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

More on Booting Windows on the Intel Mac?

Randall said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
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!!
 
Randall said:
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:
Click to expand...

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
 
ClamIAm said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
dguisinger said:
I asked them. They said they wont comment on unreleased products.
Click to expand...

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.
 
nagromme said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
MacRumoron said:
actually i want to put linux,windows, and mac on my comp :D
Click to expand...
I have them all...but Windows 2000 is run via VPX. Ubuntu Linux it a dual boot job and is sweet.
 
lucas said:
And that, folks, is why bugfaceuk isn't in marketing. geez, Mintel is worse than "macbook pro"
Click to expand...

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>>
 
bugfaceuk said:
LOL, and the irony is, I am! Tsk...

snip

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

<<mutters>>
Click to expand...

Are you perchance marketing confectionary products? That would explain much...
 
cal6n said:
Are you perchance marketing confectionary products? That would explain much...
Click to expand...

LOL, no, software. OK OK the shame is too much, I'll do my best to try and exit gracefully.
 
chuchin said:
If apple sells macs preloaded with windows, do you think that people would be buying dell, hp, toshibas or acers??
Click to expand...


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.
 
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...
 
absurdio said:
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...
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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 said:
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 Contest.html

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

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 :)
 
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.
 
LGRW3919 said:
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?
Click to expand...
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."
 
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.
 
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