No EFI Support on Windows Vista?

[richinspace]

I just got my first MacCar two weeks ago – the style of a Ferrari and the safety of a Volvo. Now, this message from Lada caught me by surprise. I was really looking forward to replacing my MacCar engine with that of a VAZ-2104 (http://www.crxsi.com/mycar/lada.htm).

I'm so darned disappointed, and I'm so lonely in my garage when all my pals are out there having fun in the weekly russian-car race. Anybody wants my MacCar for free?

 

[richinspace]

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

Lol

Don't you get it? A "cleaver person" is a guy who is hacking software.

 

[lexfuzo]

the current version of Windows, that's not an "older generation" of computers, that's the tech of now.

The current version of Windows is old technology. XP is from 2001!
If Microsoft decides not to adopt a modern standard in the next generation of their OS, it's just another sign how slow and visionless that whole company is.

 

[c-Row]

(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.

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!

 

[SeaFox]

They're not trying to compete with HP and Dell.

So the Mac Mini hit that magic $500 price point for no reason al all? Puleeze. It was all about slapping down the naysayers who pointed out that a PC (from HP or Dell) could be had for a few hundred clams, while the cheapest Mac was a $900 iBook. If Apple doesn't compete with HP and Dell, why does the Mac Mini exist? To get switchers! And if you're switching to a Mac, you're NOT buying an HP or Dell. Yeah, Apple doesn't compete directly with HP and Dell, I'd be the first person to point this out (and I did, in a Slashdot discussion about the Mini). But all PC makers, Windows, Mac, and Linux are competing on some level for the same thing - fulfilling the public's computing needs. And when you can't run a software package or use a certain hardware device a person needs in their computing. You solution is not even in the running anymore.

This is something lots of people here don't remember and will become painfully clear as more and more institutes of higher learning make laptops a requirement. Many of them are not going to support every platform on their network infastructure or services, they will choose one or many two platforms. They will choose Windows for obvious reasons like:

1) The majority of prospective students already use the Windows platform, based on the fact the majority of everyone uses the Windows platform.

2) Laptops can be had for less, so less complaints from parents about the cost of an Apple iBook vs. a Dell Insprion. in fact, less complaints about having to buy laptops in general because many will already have laptops which meet the university's system requirements.

3) Our IT people are MCSE hacks and couldn't find their way around a Bash shell if their life depended on it.

For parents shopping for a college computer, Apple will be automatically crossed off the list in these cases, and why? becuase of a little bit of code Apple was too proud to add? This is the education market we're talking about here. It used to be Apple's bread and butter.

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.

Who says they're stepping backwards? Apple's rebuilding the entire platform to begin with. You can't step backwards from the start.

Also, you continue to imply Apple has to choose BIOS to be Windows bootable. What about the whole compatability ability in EFI?

Does having the BIOS backwards state have any adverse effects on the EFI advantages? I doubt it.

Would a BIOS compatable EFI cause any issues for a person only booting OSX? Not likely.

So someone who was using their Intel Mac only for OSX would never even interact with the BIOS support.

In fact--Dare I say it?
They wouldn't even need to know it was there.

But it would make a world of differnce to someone who likes using Macs but is working in a Windows world (which is most people in case you didn't notice). Hey, my laptop case is suddenly half as heavy on account I'm only carrying one laptop now! And I'm doing it without taking any performance hit on my business apps or spending extra dough on VirtualPC. Now who looks smart?

BIOS compatability means nothing to Apple internally.

Except to their marketting dept.
Apple didn't make those Intel-compatable first generation Power Macs just for sh**s and grins.

BIOS is the tech of 1981, not now.

The point was it was still the standard, so it wasn't obsolete like you implied. That's like saying VHS is obsolete as soon as DVD technolgy is released even though there are practically no movies available yet.

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.

No, you're incorrect. Microsoft has chosen to retain support for a single component of computers. A component that has been in use for a very long time, and continues to be used widely today. Microsoft isn't going to make much off Vista if it doesn't retain compatability with BIOS, because everyone will have to buy a new PC if it doesn't. And if they get a new PC, they get Vista for the somewhere between the $4 (Dell) and $30-$50 something other OEM's pay per license to Microsoft, instead of the $100-200 Microsoft will get if customers upgrade their current system.

There is a very large folly in Microsoft not including support for EFI in XP, that would have given the PC world enough run up time (given the rediculous delays in Vista) to transition over. If that had happened, Microsoft could have announced that they were dropping support for BIOS, instead of not including EFI support in Vista.

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 current with Microsoft. That's not the way Apple works.

There, fixed it for you.

Apple may be asking us where we want to go tomorrow while Microsoft asks us where we want to go today. But that doesn't mean we want to do nothing until tomorrow gets here.

You make the assumption that Apple wants to be a typical PC vendor.

If you mean a company that builds computers, sells them, and strives to deliver what customers want, then yes, I thought Apple did.

 

[SeaFox]

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.

I never said Apple had to sell the computers with both OSX and WinXP on them. I'm not saying Apple has to be a Windows OEM Builder.

People's Windows reliance can still be removed. If you don't ship Windows on them people will have to pay through the nose for a retail boxed copy. It's not like they can just stick in their old PC's "recovery" CD and use that installer, and few switchers will want to do buy a fresh Microsoft license after paying the extra Mac platform markup to start with.

Remember, they are mass consumers. The price is everything to them.

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.

Building their system around hardware they damn well know is incompatable with Windows is erecting a barrier, in case you missed it.

Who cares about Vista. Until it ships it is nothing more than Vaporware. Nothing is there to stop Microsoft from coming out tomorrow with a press announcement they are pushing Vista back two years to reintegrate all the stuff they stripped out that was originally promised (Indigo, WinFS, ...), and they are releasing WinXP SP3 at the end of October instead.

Apple aimed at a moving target, and that was just plain stupid of them.

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."

They can build for the future without forsaking the past, as I have stated already.

There's only one group who bent over here. People who bought Macbook Pros who thought Apple was going to not do anything wierd with their hardware that keeps Windows from running after Apple said it wouldn't.

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

This is the same song and dance we had with CHRP. The hardware makers and OS writers all pay lip service to standards, but in the end they really don't want consumers to be able to choose freely what platform they run, or {[shudder]} be able to run more than one without having a table full of machines.

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.

You continue to make this something Microsoft should do. Since when has Microsoft ever done what it should? Micorsoft is at the advantage due to their market share, they don't need to do anything. Apple is the one with more to gain from this, so they need to to the work (which is pretty much nil with Intel helping them).

You keep asking why Apple should include the compatability (in EFI form). You should be asking why shouldn't they. What do they have to lose? People might switch to Windows? What a load of crock. If someone is interested in the Wintel platform they can sample pretty darn easily verses going the other way. They don't have to look for a Windows PC to play around with like you do a Mac. Even if they bought a whole PC simply for the sake of trying it out they only dropped a few hundred, and can sell it on eBay or in the newspaper in a snap if they didn't like it. It truly is a disposable platform costwise.

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.

Which would suffer NO ILL EFFECTS from the inclusion of a BIOS compatable EFI implementation. If so, feel free to say how.

This is because Apple is not interested in selling white box hardware.

Do you even know what "white box" means? It means taking generic parts and selling them in cases mass made by (usually) overseas vendors. That's why it's a "white box" i.e. not brand name, not unique. It's a business built on labor markup and convienence, not actual hardware profits. Apple can never be a white box vendor. That's why I compare Apple to Sony and Alienware in the hardware market. Not Joe's PC's. Apple sells at a premium for their industrial design and quality, not their ability to get mass parts cheap.

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.

No, the beauty of my arguement is should the unfortunate happen, Apple is already there. They don't have to "reach out". There's no uncomfortable period of bankrupcy protection while they decide what business they want to go into next (like Commodore, Atari, Amiga). They just shutter the OS division and press on in hardware.

 

[SeaFox]

Ot

I just wanted to take this oppertunity to apologize to everyone for these incredibly long posts. I don't mean to dominate this viewpoint of the discussion and I'm sure AidenShaw and others have constructive input in this as well.

 

[aegisdesign]

just goes to show you how far ahead of the curve Apple is when it comes to technology. As usual, they are 2-3 years more advanced.

That and they had no legacy on Intel to support.

If Microsoft aren't supporting 32bit EFI systems in Vista then the PC platform is stuck with BIOS for another 5 years or so. 30 years on the same bad idea firmware. Microsoft should be ashamed that they aren't pushing that forward.

 

[aegisdesign]

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.

Blimey. Send for the Black Helicopters.

Apple chose EFI because it's good. They have no need for a BIOS compatibility layer.

 

[RichCoder]

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

Are you trying to come off as clueless? That is your list of games that people would want to play on a Windows machine that can't be played on OSX? Good point

I would list the games that only Windows can run here but most users wanting to play them already know them all to well.

Blind devotion to the point that you can't see that the Mac could be better is just sad. Its the same people that blasted Intel machines when Jobs showed the PowerPC benchmarks beating Intel AND THEN later said that speed is not what the Mac is all about when Intel machines started getting faster than PowerPC chips.

My advice, shave your head and tattoo the Apple logo on top and sale flowers at the airport.

-rich

 

[TangoCharlie]

grub

I should imagine that it'll be possible to boot Windows using grub (the GNU bootloader).

As soon as I get my intel mac, I'll let you know!!

 

[ScottB]

I want to see Linux distributions, WINE and QEMU running on Apple's intel hardware, not windows.

 

[(L)]

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.

And has been for...? In case you know nothing about Windows, BIOS has been there for decades, and Windows has a lot of old baggage in it. Oh yeah, I made a hand-plow the other day. Does that make it current technology?

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.

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? You're talking about "almost all of the" geeky kid who can't just stick to console games market.

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

Everybody! I demand that you note! Apple doesn't really care! Lol. I mean, Apple didn't assume anything, if you have the ability to see that they were never in control of whether or not Microsoft chooses to have Windows be compatible or not. If Apple made it BIOS, Microsoft could have made it EFI, or something different, or yadiya. Apple was relying on MS advertisement, which often flops all over? I don't understand your point. Apple never made such an assumption, and whatever led you to think that, you should reexamine. Think about it - why would any halfway intelligent company ever assume that a competitor would necessarily cooperate?

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...

Yeah, they do. They have also stood for innovation for a looong time, unlike Microsoft. Maybe Apple is afraid of semi-switchers and is more eager to develop a true user base with superior software. Your argument assumes a false necessity to support Windows.

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?

It's not a matter of OS superiority. Many people need Windows, and most people would rather have Macs, though they don't know it simply from lack of interest. Needing Windows, however, does not equate to an interest in Macs. Needing Windows, furthermore, will not end if Windows boots on Apple computers.

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.... You assume (1) Apple is afraid and (2) they are afraid because they think that Windows is better than Mac or would hurt the Mac OS. Not only is this wrong and missing the point entirely, the diction makes it sound immature. Not saying you are, so don't get all hot with me, please. Just a little curious about the aim of this statement.

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.

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

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

As in, NO. Lol. You make me laugh. 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.

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.

Read anything true lately? The Mac is gaining in OS market share. What is the meaning of your supposition? Is there one? Lol. Macintosh = Software. Apple = hardware. A Macintosh computer is one that runs Mac. What are you talking about?

If Macintoshes could run Windows, Apple could contunue to be a hardware business catering to high fashion/quality PC buyers (think Sony or Alienware).

Think - Macs are not toys like Sony computers or Alienware computers. 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 (I assume by "contunue" you mean "continue"), 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?

 

[RichCoder]

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?

You make your point well. As a game developer, you need to reach your audience without assuming they will jump through hoops to play your game. Porting isn't difficult and producing a native version of your game will likely reach more people than expecting to only reach those willing to setup a dual boot system in the first place.

I would never decide not to do a Mac port just because I thought I would get the Mac players anyway by making only a Windows version. It does concern me that I have a machine perfectly able(in theory) to allow me to develop for both systems, but I can't because Apple actively decided to remove the BIOS extension to EFI.

Everyone knows that if you have Windows and OSX on the same machine, you will spend 90%+ in OSX. OSX is just that much better. But isn't it a bonus to be able to tun occational Windows game or application that demands full access to the machine's speed and resources.

This is all moot anyway since someone will figure out soon how to get it to work anyway. I look forward to that. For those that don't, how does that hurt you?

-rich

 

[JoeG4]

Apple removed the BIOS compatibility to eliminate wasted space and not have to support that outdated pile of..

I don't get why everyone's blaming Apple for a decision Microsoft made; By failing to support EFI, they're not just making it tough for you to run their piece of garbage on your computer, but will make a lot of users who decide to buy a new EFI motherboard jump through hoops as well, especially those who wish to take full advantage of EFI's advantages over BIOS (memory addressing, for example).

Obviously nobody seems to see the point, and would rather blame Apple.

 

[(L)]

Are you trying to come off as clueless? That is your list of games that people would want to play on a Windows machine that can't be played on OSX? Good point

I would list the games that only Windows can run here but most users wanting to play them already know them all to[o] well.

Blind devotion to the point that you can't see that the Mac could be better is just sad. [They're] the same people that blasted Intel machines when Jobs showed the PowerPC benchmarks beating Intel AND THEN later said that speed is not what the Mac is all about when Intel machines started getting faster than PowerPC chips.

My advice, shave your head and tattoo the Apple logo on top and sale flowers at the airport.

-rich

Why are you blasting people here? Sale is not a verb, yo.

It's one thing to want to play games before anything else, it's another to want to use a computer. I'm sure the person you were responding to did not mean minesweeper was the only reason to play on a Windows toy. Being able to play more games on Mac OS X depends on the game developers; the game developers want to see OS X market share rise significantly before they make such, not Apple hardware gains. People that really want to play some games yet cannot, that is, the people you are addressing in the statement "I would list the games that only Windows can run here but most users wanting to play them already know them all to well," can either wait until more games come out for Mac (which will still happen, eventually, and the Intel transition is a big step), buy a console instead and be satisfied, graduate from being gamers (hey, pick up some artistic studies instead, eh?), or buy a Windows toy. If people want to play games so much right now, they can switch to Windows - this is basically what you are suggesting and I would agree with. You act like it is a crime if games aren't big on Apple's agenda.

 

[JFreak]

If Apple doesn't compete with HP and Dell, why does the Mac Mini exist? To get switchers!

That's one of the Mini selling points, but Mini also exists as a MEDIA CENTER that is small enough to be easily hidden if wanted to and pretty enough to be shown to public if that's preferred. You know, there are a lot of Mac users who also like to buy a displayless Mac...

Apple didn't make those Intel-compatable first generation Power Macs just for sh**s and grins.

At that time Apple was a little clueless, and back then there was no OSX.

The point was it was still the standard, so it wasn't obsolete like you implied. That's like saying VHS is obsolete as soon as DVD technolgy is released even though there are practically no movies available yet.

Yes, you're right, standards do not change overnight. But would you be happier person now if there was no DVD today? Want to stick with VHS, or -God forbid - the 8mm movie reels? Changing standards is the way to go forward, and I'm only very glad VHS is history now. And I will be happy once DVD is history, too. I want better, faster, more reliable and more stable technology, not something that 20 years ago was crappy to begin with.

The point is in changing standards from BIOS to EFI. Going over 20 years forward. It must begin at some point, and if nobody else, Apple will lead the way. Just like Apple dropped legacy ports in favor of newer substitutes like USB and FireWire. And floppies? Would you want to keep using them, too? I'm so glad there has not been built-in floppy drives in Apple computers in about 10 years. Yes, every PC out there has them, but when was the last time I used one? Hmm...

Microsoft has chosen to retain support for a single component of computers. A component that has been in use for a very long time, and continues to be used widely today. Microsoft isn't going to make much off Vista if it doesn't retain compatability with BIOS, because everyone will have to buy a new PC if it doesn't.

There's absolutely no reason why Microsoft could not support both; supporting BIOS is a must for them as you stated, but NOT supporting EFI is just plain stupid. That way Microsoft ties itself into tech of 1981 and still has to face it some day that BIOS must be forgotten and replaced with something new. If not now with EFI, then later on with something else. The point is not going to just magically go away - either they stick with BIOS to forever or abandon it some day. Do you think that day never comes?

Apple may be asking us where we want to go tomorrow while Microsoft asks us where we want to go today. But that doesn't mean we want to do nothing until tomorrow gets here.

That's exactly why Apple will not support tech of 1981 but Microsoft should support that IN ADDITION TO current tech. Not supporting EFI is like not supporting AMD cpu extensions in mid-90's, but back then they were forced to play fair. This time they can try to depend on stupidity of PC makers and see how long they stick to the ancient tech called BIOS. Apple is not stupid in only supporting modern hardware.

If you mean a company that builds computers, sells them, and strives to deliver what customers want, then yes, I thought Apple did.

Yes. I want modern computers, both hardware and software; so I by what Apple has to offer.

While I also think that supporting EFI will not make Windows any better, I think that supporting EFI would allow PC manufacturers making better hardware, and that in turn would probably make Windows more stable. But no, Microsoft doesn't want that, it's better PC's are less stable so people would continue buying a new Windows box when they would not actually be needing one. In comparison, I know many Mac users that have only ever replaced their computers when their hardware fails, many of them switching to OSX from OS7 and OS8. How many potential Vista customers are out there that switch from Win95/98? Not many. Most will switch from XP/W2K.

 

[(L)]

You make your point well. As a game developer, you need to reach your audience without assuming they will jump through hoops to play your game. Porting isn't difficult and producing a native version of your game will likely reach more people than expecting to only reach those willing to setup a dual boot system in the first place.

I would never decide not to do a Mac port just because I thought I would get the Mac players anyway by making only a Windows version. It does concern me that I have a machine perfectly able(in theory) to allow me to develop for both systems, but I can't because Apple actively decided to remove the BIOS extension to EFI.

Everyone knows that if you have Windows and OSX on the same machine, you will spend 90%+ in OSX. OSX is just that much better. But isn't it a bonus to be able to tun occational Windows game or application that demands full access to the machine's speed and resources.

This is all moot anyway since someone will figure out soon how to get it to work anyway. I look forward to that. For those that don't, how does that hurt you?

-rich

I agree with you on most of this, but that bonus might be just that - a bonus. Sure, it'd be better with it, for some people. But I interpret Apple's neutral stance as one that is not particularly inclined to reach for that bonus; perhaps they forsee some detriment. I like dorky games anyway, which there are plenty of for the Mac, so it doesn't matter to me so long as Apple is pushing the OS as hard as they can. For that I think EFI is better, even if it means less growth if Windows cannot easily boot on it.

 

[(L)]

Apple may be asking us where we want to go tomorrow while Microsoft asks us where we want to go today. But that doesn't mean we want to do nothing until tomorrow gets here.

Tomorrow is here. This is the most self-annihilating statement I have ever seen. There are problems with your logic. Let's put it that way.

 

[weg]

im guessing sarcasim or retardisim

I'm guessing you wouldn't even recognize sarcasm if somebody points it out to you...

 

[luko]

Reading through this thread it makes me somewhat ashamed to be a Mac owner. For the simple reason that the narrow minded, arrogant, ignorant, elitist views are so aborant. It's like some sort of religious dabate.

I use both OS X and Windows....I would like to make the following points..

1) Windows XP is a good OS, but far from perfect

2) OS X is a good OS but far from perfect

Before attacking Windows, or more importantly Windows users, why dont you look closer to home and rant on about the many HUGE bugs in OS X before throwing your voice elsewhere.

If you can't understand why people need to run Windows then why do you make such a fuss about it? Why do you care if someone else needs Windows to run an app? or wants a Windows boot to play games? Are they betraying the Mac religion?

I dunno, this whole attitude sucks. The more and more I hear these views from people the more I want to distance myself from them. Apple and OS X are not the be all and end of of home computing, some people just can't seem to understand that.

 

[richinspace]

Amen!
Hey luko, believing in more than one god is also a religion, only more fickle.

 

[(L)]

I never said Apple had to sell the computers with both OSX and WinXP on them. I'm not saying Apple has to be a Windows OEM Builder.

No, you want the capability to boot both. You don't know what you are talking about, considering the rest of this.

Building their system around hardware they damn well know is incompatable with Windows is erecting a barrier, in case you missed it.

Perhaps, but only if Apple predicted that Vista would be switched back to BIOS. And even then, their main focus is Mac OS X, not Windows, which is yours.

Apple aimed at a moving target, and that was just plain stupid of them.

THEY WERE'NT AIMING FOR WINDOWS COMPATIBILITY. Not in practice, not in PR, not in anything! Why is this so hard for you?

They can build for the future without forsaking the past, as I have stated already.

And they don't have to spend the time to make you happy by throwing in old technology as a bonus. They didn't forsake the past, they have abandoned BIOS. No big deal. Besides, you said BIOS was the tech of today, which would make it that they are abandoning the present. Gee, you sure do like that BIOS stuff. I'm no geek; I don't care as long as it works as well or better.

There's only one group who bent over here. People who bought Macbook Pros who thought Apple was going to not do anything wierd with their hardware that keeps Windows from running after Apple said it wouldn't.

They didn't. Microsoft switched plans. People who bought MBP's to play Windows had a brain fart. People who bought MBP's and crossed their fingers for being able to play Windows will be disappointed, but hopefully they don't curse Apple for moving right ahead. You spelled "weird" wrong.

You continue to make this something Microsoft should do. Since when has Microsoft ever done what it should? Micorsoft is at the advantage due to their market share, they don't need to do anything. Apple is the one with more to gain from this, so they need to to the work (which is pretty much nil with Intel helping them).

Heh. Shows what you know. Oh yeah, nobody needs to work to run a business! Lol.

You keep asking why Apple should include the compatability (in EFI form). You should be asking why shouldn't they. What do they have to lose? People might switch to Windows? What a load of crock. If someone is interested in the Wintel platform they can sample pretty darn easily verses going the other way. They don't have to look for a Windows PC to play around with like you do a Mac. Even if they bought a whole PC simply for the sake of trying it out they only dropped a few hundred, and can sell it on eBay or in the newspaper in a snap if they didn't like it. It truly is a disposable platform costwise.

Nobody does that. Or, very few people do, and those people should spend more time buying a good product and less time ditching mistaken buys. Apple shouldn't include BIOS if it isn't in their vision of future OS's. If that hurts you, you can buy an EFI machine to try it out and ditch in on eBay and write a book about it.

That's why I compare Apple to Sony and Alienware in the hardware market.

The reason you chose Alienware was because it was quick to come to mind. Alienware makes toys, not generic consumer computers and pro computers like Apple does. And you compared them as if Apple was merely a hardware vendor. The fact is that they run Mac OS X. That's not so hard to swallow.

No, the beauty of my arguement is should the unfortunate happen, Apple is already there. They don't have to "reach out". There's no uncomfortable period of bankrupcy protection while they decide what business they want to go into next (like Commodore, Atari, Amiga). They just shutter the OS division and press on in hardware.

The beauty of your argument is that it is an exercise in the grotesque distortion of human reason to the level of pathetic excuses for why you insist on doing so. Period of bankruptcy protection? (Btw, the word has a t that you neglected.) Decide what business they want to go into next? What the hell are you talking about? Apple has been gaining in both hardware and software. Is this a good time to be preparing for bankruptcy? Whoa, man, you sure never cease to surprise with how ridiculous you can get.

 

[n8236]

Simply said, Microsoft can suck my nuts. (Slowing down evolution)

 

[hvfsl]

I should imagine that it'll be possible to boot Windows using grub (the GNU bootloader).

As soon as I get my intel mac, I'll let you know!!

I don't think it will be quite as simple as that, but if a bootloader emulated the bios then you might be able to dual boot Windows/Mac OS X.