Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Windows XP Booting on Intel Macs?

quietmind said:
Why on earth would anyone want Windows on a Mac? Go buy a regular PC if you want that. Like buying a Chevy, but wanting the insides to have only Ford components.
Click to expand...

Just because you have no need to use XP and OS X on a Mac doesn't mean that no-one does. I would love to be able to ditch my huge full tower and replace it (and my current Mac Mini) with a Power Mac when they go Intel. There are some applications - Chief Architect, Visual Studio 2005 and SQL Server 2005 - that just aren't available on a Mac. Therefore I would be very pleased if it would be possible to run XP or Vista on an Intel-powered Mac.

Some posters on here (the "why?" crowd) need to become a little more open-minded. Some people have different needs and desires to you. Just accept it.
 
DeathChill said:
And a decent emulation engine (e.g. QEmu, Bochs, etc) doesn't work unless you don't want to play ANY 3D games as there's no support for them. Sometimes you need the real thing.
Click to expand...

I think gamers overestimate the demand for 3D games on the PC. Because that's what they and all their friends are doing, they think everyone is.

There were 210-220 million PCs sold last year, while there were 38 million games for the PC sold.

I don't know what the breakdown in figures are for 3D games in that 38 million, but even if it's as high as 1/2, that means only 10% of PCs are running 3D games, and I'm pretty sure it's a lot less. Battlefield 2 and Call of Duty 2 are the only FPS games in the top ten games for North America last year, and serious gamers buy more than one game a year.

Console games outsold PC games 5 to 1 in 2005.

So for >> 90% of users, virtualization on dual core systems should be more than sufficient.

That's not to say I wouldn't like to be able to occasionally dip into a 3D game or two, but the last game I bought was MOHAA back in 2003, so it's not a huge need or wish on my part.
 
I know for me, it would have to be super easy to do this dual booting stuff before I would touch it.

It would have to be as easy as "push the green button and restart"

After paying a ton of cash for this premium OS called osx, I wouldn't dream of tinkering around with the guts of my machine just so I could stare at windows.

Also,

This "hack" would have to work flawlessly for me to risk my machine. Games and apps would have to be smooth and solid all the time for me to try this.

And I think I speak for a lot of non mega tech people.

If I needed windows that badly, I would find the cash for a little dell thing, they're so cheap now anyway.

I'll stick with VPC 7 until this is that easy and less risky, and eventually I bet it will be.
 
IJ Reilly said:
What? Please, just look at them. I've explained why at least one of them is so clearly a fake. Don't ask me to explain why anybody would fabricate such an obvious hoax image when they could have done a better job. I'm more curious about why anyone would choose to overlook such glaringly obvious flaws.
Click to expand...

Man, honestly. Get any camera, point it at the TV and if there's any movement whatsoever the image on the TV will shift and blur.

It sounds like you're trying to be smart by pointing out these obvious flaws in these obviously photoshopped images.

Yet, so far you're the only person who thinks they are photoshopped? Is everyone else on here overlooking these 'glaringly obvious flaws'....?
 
The fact that there seems to be no real info, just screenshots, tickles my skeptic bone something fierce. The fact that at least one of them looks a little off (screen image seems to float past physical objects in the picture) as noted by IJ Reilly, nudges it a little more. Could just be something weird with the lighting, but you have to admit it looks off.

Without more evidence, I'm gonna have to call fake.

As others pointed out, there are numerous easy ways to fake something like this:

  • Virtual PC running full screen.
  • Remote Desktop Client running full screen (I do this nearly every day on my iBook, anyone want some "proof" that it runs XP? :D)
  • Pasted screenshot from Windows as jpg, png, etc.
  • Elaborate Photoshop job (which would be stupid, considering how much easier the above could be).

Proof would need to come in the form of video (much harder to fake a la Photoshop for images), or the simplest form of proof: instructions! Where are they? The day those show up (and they will, eventually...), I'll believe. Maybe this is it, maybe not.
 
It may sound odd, but honestly, i think one reason a lot of people want to see this is for the fact of being ABLE to run anything they want. If they have a program that REQUIRES windows, then they can run it, if they have a program that is Mac only, then they can run it, if it requires Active X, they can run it, if it's some small crappy shareware program developed only for windows, they can run it. Essentially i like the idea of having complete freedom, even if it means i have to pay a little more for it. Perhaps one day i'll just break down and buy an apple in additon to my Dell, but for the time being, i think a dual boot sounds fun.
 
bankshot said:
The fact that there seems to be no real info, just screenshots, tickles my skeptic bone something fierce. The fact that at least one of them looks a little off (screen image seems to float past physical objects in the picture) as noted by IJ Reilly, nudges it a little more. Could just be something weird with the lighting, but you have to admit it looks off.

Without more evidence, I'm gonna have to call fake.

As others pointed out, there are numerous easy ways to fake something like this:

  • Virtual PC running full screen.
  • Remote Desktop Client running full screen (I do this nearly every day on my iBook, anyone want some "proof" that it runs XP? :D)
  • Pasted screenshot from Windows as jpg, png, etc.
  • Elaborate Photoshop job (which would be stupid, considering how much easier the above could be).

Proof would need to come in the form of video (much harder to fake a la Photoshop for images), or the simplest form of proof: instructions! Where are they? The day those show up (and they will, eventually...), I'll believe. Maybe this is it, maybe not.
Click to expand...

Fakes they may well be. But photoshop fakes, no way! Anyone with an once of computer knowledge knows how to get an image to display full screen.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
 
RichP said:
Current emulation will not cut it. 95% of the people who have a need for Windows on a Mac need full hardware acceleration, INCLUDING VIDEO! Dual-boot offers this. Ideally, I would love to have VPC will full access to resources, and keep windows where it belongs, in a mac-controlled windows. Until this day, I applaud the efforts of Narf and others.
Click to expand...
I think 95% is overstating it, by about 90%.

Try not to generalize from your own experience. How many PC users run AutoCAD? I don't know any. But just because I don't know any doesn't mean I'm going to say that NO ONE will want to run AutoCAD.

Decent virtualization that uses a single core of a dual core system will be sufficient for most people.

However, it's not an either/or situation. Why not have dual boot AND emulation? For most people virtualization/emulation will be fine. Some people (like myself) will want to run their system like that most of the time, but will want to have the option of dual booting for particularly intensive tasks, like 3D games.
 
Yes, we want Windows please

I have owned about ten Apple computers over the years, as well as the odd PC box. I'm currently all-Mac, but would desperately like to be able to run full-on Windows without buying another box. I've tried VPC, it simply does not play well with GPS units f(http://www.cycoactive.com/gps/gps_vpc.html), nor does it work well with several other programs I need to run periodically. Right now I use a friend's PC when I need to, but that's annoying, I'd like to run full-blown Windows on my Mac. This is not some sort of sacrilegous statement, it's just reality. Some people can't understand this, fine, but stop telling me I don't need to run Windows, I do.

I have several friends who need to run data and processing intense programs (oil field stuff) that just don't play well in VPC. They would buy a Macbook Pro in a heartbeat if they could run PC programs at full speed. Some people are worried that developers of the "big" programs will stop developing OS X versions of their programs if Macs can run these programs in Windows, but most people don't want to mess abou with re-booting or funko shell programs. The demand will still be there for Mac versions of the major programs, it will just be a plus to those who make and use low-volume PC software if that software can run on OS X too. I expect the ability to run Windows will in the long run lead to more, not less, market share for Apple.
 
AidenShaw said:
There's simply no need to support EFI for 32-bit computers, at least no benefit worth the expense.
Click to expand...

They have support for it built into the 64-bit versions of Windows as both the AMD and Intel machines don't have BIOS, but EFI. I can't imagine it would be that hard to compile for 32-bit.
 
I haven't really read anything about this x86 booting thing, but um, have they tried installing an EFI compatible linux and running XP through VMWare under Linux?
 
mark88 said:
Yet, so far you're the only person who thinks they are photoshopped? Is everyone else on here overlooking these 'glaringly obvious flaws'....?
Click to expand...

Hardly. In this thread and the other running on this topic, others have expressed similar doubts. Just so we're clear on what I'm talking about, I've cropped and enlarged the portion of the image I think strongly suggests a hoax. Look at the right side of the iMac, and match that line with the right edge of the blue screen. Now tell me how any photographic accident could produce such different angles. It's not a matter of blurriness. In fact, the edge of the screen image is surprisingly sharp compared to the fuzziness of the rest of the photo -- which btw I take as even more evidence that this photo is a crude fraud.
 

Attachments

  • hoax_edit.jpg
    hoax_edit.jpg
    15.5 KB · Views: 152
dansgil said:
Am I the only one here who thinks a Virtual PC solution would be better? because no processor emulation is needed, Windows should run at full speed. Virtual PC eliminates the need to have to boot to switch between OS's.

Just my opinion. :)
Click to expand...

You certainly are not. A VPC like solution WOULD be the best for certain (many?) people who use Macs/OS X for 96% of the work they do, and have a smattering of Windows programs they (usually must) use because no comporable program exists. Could be AutoCAD/3DSMax for the Architects, Various server tools for the sysadmins who must work in a windows enterprise environment, IE for windows for the web developers, etc. Dual booting is justnot convienient enough. For the gamers and others, it would be the way to go, but as we know, everyone's different.

I have little doubt that a VMWare like solution will come our way within the next year. I look forward to that day impatiently.
 
I don't have time to digg through the entire thread to see if anyone has thought of this, but are we sure that the machine he is running is an intel mac? He very well could be running an iMac G5 rev.C with Virtual PC in full-screen mode and making everyone think that he is really close to a solution. I have seen no screenshots to make me believe he is actually running an intel mac.
 
IJ Reilly said:
Hardly. In this thread and the other running on this topic, others have expressed similar doubts. Just so we're clear on what I'm talking about, I've cropped and enlarged the portion of the image I think strongly suggests a hoax. Look at the right side of the iMac, and match that line with the right edge of the blue screen. Now tell me how any photographic accident could produce such different angles. It's not a matter of blurriness. In fact, the edge of the screen image is surprisingly sharp compared to the fuzziness of the rest of the photo -- which btw I take as even more evidence that this photo is a crude fraud.
Click to expand...

I don't understand this. There is something in front of the Mac, thats why the angles don't match. I think it is probably another screen.
 
Glassbathroom said:
I don't understand this. There is something in front of the Mac, thats why the angles don't match. I think it is probably another screen.
Click to expand...

Some think it's a Dell monitor. Still looks off to me.
 
BRLawyer said:
Sorry, but you really don't get my point. If you really need to run Winblows, you WILL buy a PC, period.

And the examples you gave are, to be honest, very irrelevant in my view, as I've never heard of "Revit"...Architectural CAD has always been better on Macs, and I know several offices that just rely on Apples for their work. As for AutoCAD, they are already considering a version for Mac, not to mention the gamut of CAD/rendering packages that exist on the Mac for ages.
Click to expand...

Revit is an ArchiCAD like building information modeling package that AutoDesk bought. Some people think it was ahead of its time before AD bought the company. As far as Auto Desk considering an AutoCAD version for Mac, that's like saying Microsoft is considering improving security in Windows. It may happen, but there's no telling when. I'm not holding my breath.
 
mark88 said:
Can you point out why they are obvious fakes? They don't look fake to me.
Click to expand...

If they weren't fakes they wouldn't be so blurred...they are like most UFO pics...the only difference is that the guy was at his place, and could've shot MUCH better pictures with just a few more minutes of concentration...sorry, but it's a FAKE...NEXT!
 
It's all carefully planned in the Apple headquarters.

- intelMacs not compatible with Windows but only with the bios/efi problem
- osX intel not compatible with PC's but don't make it to hard to crack
- Let the hackers crack the incompatibility, don't jump up and down with joy but also don't work against it. Apple can update every iApp, iTunes or QT to not run properly on PC's but they chose not to do that, why?
- All this piracy of the OS will force Apple to open up osX to PC's, there was no other option, yes?

OSX, Windows, Mac and PC's will finally blend together and live side by side. :)
 
Does Apple really want this?

While I admit the prospect of running Windows on my mac sounds great, giving me access to a host of apps not otherwise available, I am not so sure this is the silver lining we have been waiting for - rather, it may be a poison pill. If someone gets Windows running on a mac, how long before someone else sues to get OS X running on regular PC hardware? Apple has tied X to it's hardware for a reason - but some of the PC crowd will cry foul at not being able to achieve a reversal of fortune. A la MS, some judge will rule monopoly against Apple and force OS X to be rewritten for booting on any PC hardware and thus eat into mac hardware sales and R&D.

Now maybe I'm too skeptical, and I know many will say mac hardware is superior so why would anyone buy a cheap PC to run OS X, but surely it will happen (just look at the Mac clones from the 90's). DOn't underestimate the market forces.

-GDawg
 
longofest said:
I don't have time to digg through the entire thread to see if anyone has thought of this, but are we sure that the machine he is running is an intel mac? He very well could be running an iMac G5 rev.C with Virtual PC in full-screen mode and making everyone think that he is really close to a solution. I have seen no screenshots to make me believe he is actually running an intel mac.
Click to expand...

You don't need to dig much. Others have suggested this and several other ways the screen shots could be faked.

I'm not sure this makes sense, but the ease with which these screen shots can be faked makes me think they are real. :)

Anyway, if it isn't real this time, then it will be soon: It's possible. It doesn't matter how difficult it is--there are amazing hackers who will work it out anyway (go hackers, go)
 
Greydog said:
If someone gets Windows running on a mac, how long before someone else sues to get OS X running on regular PC hardware?
Click to expand...
Dude, this is old news. OS X runs on generic PC hardware with certain hacks. The question is main-stream availability, which will never happen. Windows on Macs, however, is already being shrinkwrapped.
`
 
Hah! Get ready to eat crow

Everyone here who doubts that this is real will be singing a different tune after next week. And the guy who got it to work will be $12k richer, and laughing all the way to the bank.

Like every other board, it's filled with nabobs who are all talk. In the technical world everything is possible if you have enough time and talent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back