No EFI Support on Windows Vista?

[macgruff]

Now that's an expensive iMac... £3000 (U.K) = $5209 (U.S).

You misread it was a Powerbook, my iMac was much cheaper ta!

I quite agree. But at the moment, as an end user, that still hasn't happened. Just one example: I'd buy Quicken if it could do all that magic account-linking automated stuff that the Windows version does. But the potential time saved by it makes a few boots worth it.

I can understand this but I think a native Intel VPC or even better a "Windows Rosetta" as someone mentioned earlier would be a much better solution. I'd like to see the Intel switch making it easier for developers to port rather than us doing the switching. I can feel your pain at the moment though as theres no real solution on the horizon.

 

[luko]

Yes I do base my opinions on someone elses experience, what is wrong with that. Otherwise I'd need a field to put all the different models and makes of cars I'd bought just to see which one is best. Get real man!!!

There's nothing wrong with taking someone elses experience on board, but there is a huge difference between doing that and then constantly spouting that such and such sucks because....I'm not saying you do, but some people do.

You've heard some people don't like Windows, but you've not used it. I personally don't think you have the right to say it sucks. Sure, say you know some people who aren't happy with it but don't speak about it like you know what you're talking about.

That's just the way I am with things, If I haven't used something I shut my mouth and let the people who have talk for themselves.

 

[RacerX]

I really think that if we had a Rosetta for Windows or dual booting, then many many people would be reassured and switch. Once the percentages of Mac users has increased substancially, as I am sure it would, software companies like AutoDesk would take the section of the market much more seriously and port their products properly.

Here is the thing that troubles me about that argument... it was the same argument put forward when Apple originally introduced Carbon.

Originally what was to become Mac OS X was going to have two environments: Yellow Box (which is now Cocoa, and which was able to use either Objective C or Java) and Blue Box (which became Classic for running older Mac apps).

Developers (like Microsoft, Adobe, Macromedia, etc.) told Apple that they didn't want to rewrite their apps for the new operating system*. So Apple decided that they would include another environment based on the original Mac APIs that would let developers move their apps without completely rewriting their code. The idea was that once Mac OS X had a substantial user base and these developers saw what Cocoa could do first hand, that they would eventually convert their existing apps to Cocoa.

This hasn't happened. These developers have had no reason to move and so they haven't left Carbon. There are far more advantages in the Cocoa environment today than at any point in it's history, and they still have no reason to switch.

To a degree (from a person who has used the Cocoa environment in all it's forms over the years) Carbon applications seem as isolated from the advantages of Mac OS X as Windows apps would be in a Rosetta for Windows. And if developers are given a Rosetta for Windows, I'm quite sure that like Carbon developers, they would say that that is good enough and stop there.

Anything that quiets the users to any degree is what most developers are willing to take steps to do. And a Rosetta for Windows type of thing would be more than enough to kill any ideas they might have had towards actually making a true Mac version. That type of step takes the pressure off developers rather than putting the pressure on them.


If you want AutoDesk for Mac... get people together to make a lot of noise about it. The platform has survived this long because of campaigns like that.



* Note: Developers told Apple the same thing during the development of Copland and Apple had started building an environment based on the original Mac APIs. It was from this that Carbon came from... which was Apple was able to have AppleWorks 5 and Adobe was able to have Photoshop 5 running in Carbon on Rhapsody at WWDC 98 only a few weeks after deciding to go with Carbon to appease developers.

 

[windmaomao]

There's nothing wrong with taking someone elses experience on board, but there is a huge difference between doing that and then constantly spouting that such and such sucks because....I'm not saying you do, but some people do.

You've heard some people don't like Windows, but you've not used it. I personally don't think you have the right to say it sucks. Sure, say you know some people who aren't happy with it but don't speak about it like you know what you're talking about.

That's just the way I am with things, If I haven't used something I shut my mouth and let the people who have talk for themselves.

nice speech, that' something i want to say, but i can't say this much nicely for sure

 

[macgruff]

Since it's not an anti-M$ thing, it seems to me like you're just keen to be in the niche market, whatever sector?

hehe

Nintendo is my gaming platform of choice, xbox because I miss the FP shooters I used to play on my PC before I switched.

As I stated in my first post, personally I have uses for booting Windows on my Mac (some of those games I kept from my old PC just in case....). I just think it would be bad for the Mac platform in general, giving developers excuses not to port at a time when its easier than ever for them to do so.

What I'm saying is, for example, if it were realised that your Xbox 360 was built with the exact same components as the PS3 and there was a possibility of legally running PS3 games on your Xbox 360 I bet my house that you'd be interested!!!

I would be and like I said above I am but not necessarily if it meant less games or apps natively.

Right guys its 12:42am over here and fun though this is I'm starting to feel like a right saddo so I'm off to bed. Hopefully you'll all have come to a happy decision in the morning and I can read about it over breakfast...

 

[treblah]

...

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.

 

[flir67]

sell preloaded harddrives --great idea

I'd much rather prefer games made natively for the mac, but it just doesn't happen.

I built a PC this September because my iBook could barely run Unreal Tournament. When Apple announced the new iMac, I found a buyer for my PC and monitored the OnMac contest ect, now I am PC-less, my iMac will be arriving "by the 17th" and I found out the ONE GAME, I really wanted to work (Command and Conquer: Generals) is virtually unplayable on the intel iMac, not only that but we are nowhere near close.

So here I am the week before Spring Break, my PC buddies have a few LAN parties ready and I can't attend.

I was really hoping they would figure out how to book XP from a external hard drive. This would be great because you wouldn't have to worry about partitions ect. I think it would be a great business if anyone ever gets XP/Vista to run NATIVE on the Mac to sell external harddrives preloaded with Windows. Hell, I'd pay $300 for one right now.

preloaded harddrives. great idea... haven't seen that since blacklab linux did that a few years ago.. not sure if they still do that or not.

 

[AidenShaw]

Regardless, Apple is blocking XP - that make them liars

When Apple decided to go with EFI, it was with the understanding that Vista would support it.

And the clear understanding that XP would not.

That makes Apple liars when they claim that they won't do anything to block Windows from booting - they are blocking the currently available Windows release.

 

[Jon the Heretic]

Windows would help Apple

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

Folks are being really disingenuous if they don't think booting of Windows on Macs wouldn't help Apple. Of course it would. Switchers want to hedge their bets...and gamers know that virtualization technology for Windows inside of MacOS X will ALWAYS suck. Good for real work (better for real work, actually---use of Windows apps side by side with Mac apps), but hugely subpar for millions of people who play any game made this century. Don't even kid yourself it is otherwise.

For me, could care less. Apple lost my money when they dropped Classic support. I don't care how long ago they threatened this obnoxious policy---I have some awesome Classic apps I won't or can't replace. I am a Mac user since Day 1, and have a lot vested in this platform. Starting from scratch or buying a new computer that doesn't even run what the old one did at a minimum is a bad investment for many legacy users...and I am not going to build a museum of old Macs if I just bought a new model. Stupid idea. Apple went from the best backwards compatibility in the industry to the very worse. Backwards compatibility is a user friendly feature; platforms without it lack the same level of function or ease of use. Intel Macs are the one Apple I won't take a bite out of; Apple can bite me!

 

[fatfish]

There's nothing wrong with taking someone elses experience on board, but there is a huge difference between doing that and then constantly spouting that such and such sucks because....I'm not saying you do, but some people do.

You've heard some people don't like Windows, but you've not used it. I personally don't think you have the right to say it sucks. Sure, say you know some people who aren't happy with it but don't speak about it like you know what you're talking about.

That's just the way I am with things, If I haven't used something I shut my mouth and let the people who have talk for themselves.

Now, I didn't say windows sucks, I didn't even say that in my experience windows users say it sucks when they use my macs (although some do). What I said was I chose macs and continue to choose macs because of feedback and feel that although we don't use PC's I am able to have an opinion about them because of the feedback I receive. (I was replying to a post which asked how people who hadn't used windows had the right to an opinion about them)

In your example I accept that one should pass comment on a movie one hasn't seen, in this case the experience is dictated by taste. This is not necessarily the case when it comes to computers. If you are talking about how nice the GUI is, this is about taste: I prefer OSX (and I have used windows, although not a lot), but I am prepared to accept this is likely down to what I am used to rather than it actually being better.

If you are talking reliability, then taste is not an issue and one can form an opinion from other users feedback. Whereas the OS is like your movie scenario, the reliability of a computer is not. If reliability of each was equal, then negative feedback should be in the region of 70/30 (in my case - because that is the ratio of PC/mac users within my circle) when it is 100/0, it is a fair and reasonable assumption that macs are more reliable than PCs and one that allows me to give my opinion about something that I don't (or very rarely) use.

In fact I would even suggest that while I don't use PCs, my opinion is more valid because it is taken from a larger source than simply an individual who uses both.

 

[IJ Reilly]

IJ, you're sharp!

I feel like I'm under a tack!

 

[Timepass]

I dont like the annoument from M$ but since they stated it the switch over to EFI for hardware is going to be a lot slower.

 

[Logger]

No big deal

Why would this be a big deal? Dual Booting SUCKS! I disdain dual booting. If I had to dual boot, I'd much rather have two computers. In that case you might as well have a Dell next to your Mac.

This is a non issue anyway. Windows on Mac won't become widely used until you can run Windows in a virtual machine. Both Xen and VMWare are working on this now. I don't know when they will be ready, but you will be able to run Windows right along side without rebooting using these hypervisors. Now that is useful.

Virtual machine environment don't necessarily use or replicate the underlying BIOS of the hardware they run on. I have VMWare running on my Dell. Windows host OS and Linux in the virtual machine. When the VM boots you see that it doesn't run the Dell BIOS, but a custom VMware BIOS is running in the virtual machine. I would venture a guess that the VMWare BIOS for their virtual machine on Mac will allow you to boot Vista. Problem solved, and without dual booting to boot.

Don't worry about as big of a performance degredation as VMWare currently exhibits either. It will be much closer to native performance thanks to Intel's VT technology that is essentially hardware acceleration for VMWare. If it runs close to native speed, then you'd really have to think twice before wanting to dual boot.

 

[windmaomao]

And the clear understanding that XP would not.

That makes Apple liars when they claim that they won't do anything to block Windows from booting - they are blocking the currently available Windows release.

thanks. a nice point.
read this also, http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29710
now I'm pretty sure technoledge can be mixed with politcs sometimes.

 

[lord_flash]

Off topic...

British Not European

In that the United Kingdom isn't part of the Eurasian continental plate? Is it in Africa? Oceana, perhaps?

Or are you just making it absoloutely clear to everyone that you're an isolationist who dislikes free trade, human rights etc. I noticed abve you said you employ people. Do you resent the Europeans enforcing a 20-day minimum annual holiday for them?

Sorry, but it just seems a but stuffy to clarify your Britishness to the world? Perhaps a handle-bar moustache and a relaxed attitude towards dental hygine would serve just as effectively, without the connotations of xenophobia.

I'm British (I live in England) and European (in that I don't come from Asia, Africa, the Americas or Australia). I also don't really mind the E.U.

Oh, and I like Macs. I'd like them more if they could boot Windows. Why not, eh? You can be two things at once, after all

 

[iMeowbot]

MS already said months ago that they wouldn't support booting on Apple hardware. They have already committed to spend money on new versions of Office and VPC, and they will want to see returns on those investments. Native Windows would be counterproductive for them.

 

[whooleytoo]

I think people are too quick to dismiss dual-booting. Yes, having to reboot every time you want to switch would be painful, but that's just one scenario.

How about my case, where I often need a PC laptop at work, but a Mac at home. So, I could just shut down Windows in the office, take it home, then boot up in OSX, zero inconvenience.

 

[IJ Reilly]

thanks. a nice point.
read this also, http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29710
now I'm pretty sure technoledge can be mixed with politcs sometimes.

This is one of the worst pieces of nonsense I've ever read on The Inquirer. To be clear, he's talking about XP, not Vista. Not one word here about why Microsoft is not implementing EFI support on Vista (except on the server version, just to show they could any time if they wanted to).

 

[windmaomao]

This is one of the worst pieces of nonsense I've ever read on The Inquirer. To be clear, he's talking about XP, not Vista. Not one word here about why Microsoft is not implementing EFI support on Vista (except on the server version, just to show they could any time if they wanted to).

yaya, same kind of crap like what apple says, I'm not on either windows or mac side, they both don't want this happen in the near feature. That's what I was trying to say

 

[IJ Reilly]

I think people are too quick to dismiss dual-booting. Yes, having to reboot every time you want to switch would be painful, but that's just one scenario.

How about my case, where I often need a PC laptop at work, but a Mac at home. So, I could just shut down Windows in the office, take it home, then boot up in OSX, zero inconvenience.

Dual booting would be cool, but a fast VM would be better. I think we'll see the latter before the former.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I'm still holding out hope that it will be possible....I don't want to have to buy two computers.

 

[IJ Reilly]

yaya, same kind of crap like what apple says, I'm not on either windows or mac side, they both don't want this happen in the near feature. That's what I was trying to say

Not sure I entirely follow you. Apple obviously isn't encouraging dual booting, but Microsoft seems sufficiently intent on preventing it to stick with an obsolete technology. I can see Apple's motivation and reasoning for making Windows booting strictly experimental for now at least, but Microsoft's rationale is far less apparent. I don't think it's Apple they care about in this calculation.

 

[Hattig]

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

Whooosh!

That's the sound of his point flying over your head.

So can you play <modern game> on a $299 PC with low-end integrated graphics and a celeron? No. And you can't on a Mac Mini either.

 

[Abulia]

This is bad news for all the reasons stated in this thread. For Apple fans who are too short-sighted to see the implications, this reduces the possibility of introducing the Mac platform to a whole segment of the community who are interested in a "safe" switch to a dual booting platform.

Continue with your anti-Microsoft rhetoric, by all means.

For my part, an order of the greatest Mac Pro available at WWDC (when announced) just went from a "must have" to "wait and see." The ability to dual boot would be a great boon to me, and thousands of others.

 

[Maxx Power]

(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.

Not just crappy. Fraudulent. ATI has its rules on the clocks of the GPU and ram for it to be called a Pro part. Apple just went ahead and called the Radeon 9600 a Pro, with the clocks below even the PC non Pro's. They do this all the time, with mobile parts its a wash since ATI allows a wider range of clocks for a given suffix. But with the desktops ? They haven't stopped doing that yet. Check your clocks people, then compare them, realize that the silently cooled cards with aluminum heatsinks is really there to cut corners.