No EFI Support on Windows Vista?

[SeaFox]

yea, I dont get it. did you buy a mac just 2 weeks ago in hopes of booting into windows in 3 months?

im guessing sarcasim or retardisim

No, the real joke (if you had read his sig) is that he's selling a G5 iMac. Not an Intel iMac. So this whole discussion about Windows dropping EFI support has no bearing his decision to sell his iMac. Vista with EFI support wouldn't have run on his machine any better than tomato ketchep.

 

[SeaFox]

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.

Would you take a $299 Dell to a LAN Party?

Besides the fact that would be a full size tower you'd be lugging, you'd have a system with probably integrated graphics, 512MB of RAM and a Celeron. You couldn't play games worth a damn on it.

 

[Will_reed]

That's one way for MS to ensure that Windows won't boot on a Mac. Next MS will go back to punch cards and then they'll have everyone right where they want them!

I dunno apple hasn't released any punch cards for them to rip off

 

[iQuit]

Get a DAMN XBOX! Grow up, computers are for computing! Get a life. seriously.


(EDIT) The fact is I wouldn't take any computer to a LAN party. Considering I have a life and don't know anyone who does have LAN parties.

Would you take a $299 Dell to a LAN Party?

Besides the fact that would be a full size tower you'd be lugging, you'd have a system with probably integrated graphics, 512MB of RAM and a Celeron. You couldn't play games worth a damn on it.

 

[SeaFox]

IJ, you're sharp!

Quiet! All of you. Your humor is nothing but lame hacks.

Now let's steel our resolve to find a point to these actions by M$ and Apple.

(bowing)

 

[matticus008]

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.
[...]

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

Actually, it seems a lot like a company developing technology in its best interests and not taking on unnecessary technology or code to help a competitor.

There's no technical reason Windows can't boot. Apple didn't implement any proprietary code or restrictions. They opted against including a (useless) module because they have no reason to maintain compatibility with an older generation of computers. From Apple's perspective, BIOS doesn't get them anywhere. Microsoft had planned on supporting EFI and now they've changed their mind, and that's why it won't work. When Apple decided to go with EFI, it was with the understanding that Vista would support it. Microsoft has full access to the tools and technology needed; it's not Apple's job to build for Windows.

Microsoft, technically, is the one benefiting from entering a new hardware market. Even if it helps sales of Macs, there's a conflict of interest at Apple (but not at MS).

 

[Shamus]

What a shame.

hehe, exactly.

 

[peeInMyPantz]

Hi,
I'm a window user.. really hardcore window user.
But it is not because I like windows.. it's just that most applications i need are there.
Even though I've never used mac before, I think I will like it.

That is why, when I heard that macintel may be able to run windows.. I told myself this is the time for me to migrate. Yup.. and I've been thinking about it for a long time.. I haven't ordered one coz I'm hoping for a 12 - 14 inch macbook pro to come out soon.

well.. this news really disappoints me.
But I think after dwelling on getting a macbook pro for almost 2 months now...
I have already fallen in love with it
So it's macbook pro... with or without vista.. I really don't care now.
Blinded by love.. I will get it anyway.. haha.
Just hope that they'll announce a smaller macbook pro soon.

 

[RichCoder]

Would you take a $299 Dell to a LAN Party?

I would take a $299 Dell to a lan party over a $3000 Mac. The unfortunate truth is that the dell would play more games than the mac. This is why I'm looking forward to dual-boot.

I think someone will create an emulation layer pretending to be bios that sits between EFI and Windows. EFI can load it from the OSX partition and the BIOS emulator can load windows from any other partition. Most software emulators already do this. Ex. VMWARE has it's own BIOS which boots windows just fine.

-rich

 

[Cappy]

Enough of the ragging on folks wanting to run Windows on Mac hardware. Good god I swear Mac fanatics can be arrogant at times. I've owned, used, and have supported Macs and Windows for 10 years now. Windows ain't that bad by any means and does have some things better than OS X. I prefer OS X myself which is why I have a Powerbook to take with me wherever I go. At home though my main machine is a Windows box. Why? Mostly for gaming but also because it helps keep me up to speed on supporting Windows boxes. Mac fanatics will likely disagree but it's just not that bad.

With that said I think you'll find a big reason why many college kids go Windows over Mac is for the gaming. Yeah compatibility in some cases is important but I'm sure it's games more than anything. Macs just aren't there yet and it's not like Apple shows any interest in pushing it. Many gamers want to buy a box and upgrade it for whatever game. It could simply be a video or sound card that might be needed. Apple wants to charge premium prices for the same thing you can do with a $800(give or take) pc boxes. Remember I'm talking about gaming.

Don't even bring up doing the console thing. If you're an fps player, no console can touch a pc.

Based on the price of the iMacs it's obvious that Apple isn't going to cater whatsoever to getting the gaming crowd. Sure some games will play on there but it won't take long before it's simply not good enough and gamers don't want to always be buying full systems.

If getting Windows to run was a done deal, the premium prices for their higher end systems would hold more value. I can safely say that I'm one of those. Looks like I'll be looking forward to Vista on my main system rather than handing over the $ that Apple would like to have.

I know it's wishful thinking but Apple might be able to still pull in a number of gamers if they can get more games ported and then use their top notch design people to engineer a specific box catered to gaming. I think it would sell especially if they bundled one top notch game with it. For instance when UT2k7 comes out, include that with each gaming system. It may not set sales records, I don't know, but the gaming market is huge these days and everyone but Apple is going after it moreso than ever before.

 

[Cappy]

I would take a $299 Dell at a lan party over at $3000 Mac. The unfortunate truth is that the dell would play more games than the mac. This is why I'm looking forward to dual-boot.

I think someone will create a emulation layer pretending to be bios that sits between EFI and Windows. EFI can load it from the OSX partition and the BIOS emulator can load windows from any other partition. Most software emulators already do this. Ex. VMWARE has it's own BIOS which boots windows just fine.

-rich

The problem is that performance isn't there under vmware even with Windows running under Windows. You might be able to play some older games maybe but newer stuff forget it. Someone will have to be very clever at hacking things to not have a performance issue for gamers if they get Windows running on Mac hardware.

 

[RichCoder]

The problem is that performance isn't there under vmware even with Windows running under Windows. You might be able to play some older games maybe but newer stuff forget it. Someone will have to be very clever at hacking things to not have a performance issue for gamers if they get Windows running on Mac hardware.

But I'm not talking about a system emulator just a BIOS emulator. The only difference in it and running Windows on something like a Dell would be that all Windows BIOS communication would go through the BIOS emulator. The system access such as video card, hard drive, motherboard components(usb, audio, etc) would all be done directly. IE no slowdown. Doom 3 on a core duo and X1600 PC laptop would run just as fast on the emulated BIOS system on the MacBook Pro. BIOS just tells windows where it needs to go in order to connect directly to these devices and provides other important system information.

-rich

 

[dornoforpyros]

uggg who cares? OS X is far superior to windows and on the rare occasion that you "must" use windows there is virtual PC, yeah it's slower the hell but for that 1 out of every 100 programs it's usable.

 

[RichCoder]

uggg who cares? OS X is far superior to windows and on the rare occasion that you "must" use windows there is virtual PC, yeah it's slower the hell but for that 1 out of every 100 programs it's usable.

Ummm. Ever try to play Half-life 2 through Virtual PC? If you don't care about such games, that's fine, but I think your who cares questions is answered.

Also, I'm a game developer, so having a laptop that can boot into both Windows and OSX allows me to make sure my games run on OSX as well by just rebooting my machine. Would you rather have it be even harder than it is to port games over to OSX?

-rich

 

[iEric]

I'm glad that Microsoft cannot be installed and booted on the new Intel macs. I hate sharing. That might explain it.

 

[JFreak]

Apple dropped the ball. People want to be able to dual-boot between Windows and Mac, natively.

What the h*ll?

Apple is _not_ in the business of increasing Microsoft's market share. They are not in any way required to add pieces to their systems to support Microsoft. It's the other way around: if Microsoft wants its products to be installable to "manufacturer X's" systems, then it is _Microsoft_ who must add pieces to its software.

It is Microsoft who announced that they drop support of EFI (modern) in favor of BIOS (ancient), so it is Microsoft who should be blamed and not Apple. If Microsoft wants to support something that is more than 20 years old, it's their choice, but NOT supporting shomthing that is current is just plain stupid.

It wouldn't cost them anything to support EFI, but they choose not to. Blame them, not Apple. There is absolutely no reason for Apple to support something that is much older than OSX itself.

 

[JFreak]

Microsoft had planned on supporting EFI and now they've changed their mind, and that's why it won't work.

Exactly.

 

[SeaFox]

Actually, it seems a lot like a company developing technology in its best interests and not taking on unnecessary technology or code to help a competitor.

The ability to boot Windows natively is an asset when you're trying to sell a PC. Why do you think Dell ships Windows in almost all PC's when there is a market for ones shipping with a Linux distro on them instead? They have to pay the Microsoft tax either way thanks to their lousy licensing agreement, and the Windows PC has a much larger potential market.

There's no technical reason Windows can't boot. Apple didn't implement any proprietary code or restrictions.

They implemented a boot hardware platform that was restricted in not being able to act as a BIOS. The lack of the compatatbility layer was a concious decision on Apple's part.

They opted against including a (useless) module because they have no reason to maintain compatibility with an older generation of computers.

BIOS (or the compatability module) are required to run the current version of Windows, that's not an "older generation" of computers, that's the tech of now.

From Apple's perspective, BIOS doesn't get them anywhere.

Except onto the desks of university students with schools/majors that require Windows-compatable PC's, and into the homes of people who want to play many current games (read: almost all of the family consumer market) and onto the desks of people who need to use Windows-only apps.

Microsoft had planned on supporting EFI and now they've changed their mind, and that's why it won't work. When Apple decided to go with EFI, it was with the understanding that Vista would support it.

Everybody note that Apple made the assumption a feature of Vista mentioned by Microsoft was absolutely going to appear in the final shipping version.

No further comment needed.

Microsoft has full access to the tools and technology needed; it's not Apple's job to build for Windows.

This isn't a high level OS interaction technology. This is technology they could have gotten access to through a company that deals with Windows PC manufacturers all the time. Apple should have had a relationship going with Intel.

Oh, wait...

Microsoft, technically, is the one benefiting from entering a new hardware market. Even if it helps sales of Macs, there's a conflict of interest at Apple (but not at MS).

This makes so little sense.

First of all, not to troll here, but if the Mac experience is so superior to Windows, why is Apple afraid to let people run Windows on their machines?

The benifits are are actually reciprocating, and heavily weighted to Apple. If Macs can run Windows, Microsoft gains access to, what? 3% of the hardware market? Wow, what a boon for them. And amost of the people buying that hardware are doing so with the intention of NOT running Windows.

Meanwhile, Macintoshes being able to run Windows gives Apple a potential hardware market in, gee 100% of the consumer market.

If the MacOS as an OS/platform were to wither and die, what reason would there be to buy a Macintosh computer? Except to run a bunch of Linux distros, none. If Macintoshes could run Windows, Apple could contunue to be a hardware business catering to high fashion/quality PC buyers (think Sony or Alienware).

 

[Azmordean]

I love macs but geez I hate mac users sometimes. You people can be soo arrogant and short sighted. "Games are for losers, so who cares if they can't be played." Thats the argument of some people here. Are you kidding me? The fact is, the lack of gaming capability on macs is one of THE biggest things holding them back. LOTS of people are interested in PC Gaming. And please don't say consoles - I hate consoles. Show me more than a few decent RTS or MMORPGs on a console... yeah, didn't think so. Sure, you can blame the game developers. Or you can realize, purposely or not, Apple has done EVERYTHING in their power to keep games off macs. Lets look at a list:

(1) Nothing to deal with DirectX. OpenGL is all but gone for many game developers these days. Its DirectX for Windows. DirectX for Xbox. Oh, no directx on macs? Oh well, no mac port, there aren't enough mac users anyway.

(2) Crap video cards come standard. The new MacBook Pros are changing this. But lets face it - not too long ago you could buy a top of the line PowerMac G5 for $3000 and get a Radeon 9600 with it. Come on, even back then, the 9600 is an "entry level" graphics card by PC standards.

(3) OS X. I love it to death. It handles a lot of things amazingly well. But I've got a feeling, and I've had it for a long time, that its just a bit too RAM hungry, too resource intensive, and too flashy to ever be great for gaming.

(4) Expense. I've got a dedicated machine for gaming. I can keep it upgraded for the newest games by dropping around $300-600 every couple of years on a new mobo/cpu/ram and/or video card. In comparison, with a mac, I'd have to drop $2500 every couple of years for a new powermac (because in all honesty, imacs never have cut it as anything beyond a casual gaming medium, and never will unless they become something more than glorified laptops).

(5) Lack of games. Sure there's WoW and a few other "hits." But by and large, I'd say you get access to about 10% of the games out there if you are on a mac. And about 5% are in the form of ports done by 3rd parties, which can occasionally be good, but often aren't.

Conclusion: Apple has made it abundantly clear over and over again that you aren't supposed to game on a Mac. So don't. Keep your Mac for every day tasks, for work, for iLife... and build yourself a Windows PC (WinXP or even 2000 will do) for gaming. You won't be sorry, and neither will your wallet. I'll admit that the non-booting of Vista is a disappointment. I was hoping it could boot so that I could have a laptop capable of some limited gaming while I'm on the road. And this will hurt apple. I know a lot of people who can't have or don't want 2 computers - so it'll have to be Windows, because that's where the games are. Even if you play once every couple of weeks - you need windows to even have the option. But oh well, ultimately this saves me cash. I'll be happy with my powerbook a LOT longer now. Because lets face it - a G4 is more than enough for 99% of the tasks non IT/Graphics people do. Gaming, of course, is the exception.

 

[BornAgainMac]

Windows Vista = Windows XP

I don't think Vista will be ready for years, Microsoft may just repackage XP as Vista with some new backgrounds, sounds, and effects.

 

[SeaFox]

What the h*ll?
Apple is _not_ in the business of increasing Microsoft's market share.

Microsoft already has 97% of the market. They really have little to gain from being compatable with Mac hardware, especially since people buying Apple hardware generally do NOT want to run Windows. They do not want to use Windows so much, they're willing to pay $300-$1000 more for their systems to use the MacOS. Think about that for a minute.

No, Apple is not in the business of increasing Microsoft's marketshare. But they are trying to increase the market share of their products. The "Mac Experience" is the hardware and the software, but that doesn't mean the two are inseparable.

They are not in any way required to add pieces to their systems to support Microsoft.

Somebody here doesn't know their Apple history.

"...The 6100/66 DOS was also available, with a 66 MHz 486DX/2 processor card, and was discontinued in early 1996."

It's the other way around: if Microsoft wants its products to be installable to "manufacturer X's" systems, then it is _Microsoft_ who must add pieces to its software.

There's only one Microsoft platform, there are many PC makers. So who do you think gets to call the shots?

I keep hearing how EFI is better than old and busted BIOS. So why aren't PC makers all changing over to it? Because Windows won't run on it without the compatability layer. So why go to the trouble of changing to EFI when BIOS works fine and all switching to EFI (and not including the compatability layer) will do is make you average PC maker lose 98% of their customers (and since most of them are surviving on razor thin margins and making it up on volume, they might as well have lost 100% of their customers if that happens).

If Microsoft announced they were dropping support for BIOS completely with Vista and only going with EFI, you think any PC maker would keep using BIOS?

Who wearing the pants in this relationship again?

It is Microsoft who announced that they drop support of EFI (modern) in favor of BIOS (ancient), so it is Microsoft who should be blamed and not Apple. If Microsoft wants to support something that is more than 20 years old, it's their choice, but NOT supporting shomthing that is current is just plain stupid.

You mean like not supporting BIOS when you know your customers have an interest in using Windows? That's what people-- excuse me. That's what many Apple customers both current and potential talked about when the Intel transition was announced.

It wouldn't cost [Microsoft] anything to support EFI, but they choose not to.

It would cost Apple little if anything to have included the BIOS compatability in their EFI. And since people would be using it to run something other than the MacOS, Apple wouldn't have had to support it.

Blame them, not Apple. There is absolutely no reason for Apple to support something that is much older than OSX itself.

*cough*Classic!*cough*

 

[matticus008]

The ability to boot Windows natively is an asset when you're trying to sell a PC. Why do you think Dell ships Windows in almost all PC's when there is a market for ones shipping with a Linux distro on them instead? They have to pay the Microsoft tax either way thanks to their lousy licensing agreement, and the Windows PC has a much larger potential market.

They're not trying to compete with HP and Dell. The ability to boot Mac OS X is the crucial asset to Apple. They have no reason to step backwards in order to accomodate a competitor.

They implemented a boot hardware platform that was restricted in not being able to act as a BIOS. The lack of the compatatbility layer was a concious decision on Apple's part.

Of course it was a conscious decision. Ignoring EFI was a conscious decision on Microsoft's part, too. BIOS compatability means nothing to Apple internally.

BIOS (or the compatability module) are required to run the current version of Windows, that's not an "older generation" of computers, that's the tech of now.

BIOS is the tech of 1981, not now. Microsoft has chosen to retain support for computers that can't possibly run the current version of Windows, despite a superior alternative being available for years. It's neglect on Microsoft's part for not keeping up. There's no practical reason for Apple even to look at BIOS other than to stay in the past with Microsoft. That's not the way Apple works.

Except onto the desks of university students with schools/majors that require Windows-compatable PC's, and into the homes of people who want to play many current games (read: almost all of the family consumer market) and onto the desks of people who need to use Windows-only apps.

You make the assumption that Apple wants to be a typical PC vendor. They could have done that years ago if they'd wanted to compete toe to toe with Dell. They're not interested in making pretty Windows computers for people. If these people are reliant on Windows (they are), then Apple's approach would be to remove that reliance through OS X.

Everybody note that Apple made the assumption a feature of Vista mentioned by Microsoft was absolutely going to appear in the final shipping version.

No further comment needed.

And you would prefer they make assumptions about the future using...a ouija board? They didn't say "Hey, you can buy this Mac and run Windows Vista on it." They said, "we're not going to do anything to prevent booting Windows" which means that they are not going to erect barriers to lock down their computers. It also does NOT mean that they are going to bend over to make it easier--they didn't say "we're going to help users run Windows."

This isn't a high level OS interaction technology. This is technology they could have gotten access to through a company that deals with Windows PC manufacturers all the time. Apple should have had a relationship going with Intel.

Oh, wait...

What's your point? Microsoft had access to EFI and BIOS, Apple had access to EFI and BIOS.

This makes so little sense.

First of all, not to troll here, but if the Mac experience is so superior to Windows, why is Apple afraid to let people run Windows on their machines?

The benifits are are actually reciprocating, and heavily weighted to Apple. If Macs can run Windows, Microsoft gains access to, what? 3% of the hardware market? Wow, what a boon for them. And amost of the people buying that hardware are doing so with the intention of NOT running Windows.

Meanwhile, Macintoshes being able to run Windows gives Apple a potential hardware market in, gee 100% of the consumer market.

If the MacOS as an OS/platform were to wither and die, what reason would there be to buy a Macintosh computer? Except to run a bunch of Linux distros, none. If Macintoshes could run Windows, Apple could contunue to be a hardware business catering to high fashion/quality PC buyers (think Sony or Alienware).

There's no denying that there is some benefit to having access to Windows natively. But at the same time, it is not Apple's job, nor should it be, to use outdated technology in an effort to establish that ability when Microsoft has the ability to update its products to a modern standard. Apple doesn't need Microsoft. It's not a fear about OS X superiority, it's prudent business. You don't reach out to your competitor. In this case Microsoft is a competitor to Apple in the software sense. Microsoft is NOT a competitor to Apple in the hardware sense.

Therefore, Microsoft has no reason not to attempt to expand its stagnating and shrinking market (even by a fraction of 3%). Apple on the other hand, has a priority and an obligation to its OS X platform. Adding BIOS for NO OTHER REASON than to allow a competing OS to work does not make sense, even if it increases hardware sales. This is because Apple is not interested in selling white box hardware. Apple's business plan is predicated on furthering the Mac platform (Macintosh computers and Mac OS X), not making pretty Windows boxes. The merit of your argument depends on the hypothetical collapse of the OS X platform. Then and only then would it make sense for Apple to reach out to Microsoft. But since Apple's market share is growing (because of OS X first and the hardware second), they are not the ones who need to be on the defensive. On the contrary, Microsoft is the one with something to lose. Apple has nothing to lose by doing nothing.

 

[Mechcozmo]

I would take a $299 Dell to a lan party over a $3000 Mac. The unfortunate truth is that the dell would play more games than the mac. This is why I'm looking forward to dual-boot.

Internet Hearts? Solitaire? High-stakes game of Minesweeper, perhaps? COUNT ME IN!

(1) Nothing to deal with DirectX. OpenGL is all but gone for many game developers these days. Its DirectX for Windows. DirectX for Xbox. Oh, no directx on macs? Oh well, no mac port, there aren't enough mac users anyway.

What one is propriety, owned-by-your-favorite-company? Yeah, DirectX. OpenGL works just as well, but can be used on EVERY OPERATING SYSTEM. Windows, OS X, Linux, *BSD.

(2) Crap video cards come standard. The new MacBook Pros are changing this. But lets face it - not too long ago you could buy a top of the line PowerMac G5 for $3000 and get a Radeon 9600 with it. Come on, even back then, the 9600 is an "entry level" graphics card by PC standards.

True. Although the Intel iMac and MacBook Pro seems to be reversing this trend.

(3) OS X. I love it to death. It handles a lot of things amazingly well. But I've got a feeling, and I've had it for a long time, that its just a bit too RAM hungry, too resource intensive, and too flashy to ever be great for gaming.

The reason OS X runs slower is actually something you said-- "It handles a lot of things amazingly well." OS X is layered as such so that you cannot access the graphics card directly. You must go through the OS. That means the OpenGL layer, the 3D layer, etc. That's all fairly efficient, but less so than Windows where you can just go to the card directly. OS 9 was like this too, which is why the same game, same card, runs faster in OS 9. Aside from OS 9's less demanding requirements, the graphics card was being hogged by the game. Not very nice of the game, nor the OS to let that happen.

 

[(L)]

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

Well, a cleaver may find a way to cleave it. Or get more cleavage. You know, like a *oob job.

Lol

 

[(L)]

Ummm. Ever try to play Half-life 2 through Virtual PC? If you don't care about such games, that's fine, but I think your who cares questions is answered.

Also, I'm a game developer, so having a laptop that can boot into both Windows and OSX allows me to make sure my games run on OSX as well by just rebooting my machine. Would you rather have it be even harder than it is to port games over to OSX?

-rich

Ummm... Ever wonder if playing Half-life 2 is a waste? Lol...I'll get flamed for that. I mean, I get your point. But, Apple doesn't really that its consumer line can't play every game on the market, mostly because they really don't need the hardcore gamer market, which is hard to get at anyway (most people investing in computers by game preference may easily overlook OS preference). Cramming in unbelievable graphics cards hasn't been big either, although the MBP has one with 256 MB memory. I still agree with you, there is always a benefit to be able to do more rather than not, without any other thing changing anyway.

But, as a game developer, would you rather port your games over to OS X by having 2 computers, side by side, or not port it at all since any serious Mac gamer will play on Windows (via Windows boot on Apple hardware) anyway? And even if you seriously wanted to port it to every platform, would it really make it that much easier to port with dual boot, as opposed to side by side? Isn't it pretty close?

Don't get me wrong...I'd like to see a bigger selection of games for the Mac, too. But developers that have only been willing to script for Windows so far will be more encouraged by the Mac's (not necessarily Apple computers') growth in market share than by whether or not Apple computers can dual boot, which might even encourage them to continue writing just for Windows. Now, if dual boot could help Apple market share, that's great! But if you think it would do that, why should Microsoft support EFI? They would not sell more copies, but they'd be selling the same copies to semi-switchers that'll probably not look back for long.