No EFI Support on Windows Vista?

[SilvorX]

It's crazy how so many people are buying a mac just to relie on it to "boot windows", this is a weird day and age we're living in for the mac life, when I got my mac in 2002, there was still a lack of software for the Mac, iTunes didn't have a music store back then so when people were looking for music, lots of the times it required using vpc, but as time progressed, I've needed VPC less and less, to the point where I haven't used VPC once in a year.

I'm a university student myself and I haven't had a need for it at all, chances are there's a Mac program that can do the same thing a Window program can do.

The only area I want to see improved is native based graphic-editing programs.. when I got my mac I had to relie on AppleWorks..icky

 

[dejo]

Is making an OS support EFI a really big undertaking? So assuming MS has been working on that, actually finishing the job by the end of the year might be too big a task to complete on time?

Another feature being dropped from Vista in order to prevent any more delays? Hmm...

 

[AidenShaw]

political, but on Apple's side

I get the distinct feeling that this was a politically-motivated move. Microsoft has backed away from EFI because supporting it would be following Apple and catering to the interests of Mac users (which represent the dominant market share in EFI computers right now).

Politically motivated - yes, by Apple, which chose a boot interface supported by no other (almost no other?) system on the market, in order to ensure that Windows wouldn't boot on an Apple.

Apple claims publically that they won't stop Windows from booting on a Mac - but they adopted the EFI boot code and stripped the BIOS compatibility layer. Liars.

 

[Some_Big_Spoon]

Very true, and it's not anything (DarWine) that an average user could even begin to use, since X11, tarballs, etc. It's progressing though, albeit extremely slowly.

Apple could just add the emulator into the OS easy-cheesey, but that would piss off M$ I asume. I say screw "windows support". Windows is unnecessary. It's the apps we're after, and that's what we really want. What does the Windows OS get us really? Do windows apps make calls to the OS usually? Anyone with tech knowledge want to answer that? I know M$ products make calls to the OS (like Apple's apps do), so does anything else do that?

WINE on OSX for x86 is pretty unusable. I mean, I think they got Calculator and Minesweeper to work, but if you want to use any real apps like a windows CAD program or a game or Access, then your SOL.

 

[matticus008]

Do you really think MS really cares that much about Apple??? I think it was more a technical problem, and they are having to cut features in order to get the release out on time. IF it is a politically motivated decision, then it is most definitely something that the hardware manufacturers were pushing for since they are so locked into BIOS.

The only logic I can see behind MS being scared of Apple is the recent report sighting Apple doubling its marketshare if they could dual-boot easily.

Microsoft absolutely does keep an eye on Apple at all times. Even if they're the small fish, they get disproportionate media attention and glowing reviews. MS has always been the ugly duckling, so they rely on their muscle for power. If they're seen as weak, it alters the dynamics of their relationship with the industry.

I would doubt that it's a technical issue because EFI has been around for several years and Microsoft undoubtedly has the full ability to implement EFI whenever they choose to do so. They're not required to switch all of their drivers over right away or dramatically alter their operating system to make it happen. Apple did it in a matter of months, after all, and they had quite a bit more going on.

 

[Some_Big_Spoon]

And no doubt Intel would bend over backward and sell their own grandmothers out to help M$ support EFI. Anything they can do to one up AMD. So this is just weird in any other context other than backing off due to Apple's use of it?

I would doubt that it's a technical issue because EFI has been around for several years and Microsoft undoubtedly has the full ability to implement EFI whenever they choose to do so. They're not required to switch all of their drivers over right away or dramatically alter their operating system to make it happen. Apple did it in a matter of months, after all, and they had quite a bit more going on.

 

[longofest]

Is making an OS support EFI a really big undertaking? So assuming MS has been working on that, actually finishing the job by the end of the year might be too big a task to complete on time?

Yes and no. MS is huge, so you would think they would be able to get the job done. However, you are talking about extremely low-level stuff. While I'm not an EFI expert, I do know that programming for BIOS or EFI requires a lot of in-depth knowledge about the underlying technology, and you gotta be good with your ones and zeros. they gotta check their assembly a lot to make sure the transfer from EFI/BIOS to the OS is happening correctly.

 

[longofest]

I would doubt that it's a technical issue because EFI has been around for several years and Microsoft undoubtedly has the full ability to implement EFI whenever they choose to do so. They're not required to switch all of their drivers over right away or dramatically alter their operating system to make it happen. Apple did it in a matter of months, after all, and they had quite a bit more going on.

Apple has a limited set of drivers to worry about, and in OSX/Intel is concerned, was able to completely throw away Open Firmware code whereas MS has to deal with all of their legacy BIOS code.

Don't simplify stuff dude. Programming isn't as easy as you think, especially when you do have political aspects of everything going on behind the scenes (the question of should we or shouldn't we support EFI was I'm sure mentioned quite a bit)

 

[matticus008]

Politically motivated - yes, by Apple, which chose a boot interface supported by no other (almost no other?) system on the market, in order to ensure that Windows wouldn't boot on an Apple.

Apple claims publically that they won't stop Windows from booting on a Mac - but they adopted the EFI boot code and stripped the BIOS compatibility layer. Liars.

They chose the platform that Intel is pushing and one which is more similar to OpenFirmware than not. There is exactly one reason and one reason only to use BIOS--direct Windows booting. There are plenty of reasons not to use BIOS, though, not the least significant being that there is no reason whatsoever to be backward-compatible with the original IBM PC. At this point, there's no good reason for PC manufacturers to maintain that compatibility, either, except that Microsoft still fully supports BIOS, giving OEMs no reason to change. If they announced support for EFI, you'd start to see BIOS being phased out. They could even very well state that Vistal will be the last version of Windows to support BIOS and that they plan to end that support in, say, 2009. That spell the end of BIOS within weeks.

 

[longofest]

And no doubt Intel would bend over backward and sell their own grandmothers out to help M$ support EFI. Anything they can do to one up AMD. So this is just weird in any other context other than backing off due to Apple's use of it?

How is MS supporting EFI undercutting AMD??? EFI may be an Intel thing, but so is/was BIOS.

 

[iQuit]

Haha some guy wants to play LAN parties over Spring Break!!! HAHAH!!!

I have a simple solution to all these problems. If you go to dell4me.com and go to the as advertised on TV section you can find a desktop for $299 and a lappie for $499. Windows sucks, and it shouldn't have the priveledge of being on a Mac.

 

[matticus008]

Apple has a limited set of drivers to worry about, and in OSX/Intel is concerned, was able to completely throw away Open Firmware code whereas MS has to deal with all of their legacy BIOS code.

Don't simplify stuff dude. Programming isn't as easy as you think, especially when you do have political aspects of everything going on behind the scenes (the question of should we or shouldn't we support EFI was I'm sure mentioned quite a bit)

That's the beauty of it, though. Microsoft DOESN'T have to shift its drivers overnight. EFI allows for firmware driver integration, but doesn't require it. Apple certainly hasn't moved its drivers fully into EFI (yet), and it's not accurate to say that Apple rewrote OS X entirely from a blank slate.

It doesn't really have anything to do with programming being easy. They've got multiple concurrent projects, and you can bet that they've worked on EFI. Whether or not they choose to adopt it is a decision that doesn't impact the programmers. Any large entity well hedge its bets and do its best to prepare for all options, like Apple did with its "secret" OS X on Intel programs in the past 5 years.

 

[nagromme]

I am reminded of the talk about Intel wanting to work Apple because (among other reasons) Apple could move new Intel technology forward when Microsoft drags its feet. Sounds like we have an example of that!

 

[acidreflux]

no efi support for vista

No current VMM supports the concept of running a VMM inside a virtual machine - so I doubt that whatever "snippet" you saw would really do what you want.

What the poster meant aidenshaw was that a user ran linux natively on a mac, and ran vmware with windows on it. so he is right, and it works. See: http://www.kernelthread.com/

Second, this whole "why do mac os users want to run windows" is rather provincial. I am glad that some of you dont need to run win os, but i do. visual studio does not run on a mac, and vpc 7 is a joke on a dual 2ghz g5. and since the new x86 os mac don't run it, i wont buy it. i guess i will replace my current pc, with another pc, instead of a mac. apples loss.

third, WINE cant run visual studio 2005, and for me, that makes WINE useless as solution for use with x86 macs.

 

[IJ Reilly]

How is MS supporting EFI undercutting AMD??? EFI may be an Intel thing, but so is/was BIOS.

BIOS was created by IBM, the only proprietary component in the PC. It was first reverse-engineered by Compaq, shortly afterwards by Phoenix.

Abandoning this primitive, early 1980s technology should offer technical advantages to Microsoft, as they currently have to support the variations and hacks of ROM-BIOS that have evolved since the code was first written. It should be relatively easy to support. No driver issues are involved AFAIK, because BIOS and EFI control only the lowest-level hardware functions. Once they hand off control to the OS, the boot ROMS are out of the picture.

The disadvantages must be political. Possibly, they don't want to buy into a technology controlled by Intel. Difficult to say, but it does make them look behind the curve. Again.

 

[jer2eydevil88]

Yet another reason to be glad I canceled my Macbook.

I will wait and see... for now i'm happy with my PB but when Merom is out and Vista... I may have to switch back to the wacky world of Windows PC's... Of course I'm not stupid enough to buy Dell. :-D

 

[age234]

I guarantee some cleaver person will find a way to make it work.

Just as long as they keep their cleaver away from me...

 

[IJ Reilly]

Just as long as they keep their cleaver away from me...

A cutting remark, if ever I heard one.

 

[magi.sys]

What is it with you windows users who ordered and intel mac (and those who canceled) to run vista?
Just get a DELL if you want to run Vista

And for those like me that are wanting to run Linux and other OSes, but use OS X as the main OS, I'm sure the Grub guys or some other group of guys will figure out a way to boot legacy OSes through BIOS emulation (only boot emulation).

 

[dejo]

A cutting remark, if ever I heard one.

IJ, you're sharp!

 

[excalibur313]

EFI does support a BIOS 'emulation layer' called a Compatibility Support Module.

Apple did not include the CSM in their EFI, if they did XP and Vista would have been running the second the iMacs were released.

So I assume by the word "module" that it is a physical hardware thing. Can it be software emulated or can it be added on post production?

 

[magi.sys]

So I assume by the word "module" that it is a physical hardware thing. Can it be software emulated or can it be added on post production?

actually, it's software
hopefully, Apple will switch to the UEFI in the next few revisions so we can just load up the UEFI modules. The UEFI would allow us Mac users to use regular PC video cards as well in the future when PCs move to UEFI if ever

 

[excalibur313]

actually, it's software
hopefully, Apple will switch to the UEFI in the next few revisions so we can just load up the UEFI modules. The UEFI would allow us Mac users to use regular PC video cards as well in the future when PCs move to UEFI if ever

If it is software why isn't there a firmware patch made by some third party company/group or intel itself? Is it the scariness of engineering a firmware update?

 

[SeaFox]

Microsoft really dropped the ball here.

Ah well, what else is new?

Whatever! Apple dropped the ball. People want to be able to dual-boot between Windows and Mac, natively. Not using VirtualPC or any other third-party stand-between. Apple should have probably used BIOS on the Intel Macs or at least implemented the backwards compatability in their EFI setup.

You think Apple didn't investigate the Windows-booting capability of their Intel machies before they released them? I doubt it. It's something that would effect their marketability.

The whole "We wouldn't do anything to impede anyone from booting Windows" line was horse****. Why would they:

1) Pick a new system boot instruction platform different then what 90% of existing Intel systems use.

2) Implement it in a way that is not backwards compatable with the standard, when they easily could have, and

3) The result is something that will not run the currently shipping version of Windows (and a quick call to Microsoft could have verified that before finalizing the motherboard).

Really, does this not seem to be a little much for a mere coincidence?

Apple thought they'd get a year or two alone before Vista shipped. Then the Intel Macs came out, people started to complain that "Hey, I still can't boot Windows to work from home! Oh well, when Vista comes out I'll be able to then."

At some point Microsoft realized this was a Good Thing for them, too. And they had to do little to keep it going. Since most PC's had BIOS (or at least the compatability layer) by dropping plans for EFI support they hurt their own customer base little but messed up people who were thinking of switching to Macs and taking advantage of the ability to use it like their old Wintel, too.

Really, people. I've been reading Apple's statements about booting Windows as lies from the beginning. The fact you couldn't do when they first shipped should have been writing on the wall.

_________
Edit: AidenShaw beat me to it.

 

[excalibur313]

Whatever! Apple dropped the ball. People want to be able to dual-boot between Windows and Mac, natively. Not using VirtualPC or any other third-party stand-between. Apple should have probably used BIOS on the Intel Macs or at least implemented the backwards compatability in their EFI setup.

You think Apple didn't investigate the Windows-booting capability of their Intel machies before they released them? I doubt it. It's something that would effect their marketability.

The whole "We wouldn't do anything to impede anyone from booting Windows" line was horse****. Why would they:

1) Pick a new system boot instruction platform different then what 90% of existing Intel systems use.

2) Implement it in a awy that is not backwards compatable with the standard, when they easily could have, and

3) The result is something that will not run the currently shipping version of Windows (and a quick call to Microsoft could have verified that before finalizing the motherboard).

Really, does this not seem to be a little much for a mere coincidence?

Apple thought they'd get a year or two alone before Vista shipped. Then the Intel Macs came out, people started to complain that "Hey, I still can't boot Windows to work from home! Oh well, when Vista comes out I'll be able to then."

At some point Microsoft realized this was a Good Thing for them, too. And they had to do little to keep it going. Since most PC's had BIOS (or at least the compatability layer) by dropping plans for EFI support they hurt their own customer base little but messed up people who were thinking of switching to Macs and taking advantage of the ability to use it like their old Wintel, too.

Really, people. I've been reading Apple's statements about booting Windows as lies from the beginning. The fact you couldn't do when they first shipped should have been writing on the wall.

I agree, probably the best solution would have been using the backward compatibility module. From what i've read, EFI really is a lot better than BIOS.