No EFI Support on Windows Vista?

[TiMacLover]

I am not familiar with any of this stuff but is there a possibility that Windows XP will one day boot from a Intel Mac?

 

[Jon the Heretic]

I am not familiar with any of this stuff but is there a possibility that Windows XP will one day boot from a Intel Mac?

From inside of MacOS X, no problem. I wouldn't want to play Half Life 2 that way, but it'd run productivity apps fantastically well.

Native booting is up to Apple and Microsoft; either could make it happen if they wanted to --- and perhaps a whole bunch of nameless hackers who have nothing better to do.

 

[seashellz]

Bwahahahaha!

Theyre going to have to name it "SHOEHORN" or "NOVIEW"
Seems like VISTA will be nothing more than a glorified XP v2;
Out of 100 planned new features, VISTA might just make 15 of them...

Dropping EFI-and sticking with BIOS-is like APPLE going back to OS 9... ;-)
---
And I fail to see some folks negative points of view on dual booting Macs/X on PC...
1. The APPLE faithfull will still buy APPLE hardware (apple wins)
2. Folks who need to use both OS's will likely move straight to Macs-if they are dual bootable (apple wins)
3. Folks Who would LIKE to try OS X but are unwilling or afraid to buy a Mac-might tend to buy OS X-to run on their PC.(apple wins-selling more copies of OS X)
4. Folks on PCs who can boot OS X are then more likely to buy a Mac-after seeing how cool it is-and especailly if they know
they can also boot Windows on it (apple wins again)

so wheres the problem?
It COULD be a win-win for APPLE-and maybe the start of a slowly accelerating downhill slide for MS...
(I know MS keeping BIOS-its prehistoric API.)

And again MS may be shooting themselves in the foot here-I expect many XP users were waiting for "that glorious future pie-in-the-sky vaporware, now known as VISTA"-with all its new advances, whistles, buttons and bells-will be enraged-at having to essentially buy XP all over again...glorified as it might be...

Long live the Blue Screen of Death!

 

[geegee]

Architecs + AutoCad

What I don't understand is why people seem to think that Windows-booting on Intel Macs seems to be so necessary. In my opinion, if you're going to buy a Mac, buy it for its merits now, not for what could possibly happen with Windows-booting. Even if there was Windows-booting, why in the world would you buy a Mac to run Windows? If anything, I think it would make more sense to buy Virtual PC or use some other emulation program, especially because now that we're on Intel chips, the cost of emulation/virtualization will be low and Windows should run fast in such an emulator/virtualizer.

But to buy a Mac and base your purchase on being able to run Windows in the future? That doesn't make sense.

To me, being able to run Windows on a Mac is kind of akin to being able to natively run Windows applications on the Mac via yellow box (or whatever that technology was supposed to be called). If it was really easy to do, and you could do it without doing any significant hacking, Windows developers would have no reason to write Mac-specific software, and would just say, "Go boot your Mac into Windows and then run our software! Why should we spend millions of dollars creating programs for you Mac users when you can run our program already?"

I don't have any problem with those savvy enough hacking Macs to dual-boot Windows. But when it becomes a standard or expected feature, the Mac platform will suffer. So I think, in a way, it's good that Vista won't support native EFI booting, and I'm glad that Apple isn't officially supporting running Windows on the Mac.

simX, an architect as me usually HAS TO use AutoCad software... which only works on a PC. So I would LOVE to have a Mac that could boot Windows... as I would ONLY use Windows for work purposes... got it?

 

[cr2sh]

Theyre going to have to name it "SHOEHORN" or "NOVIEW"
Seems like VISTA will be nothing more than XP v2;
Out of 100 planned features it might just make 15 of them...

Dropping EFI-and sticking with BIOS-is like APPLE going back to OS 9... ;-)

God.. that's exactly what I was thinking. This article is written with such a ****-eating grin..

"Apple owners can't boot Vista... sucks to be you."

When in reality it sucks more for all windows users who are stuck with the 20 year old BIOS.
This guy is so happy that Mac guys can't use both that he doesn't realize that it sucks more for Widnows users.

 

[windmaomao]

What? Apple is at fault for using current technology instead of early 1980s technology? I don't understand your argument at all. I guess I must be really dim.

in this case , yes. What this new technology do for us, NOTHING besides hurting.

 

[whyrichard]

simX, an architect, like me, that HAS TO use AutoCad software which only works on a PC, would LOVE to have a Mac that can boot Windows... as I just really hate windows and would use it ONLY for work purposes... got it?

i am in the same boat. i just darn well need it.

i have a windows desktop pc i use for work (architecture), and it is the first pc i have ever bought. My first computer was an apple IIc, and just yesterday the video portion of my ibook's motherboard just bit the dust.

After much thought, my options sit at two extremes.
1: purchase a cheap windows desktop for $600 to serve as a work computer at home...

or

2: purchase a macbook pro... that CAN double as my the mac laptop i always think I need, as well as a work computer for home that i know i need.


hmmmm.


r.

 

[SeaFox]

so the big positive points of Vista:

• WinFS filesystem - to replace NTFS
• MSH - the new script shell
• Trusted Computing module support

and now EFI support have all been chucked.

EFI, by the way, is still going to be around in the Server version...


but there's now little to differ Vista substantially from XP. Certainly not for an upgrade that's taken over FIVE YEARS to appear.

Actually, WinFS has been chucked, too. Sorry. They said maybe in "Black Forest" or whatever the major release after Vista is supposed to be.

 

[SeaFox]

Apple did not drop the ball. If Apple really wanted to they would have made impossible to boot into Windows from a Mac. But they choose not to.

I must be missing something here, becuase at the moment it is impossible to boot into Windows from a Mac, and it is because of a choice Apple made in motherboard design. What's changed in the last 24 hrs is now it will be impossible for a lot longer than several months.

 

[cr2sh]

it is impossible to boot into Windows from a Mac

But.. I... thought.. I .. saw a video... somewhere.. didn't I?

Wasn't it possible.. at one point?

 

[AidenShaw]

simultaneous

how far behind will 64bit Windows lag the 32bit release? Surely they'll come somewhat close together; it's not like they haven't already released an x86-64 version fo Windows.

Not that it'll run on a current Intel Mac, but I expect the "Mac Pro" will have x86-64, as Conroe is supposed to have that support.

The beta and CTP builds have released 32-bit Vista at the same time as 64-bit Vista. Every build builds both.

Go to nVidia's driver download page (http://www.nvidia.com/content/drivers/drivers.asp), and you'll see the 64-bit driver for the latest (5308) Vista build:

http://www.nvidia.com/object/winvista_x64_87.15.html

Windows Vista x64 February CTP
ForceWare Release 85
Version: 87.15
Release Date: February 24, 2006
Beta Driver​

 

[SeaFox]

Developers either hear less complaining about not having a Mac version and opt against porting to Mac or they drop Mac versions because Macs can run the Windows version.

There's the stipulation here that you would have to have Windows running on your Mac for this to work. If the interest in running dual-boot is so low, that will be few people in your userbase. So a developer who dropped their Mac version and told customers to use the Windows one would in effect be asking their users to spend an extra $200 to make their software work, and boot their machine into a separate environment away from other apps they might need to use.

Do you honestly see a software company doing something like this if they really give a crap about those users' business to start with? The fact they dropped the Mac development to begin with says, essentially, that those users are so few they aren't worth it to the company. I would find another product more likely.

This is the computer equivalent of cultural assimilation. In the end, Apple becomes just another PC vender.

Macintoshes have been able to read and write to PC format floppies since, the early 90's (whenever System 7.5 came out, or maybe it was 7.1). Anyway, I didn't see the Mac disk format dry up and vanish because of this. Today, I still have to buy a third party product to read mac disks on my Windows PC.

Apple computers being able to run Windows isn't "curtural assimilation" it's called "being compatable with the rest of the world" and it's one reason Linux flounders on the consumer desktop.

It has happen before. IBM's OS/2 Warp lost ground to Windows because it could coexist with Windows. It could run Windows apps and ran along side Windows on PCs. Developers stopped making OS/2 applications and pretty soon there was no real reason to run in OS/2.

I have to disagree with this example. OS/2 was a brand new platform. The Windows platform was already entrenched and therefore it made little sense to produce OS/2-only apps when you could write for Windows and get a Windows and OS/2 capable app. OSX/Windows dual booting would be an entirely different kettle of fish. Also, OS/2 fell because the people who made it (Microsoft, IBM, ect) didn't support it and promote it. They didn't release it as "what we're moving to" but as "another way of doing things". So nobody saw any reason to move to it. The Mac has a history and a huge software library and that's something OS/2 never got the chace to grow before being forced to compete head-to-head with Windows.

The last thing Apple needs is converts to the Mac platform who aren't really converting. People who would run both Mac OS X and Windows on a Mac have no vested interest in seeing the Mac platform survive. If Mac OS X was gone, what would they care... they have been hedging their bets anyways.

This viewpoint entirely ignored two things.

1) Not everyone can switch cold-turkey. If you have a crapload of data in apps on the Windows side, you're going to need to access them for awhile even if you start writing all you documents in Pages from here on out.

2) Some people have to use both platforms for reasons beyond their control, even though we really don't want to. Just becuase I use both Windows and Mac doesn't mean I don't prefer one over the other. Some of us have jobs where we don't have the luxury of saying "Yeah, I can't do that becuase I'm a Mac user."

 

[solidbreakz]

I don't really get all the fuss about this. This announcement doesn't surprise me at all. If fact I WAS surprised back in the earlier Vista dev stages when MS even reported to have EFI standard.

It's not that big of a deal. Who the HELL would want to boot a Mac into Vista anyway? I can see using apps in an emu environment...like a UB VPC or wine, etc. etc. Don't people just want Windows compatibility for windows apps? ..not the whole OS and its underpinnings..

If you think of it, it's actually GOOD that Vista will not support EFI in it's firest release. Anyone remember IBM OS/2? Remember what happened to it? Remember WHY? Personally the possibility of Win/Mac intertwining business troubles me a bit about OS X's future with developers.

 

[Shadow]

The only people who I can see sticking with a dual boot setup are gamers, because you tend to play a game for a long period of time. I'm not a gamer, I could find nothing more tedious than rebooting everytime I needed to switch application, and I am one of the people who needs certain Windows apps.

The fact that dual booting would be more appealing to gamers brings up another thing. Gamers tinker with their computers more than anyone! I highly doubt an Imac is likely to satisfy a hardcore gamer, or any mac for that matter.

luko, you are the only one who is talking any sense! I agree, rebooting to use an app would be extremley tedious, so much that it defeats the point of getting a Mac!

If you need Windows apps, just don't get a Mac. And if you argue that "I like OS X better and I want to use it" just get a PC. Sacrificing a make of computer is far better than loosing your job because you don't have the right kind of computer.

 

[cr2sh]

luko, you are the only one who is talking any sense! I agree, rebooting to use an app would be extremley tedious, so much that it defeats the point of getting a Mac!

If you need Windows apps, just don't get a Mac. And if you argue that "I like OS X better and I want to use it" just get a PC. Sacrificing a make of computer is far better than loosing your job because you don't have the right kind of computer.

No.

If I'm using a program like CAD, its not like I'm jumping from one program in Windows... back to another in OsX every half hour. You boot, work say 8 hours.. and then maybe go back to OS X. Booting to one OS... and then 8 hours later rebooting into another OS is not tedious. You're being silly.

I own both machines now.. I have two monitors now.. I have two keybaords.. two mice.

Yet.. when I work in Windows (I want to WORK in Windows) and when I get home... the Mac is my video, photo, fun machine. Taking up twice as much desktop and work space... for no reason at all, doesn't make sense to me.

 

[solidbreakz]

If you need Windows apps, just don't get a Mac. And if you argue that "I like OS X better and I want to use it" just get a PC. Sacrificing a make of computer is far better than loosing your job because you don't have the right kind of computer.

Point taken. Or you can use a Mac at home, and buy a PC laptop for your windows stuff. I got a X series Thinkpad from eBay... and it basically collects dust on a shelf. But it's there when I need it!

 

[cr2sh]

Point taken. Or you can use a Mac at home, and buy a PC laptop for your windows stuff. I got a X series Thinkpad from eBay... and it basically collects dust on a shelf. But it's there when I need it!

There is no point there! No one, and I mean.. NO ONE is loosing their job because they want to use mac os. It's not a valid point because no working professional would do that.. however, a lot of working professionals own two machines... and this one ability.. would mean I never have to go to the Dell website again.

I'd be thrilled beyond words about that!

 

[solidbreakz]

Yet.. when I work in Windows (I want to WORK in Windows) and when I get home... the Mac is my video, photo, fun machine. Taking up twice as much desktop and work space... for no reason at all, doesn't make sense to me.

I don't understand the problem, when something like VPC will be released in months, that will be optimized for x86, require little to no CPU emulation, can be self contained for security, yet still allow file tranfer access between both platforms.

you would have one machine, one keyboard, one mouse...and can rest easy at night knowing your Windows OS, software, and your CAD work will be safely contained in a virtual drive, free from malware and adware, and easily accessible with a USB flash drive...

 

[cr2sh]

I don't understand the problem, when something like VPC will be released in months, that will be optimized for x86, require little to no CPU emulation, can be self contained for security, yet still allow file tranfer access between both platforms.

you would have one machine, one keyboard, one mouse...and can rest easy at night knowing your Windows OS, software, and your CAD work will be safely contained in a virtual drive, free from malware and adware, and easily accessible with a USB flash drive...

I've never seen a VPC that runs fast, and I certainly wouldn't want to try to run a CAD drawing, with thousands of 3D polygons, 200mb of raster basemaps, and point data bases with 10,000 points in it.

I don't think its going to work... at least not workable fast

 

[solidbreakz]

There is no point there! No one, and I mean.. NO ONE is loosing their job because they want to use mac os. It's not a valid point because no working professional would do that.. however, a lot of working professionals own two machines... and this one ability.. would mean I never have to go to the Dell website again.

I'd be thrilled beyond words about that!

Yes there IS a point there. I work as an admin, shuffling back and forth between platforms all day (I have two desktops with a KVM) and I'm constantly SMB'ing or Mapping drives/files back and forth or relaying them off Xserves and W2K3 servers. Yeah it's a pain in the @$$ switching between two machines... My point is, why would you want to DUAL BOOT one machine when you can run both OS's optimally in ONE OS, with ONE environment, keeping the obviously unsecure OS at bay for your work, and ONLY your work... ?

I've never seen a VPC that runs fast, and I certainly wouldn't want to try to run a CAD drawing, with thousands of 3D polygons, 200mb of raster basemaps, and point data bases with 10,000 points in it.

I don't think its going to work... at least not workable fast

And of course OLD VPCs were slow as crap! They were emulating and translating code written and optimized for x86 CPUs to be usable by PPC cpus. Now that the architecture is BOTH x86, as well as respective GPUs... the newer VPCs to be released will most likely not take the performance hit of the past versions.

As usual I'm MISunderstood...onto the next thread. Take care.

 

[Azmordean]

So Apple is to blame that M$ never did a port of their very own architecture for something other than M$ hardware/software? Yeah, shame on Steve Jobs!

I was merely stating a fact. I know DirectX is proprietary. I know OpenGL can do a lot of the same things. But, the fact is, the VAST majority of game developers have gone to DirectX over OpenGL. Why? Who knows - I'm no professional programmer - but among other things, I hear DirectX is FAR easier to program than OGL and achieves similar results.

I'm not saying its Apple's fault, I'm merely saying this is a big reason so few games go to Mac.

That said, Apple has shown no support for gaming. They could have created their own, easy to code, 3D API similar to DirectX to entice developers. They could try a DirectX emulation layer. They could try to license DirectX. They did none of the above, and offer OpenGL only, which the vast majority of game publishers have no desire to mess with anymore.

 

[Eric5h5]

For all the "but I need Windows for some work stuff" people, why don't you just get VirtualPC, when it's released for Intel Macs? As I have little doubt it will be. Sure, it almost certainly won't have 3D hardware acceleration, but for 99% of "work stuff" it doesn't matter. Then you have the bonus of not having to deal with the aggravation of rebooting, and you get to use your OS X stuff at the same time. (Seriously, who uses just one program for 8 hours straight, without occasionally checking email, the weather, or whatever? Yeah, you could use Windows programs for that too, but I'm sure you'd rather do all your Net stuff on OS X for security reasons, and for convenience; e.g. keeping all your email in one program.)

--Eric

 

[ScubaDuc]

Whatever you think, the demand is real. One of the stories yesterday quoted that twice as many college students would switch to Mac if they could boot Windows.

You're probably looking at it backwards: this is less about Mac users wanting to run Windows and more about Windows users wanting to run OS X. Switching to Mac feels risky in a Windows world and this gives people a backup plan. Makes the boss feel a little better. Whatever-- the demand is there.

Very true, in that thread, I and others have raised the issue of compatibility, either with devices that only synch in Windooze, like my dive computer. or with programs not available for Macs and/or games. This invariably will affect my purchasing decision as I have to replace an old G4. Instead of waiting for a crusoe PM, I might get a mini and build a new clone.

 

[SeaFox]

Almost all of the family consumer market means playing current games? Whaaat? Read: in how many consumer families is the ability to play the most current games the single most important factor in choosing to buy a computer?

Being able to play current games is not the single most important factor. But being able to run the software you want to run is pretty high up the list. This is one of the main reasons people don't pick Macs to start with (apps in general, not just games).

If Apple made it BIOS, Microsoft could have made it EFI, or something different, or yadiya.

Uh, no Micorsoft couldn't do that. Because then most PC users today would never be able to upgrade to Vista on account almost all PC's use BIOS still. That's the point, Apple picked a minority technology when if they had folowed the standard, Microsoft's decision today would have had no impact on things.

Your argument assumes a false necessity to support Windows.

Running Windows isn't a false necessity, it's a value adding feature.
Maybe you should check out this recent Daring Fireball article. The fact Apple is considered such a "closed, proprietary" platform is what makes some people shakey about switching. Making Macs compatable with both OSX and Windows would help alleviate some of that apprehension, and it also make potential switchers who need to replace their current Wintel more likely to pick a Mactel, too. If they like the switch they have their machine. If not, they can load XP and not have blown their PC budget on a machine they don't want to/can't use. It's a sale for Apple whether they stick with OSX or not.

Apple may have a goal of advancing the Macintosh platform, but they are still a business trying to make money first and foremost.

And "let people run Windows"? Apple never did anything to prevent that definitely. How are they afraid? What on earth are you talking about? They've had VirtualPC for like....

Ah-ah-ah-ah. Apple never had Virtual PC. It has always been a third party product. Do you think Apple would ever write or release software to let a competitor's OS run on their machine? The fact VPC exists only proves that there is a market for dual-boot capability.

Microsoft gains what? They'd sell the Apple hardware?

Microsoft doesn't sell hardware, dear. They're a software company. The ability to run Windows on a Mac would be a selling point, though. Once again, it's about being compatable with the rest of the world.

Apple doesn't have the capacity to produce hardware for every computer consumer. They just don't. Where did Sony, and Dell, and all those other hardware rivals go? Gee whiz, you thought of that how? Does that include 100% of the consumer market like, all the electronic and non-electronic hardware? What happened to Sears? Lol.

Are you even halfway reading what I am saying? A mac that can only run the MacOS is only useable to people who want to run OSX. A mac that can run Windows and OSX is usable to almost anyone who wants to own a PC. I'm saying the potential market for a Mac Book Pro that can boot Windows is much larger that one that cannot. I never said Apple could actually produce all the world's PC's or that other hardware vendors would cease to exist you idiot.

Think - Macs are not toys like Sony computers or Alienware computers.

Wow, you are so young you obviously do not not see the irony in referring to Sony and Alienware as "toys".

Apple has never been a hardware business catering to PC buyers...how do you come up with this stuff? I mean, you say this makes no sense to you. I can see why - you think Apple is a hardware company, and Mac is just a secondary interest, which is just plain wrong. They never "cater"ed to anyone. Seriously now, Sony, the giant went wrong (and now trying hard to fix itself up)? Alienware, a company catering toys to rich little boys? Why would Apple cater to these people that know so little about the market Apple's OS is aimed at?

Once again you aren't reaidng what I'm really saying. In that scenario I was outlining there was no longer OSX or a Mac platform. Apple would be a hardware vendor, and comparing Apple to Sony or Alienware is spot on. They are both companies that sell PC hardware with industrial design or speacialized function in mind, and have prices in line with Apple's.

Having Macs able to run Windows is a way of futureproofing Apple's hardware business, because it's not locked to the Macintosh computing platform in such a way that the demise of OSX makes Apple computers useless, they can still run Windows and are perfectly capable machines after that (with the right hardware compatability).

 

[dongmin]

And of course OLD VPCs were slow as crap! They were emulating and translating code written and optimized for x86 CPUs to be usable by PPC cpus. Now that the architecture is BOTH x86, as well as respective GPUs... the newer VPCs to be released will most likely not take the performance hit of the past versions.

You're putting a lot of faith in MS. I don't see MS doing a lot of work to improve VPC. They haven't yet; why should things change now?

For my money, I'm hoping for other solutions (Q, VMWare, Codeweavers, etc.) to make this windows compatibility thing work.