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.
No EFI Support on Windows Vista?
- Thread starter MacBytes
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
LimeiBook86 said:Exactly my thoughts, don't worry enough people want this, it'll happen eventually...I hope
You're right. This clearly makes it harder, but it doesn't stop anyone doing something. Great quote from the Apple/Intel/Microsoft (can't remember, getting old) guy:
"The market will look at the solutions provided to it, and then go find a way to do what they wanted to do anyway"
Life will find a way (and it's not even hard to see the solution...)
Tupring said:
That's fine, but you must accept that not everyone gets to chose which application they have to use at work. I look forward to the day when we can choose which computer we can use.
JFreak said:
Yes and no.
Mac users using Firefox does nothing to dent 'Idiot Exploder' market share since we can't run that anyway. And since Safari offers all the standards compliance of Firefox, give and take, there's no reason to use Firefox on the Mac. In any case, if you do want a Gecko based browser, Camino knocks seven shades of **** out of Firefox for Mac experience, and for that matter Safari too.
Eric5h5 said:
Excellent point. One Microsoft get VirtualPC native on Intel Macs, there won't be any (or little) speed problems. Maybe it wont have 3D support, but for most of work tasks that is fine. Hell, for most work tasks OS X is fine!
cr2sh, not everyone uses a program for 8 hours. No-one I know uses a computer for more than 4 at a time. Booting every half an hour is tedious. Why bother getting a Mac if you are going to need a PC for work? Even if you do just get VirtualPC! Its fine for most work.
If you work for 8 hours, you need to get out more. There is more to life than work.
ChrisG said:
I'm not sure how to respond to this without insulting you publically... so I'll do it via PM.
However, I think your lack of understanding of the standard work week really shows how little you understand the need for this technology. Your argument falls apart when you say things like "no one works 8 hours" because the vast majority of full-time working adults work five, 8 hour segments a week.. and that's pretty much a bare minimum.
When Vista comes out (with or without EFI support), Leopard will just leave it under so much dust that no one would want to share any kind of Mac with that piece of Windows trash. By then, Microsoft will start working on copying Leopard's features for the next-gen Windows Lake Louis.
mcmillan said:
See, this post is pure ignorance. It doesn't say anything constructive, all you do is trash Windows. Face it, Windows has a larger marketshare then Mac OS X so there's applications that don't run on Mac OS X that people NEED.
Anyway they said that the 64-bit version of XP would boot when there were 64-bit Mac's. That will be soon because Merom will be out and then Conroe, both of which are 64-bit.
XP on an intel mac
It looks like someone may have become 12,000 richer. I received this link from the apple discussion boards. http://www.flickr.com/photos/32436196@N00/ It may be fake but its worth mentioning.
It looks like someone may have become 12,000 richer. I received this link from the apple discussion boards. http://www.flickr.com/photos/32436196@N00/ It may be fake but its worth mentioning.
Not checking the rest of this thread to see if someone already replied to this particular comment:
I won't attempt a bad joke about routing those inevitable support calls to India ...
Anyone who really believes Apple would be immune to support issues relating to "mainstream" users running Windows or others OSes on their Macs is incredibly naive.SeaFox said:
I won't attempt a bad joke about routing those inevitable support calls to India ...
If some people depend so much on such Windows-only applications, then they should stick to Windows or find a Mac OS X native alternative. I just don't agree with the whole "Windows booting on Macs thing." Why would you buy a Mac then? Just for the hardware? If you really need to use those apps not available for Mac, the just stick with a PC.DeathChill said:
And yes, I'm trashing Windows because it's trash compared to OS X, and it will always be, at least IMHO. I think every time they release something new, Mac will always be there with something better.
I'm just saying it's stupid to see people thinking "Oh, I will get a Mac once they boot Windows"... then why would you buy a Mac? The whole point of the Mac is that it's hardware and software integrated, and running Windows on it breaks the whole point.
I guess one way of looking at this is to note that while many consumers have a desire to dual boot, the businesses that create the products do not have a substantial incentive to make all their products work together....on the contrary, they spend all their marketing money convincing us that their products are entirely different from one another, and that the differences are fundamental. (which is why the "What are Intel Chips doing inside the Mac..." marketing campaign is both clever and a touch ironic. )
)
radian23 said:
A bad Photoshop job if ever there was one. I couldn't be convinced by this hoax even if I was completely desperate to believe it.
Using safe-boot with OS X and hibernation with Windows on a single machine would make dual-booting between the two less tedious.ChrisG said:
I didn't notice anyone suggest that possibility even once in this entire thread, which now seems on the verge of burning out from cyclical redundancy.
mcmillan said:
Who would have thought people are allowed to like more then one thing? I love OS X but there's some stuff that OS X just doesn't have available (e.g. FTP programs on OS X blow, I use Windows for FTP downloads).
Maybe people would rather have ONE machine instead of needing two? You know how much easier it is to have one laptop that can do everything then to have two to do separate things?
How does running Windows break the point? It doesn't. You still run Mac OS X with it being perfectly integrated with the hardware, but you can also run Windows. Where does anything break?
GROW UP. You may not like it because you're obviously a zealot, but that doesn't stop other people from needing it.
People should refrain from calling other people "zealots" unless they wish to appear to be one as well.
I suppose I am passionate about it. However, my passion makes sense.
He doesn't want other people to be able to do what they want, I do.
He doesn't want other people to be able to do what they want, I do.
FTP? I could understand Visio or Counter Strike, but FTP? There are at least 30 FTP programs available for Mac, but hey, as you said it, people are allowed to like something more than other thing.DeathChill said:
In my opinion, it would be even easier to have one OS that can do almost everything, than having two OS that can do everything. It's always more practical having to use the least amount of OS possible.DeathChill said:
Yes, Mac OS X will always be integrated to the Mac, on the other side, Windows won't, that's why it breaks the point.DeathChill said:
Let's not turn this into a fight, so I'm going to refrain from insulting you back grown-up.DeathChill said:
I'm not stopping anyone, it's just my opinion, sorry for being against your passion.DeathChill said:
DeathChill said:
Spoken like a true zealot. Seriously, it's not a matter of whether I agree or disagree with your argument, it's just bad form to flame. Eventually, somebody will complain, and you don't want that.
sjk said:
Yes, someone pointed that out to me (not here, IRL).
Hmmm. Maybe Apple will be allowing people to boot Windows natively soon.
mcmillan said:FTP? I could understand Visio or Counter Strike, but FTP? There are at least 30 FTP programs available for Mac, but hey, as you said it, people are allowed to like something more than other thing.
Ah, I could have sworn I had posted that EVERY FTP application I've tried always ends up crashing after around half an hour (no clue why, never does it on Windows). I didn't mean there were no FTP applications, just none that are of the quality of ones such as SmartFTP that I've found. For some reason Mac FTP programs HATE me. XD
I 100% agree, however that's not the reality of the situation.mcmillan said:
True, but this in no way changes anything about Mac OS X. Mac OS X is still integrated with the hardware, so adding Windows doesn't make Mac OS X any less integrated.mcmillan said:
I don't mean to insult at all, I can assure you. It's just frustrating when people only see their side of the argument. It's the same deal with gay marriage, it's frustrating to talk about it. xDmcmillan said:
No, I understand that. I just meant that it's frustrating when people are so against things that don't effect them in any way.mcmillan said:
I just said I was being a zealot in the post you quoted, so you pointed out what I just said.IJ Reilly said:
Anyway, I was NOT trying to flame, but I can understand how it could have came off like that, but I was certainly not trying to sound like a jackass.
The Apple tech support center in Bangalore announcement was the motivation behind my "bad joke" comment.SeaFox said:
I personally don't care whether or not Macs can boot Windows but if they did it might make it easier to convince my family to buy them. If I had enough $s I'd buy my brother's kids a Mac just so they wouldn't be forced to use Windows on their first computer.
SeaFox said:
Umm, do you even realize what you said?
First, you said that Microsoft couldn't implement current tech because most PC users could not upgrade to Vista. Good point! It was Microsoft who chose not to implement modern tech at this point, because they were afraid of losing money. Second, you reasoned that Apple should have followed Microsoft, because whatever Microsoft chooses to use is a standard and Apple customers also would like to stick to standards.
Fair enough. Let's use standards. Who defines what is a standard? By definition, a standard is what everyone uses. What Microsoft chooses is not necessarily a standard, but first and foremost Microsoft tends to choose proprietary technology hoping others would follow. It's not how standards are made! In this case, BIOS is ancient tech that once was a standard, but now, current tech is EFI and it is a standard because both Intel and AMD are pushing it. Hardware vendors have chosen EFI, and Microsoft not using EFI is choosing against standards. Yes, it is an _old_ standard, but today it'd be better (for hardware vendors) to choose a current standard; but Microsoft does not care, as while EFI would be a prospect for hardware companies to earn more money, it'd probably hurt Microsoft's bottom line at this point. That is fair enough, too -- no company should be forced to be losing money, not even Microsoft, but if Microsoft makes that choice, then Microsoft is to be blamed and not anybody else.
Now then, what did Apple do? Wisely, they chose EFI - the current standard - and why would they not have chosen it? They do not have to care about "most PC users" which are not their customers, so they have absolutely no reason to even think about bringing in dead weight from 1981. Apple picked the modern standard because they could, which is something Microsoft CAN do also, but that decision would cost them a number of upgrade licenses that they will not be able to sell to their customers who own "legacy" hardware. That's fair, too; you do not blame Apple for Microsoft having huge customer base.
Apple is moving forwards, while Microsoft is keeping backwards compatibility. Apple is adding features to OSX day by day, while Microsoft is dropping features from Vista to be able to even release it several years later than planned. Should you blame Apple for Microsoft screwing up? Yeah, right...
aegisdesign said:
Web designers do not care if it's a Mac Firefox or a Windows Firefox, they just need the percentages of three to five most popular browsers. Safari falls in the "others" category and only lessens the ID percentage, but does not show in the stats -- so therefore using Firefox is actively voting for standards.
(once IE user base drops enough, web designers put in more effort to being standards compatible.)
matticus008 said:
Exactly.
JFreak said:
Standard is such a vague wording, but I always thought that standard is base on market share. If standard is base on the newest or best technology…damn that would be such a headache for consumers. Imagine buying a system three months ago, then having a vendor say that there’s a new technology and that my system is not supported because it’s now old standard. I guess it’s similar to buying a G5 base system now a day…not knowing when software companies will drop G5 base software knowing the whole Mac industry is going towards Intel.
I thought it was right for MS not to go EFI in the beginning with Vista because a good chunk of the PC market is still running bios. I just upgraded my bios base system with SLI video setup and upgraded my ram to 2 gigs. This setup should give me another 2 to 3 years…I would love to be able to run Vista on this setup and the only way I can do that is if MS stuck with bios base Vista. 3 years from now, when it’s time to upgrade my system, I’ll then buy EFI motherboard and upgrade to EFI base Vista…smooth transition! Unfortunately, my tablet PC is not as upgradeable as my home system, but at least I know bois base Vista will still run on it.