then current (Aug '06) Top Desktop.
Dell's then current top XPS system.
Gateway's then current top Desktop.
vs
Apple's new DUAL quad-core Mac! (30th Anniversary celebrated machine)!!
Sorry with so many specific threads already showing this I wasnt sure if a new thread or post would be better.
PS this is the final straw .... no more cool cellphones (after the N80 - I have a cellphone fetish) until the MacBookPro is mine!
You meanProm1 said:
Dell's new DUAL quad-core workstation.
Gateway's new DUAL quad-core workstation.
Gateway's new DUAL quad-core workstation.
vs
Apple's new DUAL quad-core Mac!Everybody gets Intel chips at the same time - didn't you notice that Apple was the last vendor to announce Yonah systems? (By a few days, and only because Jobs wanted the spotlight to himself at MWSF...)
AidenShaw said:
And that's a good thing. We need to level the playing field on the chips so we can compare Apples to PCs. Let the OS and the design be the focus. And since Macs can run Windows, that's not a hurdle either. Mac: awesome design, OS, and can run windows. PC: can run windows. 3-1 Apple wins. Yeah they cost more. So what? You get what you pay for.
being a long time PC user who was intorduced to macs via my job, i have to say that this is very cool, i tested a set up on a 17" imac bootcamp worked perfectly. i have also installed some pc apps like photoshop cs and ms office, usually these tkae a bout 5-10mintes each when i set them up on my pc at home but both finished on the imac 2 minutes and they have all been running very smoolty since i have been leaning to MAC ever since i started working on them but was hesitant to change beacue i need cetain apps that are PC only, but now that this option is available the MAC is looking better and better
awoodhouse said:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/terms.html
The term of this License shall commence upon your installation or use of the Apple Software and will terminate automatically without notice from Apple upon the next commercial release of the Apple Software, or September 30, 2007, whichever occurs first.
Stridder44 said:
Apple has already announced that 10.5 will be universal. They pretty much have to, they'll be selling PPC macs until at least a month or two before 10.5 ships, and may still be selling them.
EricBrian said:
The same day they decide to no longer make a profit and go out of business.
Abercrombieboy said:
If that were true, why is any company making a mac version of anything? There are millions of mac users, that's millions of potential sales. With a game, if you sell 100k copies at $50 bucks a pop, that's five million in sales. If a company can't PORT a game for five million bucks, they're completely incompitent.
AidenShaw said:
But weren't they the first to ship? Did anyone else ship yonah systems before the imac?
Assuming there will be a comparable system.AidenShaw said:
Gateway and Dell only ship dual-processors in servers (which have minimal graphics and sound capabilities.) And those servers usually cost quite a lot more than PowerMac systems.
Apple is the only company I know of that ships dual-processor boxes with good graphics and surround sound as standard equipment, and for less than $5000. To get this in a PC, you almost always have to go the "build it yourself" route.
shamino said:
Not true. Both are shipping the exact same core duos that Apple is shipping. You didn't know that?
And until Intel came along, APPLE only shipped multi processor machines in their most expensive configs. The quad is over three grand.
Now that we're on intel, expect the exact same chip configs from apple and everyone else. That's the whole point of the transition.
Those are single processor boxes. The post I was referring to said dual quad-core processors. Well, those chips don't exist yet, but the nearest equivalent are dual dual-core. Which Apple ships (in the PMG5), and everybody else only ships in servers.milo said:
A single core-duo chip is not the same thing.
And the closest equivalent from Gateway is a dual dual-Xeon server, which costs over $4000 and has pathetic graphics and no sound. What's your point?milo said:
Except it won't happen. As I pointed out (and you ignored), the PC vendors don't ship anything even close to a PMG5, except in their server products, which cost more and don't have any desktop-oriented features.milo said:
Why do you think this will change when the PowerMac goes Intel? Apple will be shipping dual Core-Duo (or dual dual-Xeon, or dual-Merom, or whatever else is popular at the time) chips, and the PC makers will only ship them in servers.
shamino said:
Semantics. From a consumer standpoint, there's no difference in performance or use between a dual core chip or two single core chips.
The reason things change with intel is because intel is finally coming out with dual (and more) core chips that aren't insanely expensive. If Apple had to use Xeon, their quad machine would be $5000 too. The xeon and comparable chips are way more expensive than dual core G5's. Upcoming dual and quad chips from intel are much more affordable (just like the core duos are now) and will be used much more widely, by apple and by everyone else.
Not to mention that peecee companies haven't had to go with multi processor systems to compete with apple's boxes. In most cases a single core intel chip was competitive with a dual core G5. With everybody on intel, it's a level playing field. Pricing depends on build cost plus markup. Apple will have the same build cost as everyone else, what makes you so sure that nobody else will match apple's specs or beat their price for high end workstations?
Are you deliberately ignoring what I write or are you having a problem with the English?milo said:
The thread I was replying to was talking about dual multi-core systems, and you keep on talking about single-CPU systems
The fact is, whether you care you admit it or not, is that Apple is the only company selling this kind of hardware with multimedia capabilities and they are doing it for a much lower price. And even fron a consumer standpoint, there is a difference between a quad-core system and a dual-core system.
The PPC 970 isn't exactly a bargain-basement processor either.milo said:
And dual-CPU PC's don't have to be Xeon based. All Pentium-series chips can work in dual-CPU configurations. But you have never seen a non-server box sold in this configuration, despite the easy availability of motherboards.
Really? Last I looked, the retail price was about the same. And if you're going to quote wholesale bulk-purchase prices, Intel offers the same discounts that IBM does. Do you really think 50% of the price of a MacBook is for that Core Duo chip?milo said:
And Apple's PowerMac line will have models featuring two of them, for about $3000-3500, while the PC vendors will only sell that configuration in $4000-5000 server systems.milo said:
You have not provided any evidence to suggest that this will not be the case.
Because, historically, the PC market has never made high-end workstations. They've made run-of-the-mill desktops and high-end servers. The high-end workstations you find are either generic PC's with off-the-shelf upgrades, or they are not PC-based (like those from Sun and SGI). And in either case, they end up costing more than Apple's PowerMac line.milo said:
What makes you think they're all of a sudden going to switch their focus from cutting costs to maximizing performance? To Apple, this is a big transformation. To the rest of the industry, the Core Duo is just another chip that will be distributed in the same old PC's that they've been making up until now.