No EFI Support on Windows Vista?

[groovebuster]

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.

Unfortunately some Sites still don't work properly with Safari, but do with Firefox. And I am not talking about some private pages, I am talking about Online Applications of big companies. For example, the online banking with my bank of choice only works properly with IE or Firefox. Like so often Safari just loads a blank page in certain situations (JavaScript problems)... And there are many more cases from the business world, where Safari just sucks! The Konqueror (and therefore Safari) is slim and fast, but sucks **** for it's implementation of JavaScript! That's why it has problems with so many business applications!

And Camino? Well... Looks nice, but is too limited in it's possibilities as well...

I wish Apple would make Safari finally really competitive.

groovebuster

 

[DCapple]

wait...im confuse...(pardon my innocence)...i thought Intel Mac will work with windows? why not with vista?

 

[JFreak]

Standard is such a vague wording, but I always thought that standard is base on market share.

No. Monopolies do not create standards. According to Wiktionary: "Standard as an adjective generally refers to a specific version of a standard issued by a standards institution." In other words, no company alone can define a standard, but a standard is what many or most companies use together.

For example; WMA is not standard, but proprietary format of Microsoft. Yes, the company has opened it up for others to use, but it is still in control of Microsoft. In comparison, AAC is an open standard and not controlled by any single company. Both formats have proprietary additions used by Microsoft and Apple, but such is life. Another example of such are the different WiFi standards (A,B,G,H...) that in basic implementation are compatible, but many brands have proprietary additions that other brand devices are unaware of.

Standard is vague wording only if used by a company that has a monopoly. They tend to think that whatever they do is a standard, in which they are wrong.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Good points being made here about standards. By definition, a proprietary "standard" is a monopoly. This is why I cringe whenever anybody says that Windows or Office or IE are "standards." By any interpretation, this means that anyone who wants to engage in activities as basic as computing, word processing or internet browsing must own these commercial products. That, my friends, is a functional definition of a monopoly if ever there was one.

 

[suntzu]

Okay, I've been reading and it says that Microsoft Server 2003 supports EFI. I know this'll sound kind of odd, but has anyone tried to install it on one of the new macs?

I know a copy of it costs a lot (even the small business version) but I wonder if it's even possible. So if anyone has an extra copy and a Mac, it'd be cool to give it a try.

 

[roach]

Good points being made here about standards. By definition, a proprietary "standard" is a monopoly. This is why I cringe whenever anybody says that Windows or Office or IE are "standards." By any interpretation, this means that anyone who wants to engage in activities as basic as computing, word processing or internet browsing must own these commercial products. That, my friends, is a functional definition of a monopoly if ever there was one.

Standard is vague wording only if used by a company that has a monopoly. They tend to think that whatever they do is a standard, in which they are wrong.

…And Apple is as guilty as MS of using its power to monopolies propriety products that is widely used. An example is iPod…having 60 percent of the market and being a proprietary “standard” of Apple, yet, any attempt by other online companies to make their product compatibles with the player is squashed by Apple…very monolithic action to me. Do I care, hell no…Apple made the product, Apple should benefit from its success. And I feel the same for MS…MS should also benefit from its success. And if MS want to put wmp into its OWN OS, they should be able to do so...let the user decide it they think wmp sucks or not. Anybody else who has issue can move to Apple or make their own OS.

 

[suntzu]

…And Apple is as guilty as MS of using its power to monopolies propriety products that is widely used. An example is iPod…having 60 percent of the market and being a proprietary “standard” of Apple,

I think there's some confusion here. While the iPod is definately a heavy hitter in the market, where is it stated that Apple says they are the standard (in the sense that some consider IE and Office to be)? People may say 'standard' but it has more to do with the elements around the iPod rather than the iPod itself.

For example, I've heard people say that the iPod represents the gold standard on how a music player should be designed. They aren't saying that the iPod is a standard but that simple, clean looks with an equally simple interface is the standard. This has been the case with any new (well, new to most consumers) technology.

If they had meant that the iPod is the standard (in the IE sense), they would say that all DAP must work with iTunes, play DRM'd AAC, etc.... THAT would mean it's a monopoly.

As for the statement:

yet, any attempt by other online companies to make their product compatibles with the player is squashed by Apple…very monolithic action to me.

Actually, this is far from the case. You make it sound like as if there are no 3rd party devices for the iPod. Griffin Technology is an example of a company who makes products that are compatible with the iPod. Not to mention large companies like Bose. If you mean that whole situation with Real, then that's a more complicated situation than you're making it.

Besides, the difference between IE/Office and the iPod is that the MS products are considered standard not because they're good but because there's more of it.

 

[IJ Reilly]

If Apple begins to exercise what is known as "market power" vis-a-vis the iPod, then they too could be successfully accused of monopolizing a market -- which, btw, isn't illegal. What is illegal is using market power to restrain competition. I don't see any evidence of that.

 

[roach]

I think there's some confusion here. While the iPod is definately a heavy hitter in the market, where is it stated that Apple says they are the standard (in the sense that some consider IE and Office to be)? People may say 'standard' but it has more to do with the elements around the iPod rather than the iPod itself.

For example, I've heard people say that the iPod represents the gold standard on how a music player should be designed. They aren't saying that the iPod is a standard but that simple, clean looks with an equally simple interface is the standard. This has been the case with any new (well, new to most consumers) technology.

If they had meant that the iPod is the standard (in the IE sense), they would say that all DAP must work with iTunes, play DRM'd AAC, etc.... THAT would mean it's a monopoly.

As for the statement:



Actually, this is far from the case. You make it sound like as if there are no 3rd party devices for the iPod. Griffin Technology is an example of a company who makes products that are compatible with the iPod. Not to mention large companies like Bose. If you mean that whole situation with Real, then that's a more complicated situation than you're making it.

Besides, the difference between IE/Office and the iPod is that the MS products are considered standard not because they're good but because there's more of it.

I'm not talking about accessories for iPod...I'm talking about service that compete directly with Apple...such as online music store.

Well...at least somebody agrees with standard is base on market share.

 

[matticus008]

Well...at least somebody agrees with standard is base on market share.

I don't see anyone agreeing with that point. A standard is not based on market share. The iPod is not a formal, technical standard. Microsoft Office is not a standard. These are both dominant products, and the ruler to which other products are compared, but they are not standards. There may be some confusion here over standard as "a specification" vs. standard as "typical."

Internet Explorer is not a standards-compliant browser, but it is the basic reference. It's a good illustration of people gravitating toward a non-standard system because of convenience and market share. If IE had been standards-compliant, pages that work with IE would also work in other browsers. Note that Firefox is more compliant than IE, but also is not totally compliant.

Back to the issue of discussion, however, it should be clear that EFI and BIOS are both accepted, technical standards available to almost all manufacturers and software companies. EFI is a valid, accessible platform with many advantages over the much older BIOS, and just one disadvantage: Microsoft doesn't support it. It is technically superior in every measurable way, and there's no reason not to adopt it for hardware manufacturers, except that like every change, they won't do it unless prompted to do so.

What's worse is that Microsoft does not necessarily need to throw away one for the other. There's no reason that both EFI and BIOS couldn't be supported by Vista, with Microsoft announcing that after Vista, BIOS would be phased out. They wouldn't lose any customers and it would open their range of options for the future.

 

[gwangung]

I'm not talking about accessories for iPod...I'm talking about service that compete directly with Apple...such as online music store.

Yeah? Apple's not quashing that. Try again....you're not making a whole lot of sense.

 

[gwangung]

If Apple begins to exercise what is known as "market power" vis-a-vis the iPod, then they too could be successfully accused of monopolizing a market -- which, btw, isn't illegal. What is illegal is using market power to restrain competition. I don't see any evidence of that.

Correct. Apple has built the better mousetrap, people are beating a path to their door....yet some people think that's wrong.

People around here spout off about monopolies and illegal power and 90% of the time, they don't what the hell they're talking about. They have a techie's view of economics...which has about as much connection to real world economics as Star Trek physics has to real world physics.

 

[mischief]

To the flamers on both sides.

Hi IJ,

Long time away... let me gather my thoughts here...

I spent my day today fixing Macs for a local shop. This is what I do. Across the aisle one of our PC techs was building me an AMD box to help me with fixing printers which occupies about half my time as Mac issues often involve waiting for files to back up, utilities to run, parts to ship, etc.

We got to talking about Apple versus Microsoft in a very friendly manner. I made it clear that I never had a problem with PC hardware, in fact Intel has some of the most innovative hardware going. He agreed that the worst thing about the PC was Windows and that he'd much prefer that Microsoft would get off their ass and ditch some of the older layers in BIOS in favor of EFI. That's pretty much it when you're dealing with folks who fix the machines. All machines fail the same ways therefore fraternity comes easier to techs...

The debate here is over Apple and Intel collaborating on an EFI-only based hardware platform. Apple is a foreward looking software company with nothing to lose and something to prove. Intel is a foreward looking Hardware company whose best tricks are gathering dust because their main platform is too backward to use them.

Here's some history for you:

Apple was, from it's inception a company built around it's UI. The Macintosh operating system based around the concept of a fully WYSIWYG user experience has been the core ideal and the true identity of Apple through it's entire history. Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak and a cadre of some of the best minds in computing founded a company that was built around the goal of building and selling the best possible user experience.

From it's beginning Apple has billed itself as a software company who builds it's own hardware in support of it's software. See above paragraph. Apple built it's own machines on a unique evolutionary track from the beginning.

Apple has never had BIOS as part of their evolution except in the odd case of the 6100 DOS in which a small PC was essentially grafted into the mobo via a unique socket in much the same way the males of some deep sea fish exist as parisites in the abdomen of the females. To state that Apple excluded BIOS in exception to legacy support is highly inaccurate as Apple never used BIOS in the first place.

Apple has a history of transitions in which legacy support is cut off to further the evolution of the OS. When the Macintosh was introduced old Apple and Apple 2 code was lost. When Power PC was introduced much old code would no longer run, when the G3/G4/G5 was introduced much old code was lost. Apple exists looking foreward, with it's own history in mind.

When Apple decided that Intel was what it needed next to further development of Mac OS Apple asked Intel: "What's your next best trick?"

Intel responded: "Well, since you've already ditched legacy hardware and have nothing to lose by using it, how about EFI? you can build your firmware to your own spec in a very similar manner to Open Firmware but in a form that'll work on off-the-shelf board designs we can't sell to the wider market."

To which Apple said: "Sounds good to us."

Windows was not in the equation. Apple never had BIOS in the first place so it was not in the discussion at all. They needed a ready and advanced solution for firmware on machines to be built with no legacy code to support. EFI filled that solution.

Since Apple is a Software company NOT a hardware company whose focus is their OS and User Interface it's obvious that opening their hardware to a competing UI would NOT be their impetus to hardware migration.

It's also worth pointing out that, as the only company to be building an exclusive platform left standing, (in fact not only standing but growing quite well with billions in CASH on hand above and beyond exceptional revenue) Apple has found the only formula that works when competing with a generic behemoth: Quality and grace at the expense of nearly everything else.

If you really need Windows, go get it. If you enjoy an elegant solution to you computing needs and the software exists to to the job on OS X (hundreds more by the day, check out the Made For Mac section of the Apple Site) than by all means, buy a Mac.

As Apple transitions to Intel developpers will have one major hurdle less between them and Mac OS. The only issue for developpers left (aside from the recompile and tweaking) is DirectX for gaming. Most graphics chipsets speak both DirectX and Open GL Some do Open GL better, others excell only with DirectX so, in reality Game developpers who want full graphics support across the line will be writing solutions for both anyway to fully exploit the best of all chipsets.QED

Did I forget anything?

Ah yes, rabid zealots. I only have PIES for you.

 

[JFreak]

…And Apple is as guilty as MS of using its power to monopolies propriety products that is widely used. An example is iPod…having 60 percent of the market and being a proprietary “standard” of Apple

No. iPod is not a standard, it's a product. Even if it's a very popular product (which it is), it doesn't make it a standard; however, if all digital music players of all manufacturers were built from iPod specification, then iPod would be the standard of digital music players. That is not the case as you very well know, so the "standard of digital music players" (if such thing would exist) would only mean few things:
- plays mp3 format
- uses battery power
- costs less than $1000

yet, any attempt by other online companies to make their product compatibles with the player is squashed by Apple…very monolithic action to me. Do I care, hell no…Apple made the product, Apple should benefit from its success. And I feel the same for MS…MS should also benefit from its success. And if MS want to put wmp into its OWN OS, they should be able to do so...

Do you mean iTunes Music Store? It is true that the only digital music player that is compatible with the Apple-proprietary DRM system is the Apple-built iPod, but there's nothing wrong with that approach either. Apple has cut the deal with the labels, and I believe big part of the deal is Apple being able to control how the music is sold and distributed legally. If nobody else has and will not be able to do the same, it's not Apple's fault.

let the user decide

The day Apple allows WMA format on iPod will take the possibility of that decision away. You have to understand that only 5% of all people are geeks, and only geeks do really care what file format they're using. Other people (the majority) just listen to the music not caring how it plays. Yes, Apple product uses AAC, but most iPod users do not even know that. It just plays, it just works, and it just sounds nice. The same goes for Windows users that use WMA (except the souns nice part). The format war is between Apple and Microsoft and the general public do not even know that; they just talk about "mp3" files, even if the files are something else. Currently AAC has more momentum in the mobile music player market, but still, there are more Windows boxes (with wmp installed) than there are iPods, so the war continues.

The thing is, Microsoft has opened up its proprietary format, but it doesn't make it a standard. On the other hand, Apple has invested a lot in AAC standard and tries to control it as much as they can, which doesn't make it completely fair either. Still, standard-wise, AAC looks better, because even Apple cannot themselves change it like Microsoft is able to do with WMA.

I have chosen AAC and therefore bought one iPod as a statement. I have also chosen against WMA and therefore decided against buying any Windows licenses any more. The last Windows I bought was a NT4, which by the way still is the best Windows ever, stability-wise.

 

[roach]

Yeah? Apple's not quashing that. Try again....you're not making a whole lot of sense.

sorry dude...I also don't get what your saying.

 

[Senbei]

Okay, I've been reading and it says that Microsoft Server 2003 supports EFI. I know this'll sound kind of odd, but has anyone tried to install it on one of the new macs?

My understanding is that only the Itanium version of Windows Server 2003 uses EFI.

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?

Exactly. In my case, this would make a MacBook an extremely flexible troubleshooting tool for use in the field.

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.

Again, the dependence is not by choice for some folks. Many workplaces have mandated that specific applications be used in daily operations. Often times these are customized apps or off the shelf programs. More often than not, it is Windows based. Some places have zero flexibility with regards to choice of platform making it a moot point. Others however are dual platform so long as the supported software requirements are met. The ability to finally run both Mac and Windows (the OS from a legal aspect) and respective apps at near (via virtualization) and/or at (via dual boot) native speeds on one box makes an Intel Mac attractive and much more viable in such environments. In my case, while some of the off the shelf programs might have a suitable Mac counterpart (good example being MS Visio with the recently released ConceptDraw Net Diagrammer), I can't just substitute any program at will because of internal support issues. I'd prefer a single box (Intel Mac) on my desk which has virtualization software to run Windows XP Pro so that I can do everything I need to do from one machine with Mac OS X being the primary environment. For field work, the ability to dual boot a MacBook would be a major winning point.

An Intel Mac with virtualization software and/or a CSM (one which provides all the necessary legacy support so that a retail boxed version of Windows can be installed without hacking any MS code as that definitely won't be approved of) would allow for a great deal of flexibility. And just for the record, I agree with Apple not including legacy support (like a CSM) since Mac OS X does not need it nor does Apple need to be burdened with support issues related to it. This should be left to third party opportunities to fill the needs (including support) of those who can make use of this functionality while not affecting those who don't.

While this may not offer any short term changes in mindshare (as that sort of stuff takes time), it could provide an opportunity in the future for Intel Mac's to gain traction where it may not have even been considered before as a viable option or as a main contender for replacing the Windows box in environments that are Mac/Windows. There is also a broader economic consideration with consolidating dual platform environments into a single Intel Mac as it reduces the hardware expenditure (cpu and monitor for non all-in-one form factors) as well as operational costs like electrical usage to power two separate desktop units. None of this would be possible without the switch to Intel nor with 3rd parties attempting to enable those optional capabilities.

 

[ewinemiller]

May not matter

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=13965

 

[IJ Reilly]

Hi IJ,

Long time away... let me gather my thoughts here...

Them's a lot of thoughts.

The point being, I think, is that if Apple had opted to use BIOS to boot the Intel Macs, it would have represented a huge step backwards -- technically speaking, to a period of time before the Mac was even invented. OpenFirmware is far more advanced than BIOS, which is why a Mac can sleep and wake up successfully 99.99% of the time, and a PC seems to lock up and freeze about half the time. I can't imagine Apple customers would put up with this behavior in their new Macs. Full EFI support was the only real option for Apple.

Welcome back -- if you are indeed back.

 

[mcmillan]

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

Well, that happens some times, sorry, but don't stop looking, you'll find something. *Off-topic* Have you tried Transit? That's a really good one.

I 100% agree, however that's not the reality of the situation.

It's true it's not the case, but these days, we're depending less and less from Windows applications, and hopefully, with the Intel-transition, PC developers might feel more enthusiastic about porting their apps to Mac OS X.

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.

Well, I agree in that case

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. xD (...) 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.

Well sorry, it's just my opinion, I respect yours.

Can we say we agree in some level now?

 

[RacerX]

You may not remember but we had a gentleman's bet as to wether Windows would run on Apple Intel hardware. I think this finally puts the final nail in the coffin.

RacerX, you were right and I was horribly horribly wrong. I throughly enjoyed our debate. Kudos to you sir.

I guess we better remove that nail if reports are correct.

It looks like the tides have turned in your favor, and you weren't as horribly horribly wrong as you thought.

Congratulations.

 

[msfletch]

So I know that currently being tested is the process for running Windows XP on an iMac. I also know that Windows Vista is still in beta. But just to get our minds going, because there is a way for XP to run on an Intel Mac and it is using BIOS as is Vista... does this mean that when Vista is available, there is the possibility for a similar streamlined install onto Intel Macs?

 

[mischief]

So I know that currently being tested is the process for running Windows XP on an iMac. I also know that Windows Vista is still in beta. But just to get our minds going, because there is a way for XP to run on an Intel Mac and it is using BIOS as is Vista... does this mean that when Vista is available, there is the possibility for a similar streamlined install onto Intel Macs?

Better question: Is Apple's lock on their systems in the EFI implementation or in the hardware on the mobo. We know it's not on the processor daughter card because Intel Macs will run with non-Mac Intel processors. If it's in the EFI implementation it may be that this reverse-engineering will be the opening to exporting Apple's EFI to other EFI friendly Intel mobos.

 

[Cybernanga]

Slightly off topic, but...

Just a crazy thought that popped into my head while reading this thread.

All this talk of running XP on a Mac has got me thinking.

You know the old saying "a leopard never changes it's spots". Well, seeing as Apple has switched to Intel processors, the new Mac's are basically the same a what we used to call PC's. (However, they are arguably the BEST "PC's" around.)

If Apple allow Leopard to run on any PC, they can run an add campaign along the lines of "This Leopard HAS changed it's spot's!" i.e the spot, or place, where it runs.

I know may of you will say this a bad thing, and all the developers will give up their job's and start selling roses at the corner etc. But I'm pretty sure that many people would buy Leopard and try it. Apple could push the line that while it wil work on any PC, (just like a real leopard can work in any environment) it runs better and faster in it's natural environment, which is an "Apple Built PC" more commonly known as a Mac.

OS sales would skyrocket, Hardware sales would also skyrocket shortly afterwards, as people get used to OSX, and ensure that their next machines are Mac's. Market share increases, and developers come out of the woodwork, Microsoft sales dwindle, Dell goes bust, HP sells it's PC division to concentrate on printers, world peace and an end to world hunger ensue, and everybody lives happilly ever after.

Just a thought at 4:51am before I go to bed after a hard night. Comments anyone?

 

[mischief]

Just a crazy thought that popped into my head while reading this thread.

All this talk of running XP on a Mac has got me thinking.

You know the old saying "a leopard never changes it's spots". Well, seeing as Apple has switched to Intel processors, the new Mac's are basically the same a what we used to call PC's. (However, they are arguably the BEST "PC's" around.)

If Apple allow Leopard to run on any PC, they can run an add campaign along the lines of "This Leopard HAS changed it's spot's!" i.e the spot, or place, where it runs.

I know may of you will say this a bad thing, and all the developers will give up their job's and start selling roses at the corner etc. But I'm pretty sure that many people would buy Leopard and try it. Apple could push the line that while it wil work on any PC, (just like a real leopard can work in any environment) it runs better and faster in it's natural environment, which is an "Apple Built PC" more commonly known as a Mac.

OS sales would skyrocket, Hardware sales would also skyrocket shortly afterwards, as people get used to OSX, and ensure that their next machines are Mac's. Market share increases, and developers come out of the woodwork, Microsoft sales dwindle, Dell goes bust, HP sells it's PC division to concentrate on printers, world peace and an end to world hunger ensue, and everybody lives happilly ever after.

Just a thought at 4:51am before I go to bed after a hard night. Comments anyone?

Comment: Get more sleep before posting.

Opening Mac OS to the general market would be suicide. Apple doesn't have the resources to keep up with the hundreds of thousands of goofy little drivers, firmware tweaks and foibles M$ is saddled with factoring in.

Never fight a stronger foe on his own terms, bring him to you on your turf and pick his forces off slowly while destroying moralle.

If Windows will run on the Mac, fine. Apple retains control of it's core product's supported hardware and strict coding qualifiers. If it turns out that Windows also happens to run with greater stability on the Apple hardware, all the better.

If Apple released a version of OS X for non Apple hardware they'd get flattened just like OS2, SGI, Netscape, Betamax and a whole host of other products that learned the hard way that fighting a sociopathic behemoth in it's own den is a BAD idea.

 

[triangle]

Hello,

WinFS file system seems quite an interesting one. I suppose you can find more info on it if you wish at this source:
http://www.ntfs.com/