Windows XP Booting on Intel Macs?

[dornoforpyros]

Sloan

UNDERWHELMED
(C. Murphy/Sloan)
She was underwhelmed
If that's a word
I know it's not
'Cause I looked it up
That's one of those skills
That I learned in my schoo

and +5 hipster points to you my friend! Although I suspect you may have used google/wiki for that answer, either way, you win!

You may redeem the points for either a latte' or you can save up for the Berea which is 10 hipster points

 

[arn]

Now I wonder if hes going to be a greedy _______ and sell it to the top bidder or sell it as software. Either way they could get some serious money off of this.

The prize money was up to $12,000. (site's down right now). And the original plan was to publish the instructions.

arn

 

[dansgil]

Am I the only one here who thinks a Virtual PC solution would be better? because no processor emulation is needed, Windows should run at full speed. Virtual PC eliminates the need to have to boot to switch between OS's.

Just my opinion.

 

[adam1185]

Am I the only one here who thinks a Virtual PC solution would be better? because no processor emulation is needed, Windows should run at full speed. Virtual PC eliminates the need to have to boot to switch between OS's.

Just my opinion.

It would still have to run on top of OS X. Having 2 OS's running at the same time would use a lot of memory.

 

[dagger01]

Why?!?!

YAY!!! Awesome! I'm so happy! This is awesome, adds more value to my iMac in a way. And lets me use all my Windows applications, and to all you who say "Why run Windows on a Mac?" Because if you need to run Windows apps and don't want another computer this is the way to go.

!

<rant>
Why does it matter that the Windows or Linux OS boots natively on an Apple Intel-based anything!?!? Dual booting is a pain in the ass. Please, if you've done it for any length of time you know this. Everything has to shut down and come back up...anything else that you were doing, or might want to be doing in the background just went bye-bye. If you say "games" well, then if you're that into PC games you're gonna have a custom AMD system to do that with anyway, so again, why dual boot? Why not just use a nice VM like VPC or VMWare (would be nice to have native on OS X)? Yeah, more RAM, $200 gets you 2 GB, plenty for a VM and a host OS. Get to use the apps you need when you want them, at near-native performance instead of emulated like on the PPC. Get to play with things in an already virus infested environment knowing you can blow away the image and grab it's clean backup and get patched if necessary in no time. Data can be easily shared between host and VM OS. No separate partitions for data that are not in either OSes preferred format, but are read/write for both so data can be shared (this is probably one of the biggest pains in the ass when you dual boot). There are many more reasons dual booting is a pain, and VMs are much easier to deal with. If the reason is games, just seems like a colossal pain that you can throw a cheap custom made AMD whitebox at and use all the same kbd, mouse, etc. through a KVM. If you want to be a hobbyist, that's what the x86 whitebox world is for. I've got work to do with my Mac.
</rant>

 

[dansgil]

Yes, it would use a lot of memory, but for some, this may be a better solution, especially if you need to use both OS's constantly throughout the day.

It would still have to run on top of OS X. Having 2 OS's running at the same time would use a lot of memory.

 

[justflie]

frankly, i would prefer VPC to a dual boot. Someone has mentioned this in another post in another thread, but i don't like the idea of XP running loose on my hard drive. VPC keeps windows in a little box and prevents it from doing stupid things to the hard drive. I also don't have to worry about viruses and whatnot. Yeah, it would be slower than running XP alone but i wouldn't mind a slower (but still very usable) speed in favor of security.

 

[Nuc]

Yes I prefer the VPC option as well. This way you could control windows from connecting to the internet. Just my opinion though.

Nuc

 

[virus1]

Am I the only one here who thinks a Virtual PC solution would be better? because no processor emulation is needed, Windows should run at full speed. Virtual PC eliminates the need to have to boot to switch between OS's.

Just my opinion.

it won't run at full speed. that is impossible. no processor emulation is needed, but you still need to emulate the os.

this is so exciting. i don't know why, but it just is. being able to have it is what excites me the most, even though i probably won't use it.

 

[toneloco2881]

Vista has to boot on BIOS in order to run on most current systems.

Most current EFI-capable systems (except those from a certain fruit company) also have a BIOS compatible mode. (Manufacturers want new computers to boot XP - D'Ohh.)

There's simply no need to support EFI for 32-bit computers, at least no benefit worth the expense.

And it's Apple that doesn't want Windows to run on an Apple - otherwise they wouldn't have gone to the trouble of *removing* the BIOS compatibility routines from the MacIntels.

Are you sure about that? I was under the impression that the particular EFI implementation is up to the software maker. This is the upside to EFI in the first place. It's programmable? Why would Apple go to the trouble of "implementing" a BIOS-compatibility layer for non-existent machines insofar as they're concerned.

I think it's Microsoft, that doesn't want Apple users being able to dual-boot windows effortlessly out of the box. This is the ultimate trojan horse. Allow people to experience OS X, but still have the comfort of falling back on windows. Almost every single person I show my Mac to falls in love with the OS, but has trepidation about software choices. Hell, I was that person up until a year and a half ago. Microsoft knows this. Still having the archaic BIOS in use for machines in 2006-07 is ridiculous. Their refusal Im sure has a little more to do about a "certain little fruit company", than your willing to give credit.

My sister, along with several people in her class, would LOVE to be able to buy a new MacBook(pro), and still be able to take their law school exams on the same machine. This is great news!

 

[42gb]

Or, in my case, a university requiring a Windows only title as the choice for examination software.

Exactly... I want to use my Mac without the hassle of finding a PC to use for exam time.

 

[wildmac]

pros and cons...

For Dual-boot:

1) gives you max speed.

2) gives you true environment.

against Dual-boot.

1) need to reboot.

2) M$ running amok on your HD.

For VPC:

0) No VPC on intel mac, so not an option. yet.

For a PC box:

1) cheap

2) can run at same time, use same monitor with a switch (or a Dell monitor or other that supports multiple inputs.

Against PC box:

1) Not portable.

For me, I'll be using a PC box at home for the times I need a PC. But, it sure would be nice to have a laptop that could dual-boot.

 

[age234]

Dual booting is a pain in the ass.

It sure is. I had to do it for two months between Windows and Linux for school. A total pain.

 

[plinden]

And it's Apple that doesn't want Windows to run on an Apple - otherwise they wouldn't have gone to the trouble of *removing* the BIOS compatibility routines from the MacIntels.

I think it's Microsoft, that doesn't want Apple users being able to dual-boot windows effortlessly out of the box.

I think you're both reading too much into this. Apple didn't actively make the decision to prevent installation of Windows. They just doesn't care about dual booting into Windows (and frankly neither do I - I'm one of those who wants virtualization. Until Intel enables this, I'll go for something like qemu. It's looking promising, the last build of it I installed) And Microsoft doesn't care about preventing Vista running on Macs. In m fact, Microsoft gains either way. They just don't have the time to fix up EFI before Vista's release.

 

[mstanisl]

Welcomed availability

At my job, we cannot use Macs for quite a few programs we run. I would welcome the ability for us to use the Macs at work as workstations for those programs when we need to.

Secondly, I could provisionally sell of my desktop machine as I am not attached to it aside from playing counter-strike and running the aforementioned programs. It would jump-start a MBP fund (along with my existing Powerbook).

I look forward to further advancements and news.

 

[Electro Funk]

Am I the only one here who thinks a Virtual PC solution would be better? because no processor emulation is needed, Windows should run at full speed. Virtual PC eliminates the need to have to boot to switch between OS's.

Just my opinion.

I would agree... the only reason i would ever want to run a windows program on my macs is for work... there are 2 programs that i have to run daily that will run on windows only and more often than not i am cutting and pasting between these 2 programs to word, excel, and email...

would love to be able to do this on my mac and give the dell (business) laptop to someone else in the office

 

[ZildjianKX]

it won't run at full speed. that is impossible. no processor emulation is needed, but you still need to emulate the os.

Well, close, you have to emulate the hardware. As of right now, I don't know of any virtual machine that supports hardware acceleration, so no "pretty" Aero environment in Vista if you run it virtually.

VMware runs pretty slow on windows if you run anything in it, so don't expect miracles with virtual machines on a mac (not directed at you).

If I'm reading this correctly, MS is saying that EFI support is only for 64-bit processors, right? And the new intel mobile processors coming out this fall are 64-bit, right? Meaning next rev powerbooks should be able to boot Vista natively.

This work around will still be nice for XP though since it may not have EFI support ever, or at least until SP3.

 

[Mainyehc]

<rant>
Why does it matter that the Windows or Linux OS boots natively on an Apple Intel-based anything!?!? Dual booting is a pain in the ass. Please, if you've done it for any length of time you know this. Everything has to shut down and come back up...anything else that you were doing, or might want to be doing in the background just went bye-bye.

Hmmm, that seems obvious, doesn't it? Yes, indeed, you have to stop doing whatever you are doing to switch OSes... However, are you aware that the Mac OS X boots in about 20 seconds on the new Intel Macs? I don't know about Windows booting under a pseudo-CSM-thingy-whatever though, as it definitely won't benefit from the advantages of EFI.

Anyway, I know that it's a PITA to switch OSes, since I already had a dual boot setup once... on a very, very old PC (a PIII 450 running W98 SE and, at the time, RH7). But don't forget about games! Most of them run in fullscreen and take up lots of resources, so it isn't likely that you'll be multitasking anyway... I certainly wouldn't mind playing Windows games, both old and new, even though I'd much rather have them (decently) ported over to OS X.

And don't forget about those people who have to use specific programs at their workplace... It's something I keep reading around, and it's only natural, since the MacBook Pro, being as ultra-portable as it is, makes for the perfect "dual-boot/split personality" machine . [Fortunately for me, as a graphics designer student, I don't have that kind of need, I'm fairly happy with my iMac G5 at home and the Dual G4/G5 PMs at the Uni. ].

 

[wildmac]

I would agree... the only reason i would ever want to run a windows program on my macs is for work... there are 2 programs that i have to run daily that will run on windows only and more often than not i am cutting and pasting between these 2 programs to word, excel, and email...

would love to be able to do this on my mac and give the dell (business) laptop to someone else in the office

There IS NO VPC for intel mac yet. Might not ever be. IF these solutions work, MS might not bother developing it. m$ has been mum on VPC for intel mac. So this may not be an option.

AND, if it's as slow as VPC on my G5 deal 2GHZ, then I want no part of it.

 

[prostuff1]

And Microsoft doesn't care about preventing Vista running on Macs. In m fact, Microsoft gains either way. They just don't have the time to fix up EFI before Vista's release.

And the saddest part is microsoft co-developed EFI with intel and now they wont be using it. Go figure

you would think that since EFI can be "backwards compatible" with Bios microsoft could just impliment something that could determine which would be better. EFI is clearly the future and microsoft just keeps removing stuff. By the time they get done with vista it will be a SP 3 upgrade with a new IE

 

[snoboardguy21]

Why?

I just don't understand this. Why would you want windoze on an Apple machine. Yes, I understand the value of windoze, and why many people need it. Why then, would you spend the extra cash for an Apple machine when windoze will run just fine on a cheap-o dell? Not to mention you don't have to work for it, it comes on there.

Before you freak out on me I know some people don't like OSX. It happens to be my OS of choice, therefore I buy Apple machines. If I wanted windoze I would just buy a dell or a sony or whatever the best hardware manufacturer is. It just seems bizzare to me that people want an Apple machine but don't want Apple software.

 

[iMeowbot]

I just don't understand this. Why would you want windoze on an Apple machine.

To get the second computer out from under the desk.

 

[ArizonaKid]

Apple Is The Party to Blame

Vista has to boot on BIOS in order to run on most current systems.

There's simply no need to support EFI for 32-bit computers, at least no benefit worth the expense.

And it's Apple that doesn't want Windows to run on an Apple - otherwise they wouldn't have gone to the trouble of *removing* the BIOS compatibility routines from the MacIntels.

I have to say that I totally agree, at least in the sense that it's not Microsoft that has choosen to lock their Operating System to specific hardware. I am surprised at the initial anger expressed in these boards at Microsoft for continuing to utilizing the standard technology for 32 bit booting. And...that there are no overwelming calls for Apple to at least implement BIOS capable routines.

Apple completely knows that booting Windows on its hardware is a major value added option for "many" users. Otherwise this topic would not be showing up again and again all over internet boards.

Instead...Apple releases an arrogant statement that they have no intentions on supporting legacy systems. Why not? Like including BIOS support is such a horrid idea??? Hopefully we don't become such loyal Apple fans that we can't see Apple is the significant party at blame for this current problem.

 

[mischief]

I was under the impression that the particular EFI implementation is up to the software maker. This is the upside to EFI in the first place. It's programmable? Why would Apple go to the trouble of "implementing" a BIOS-compatibility layer for non-existent machines insofar as they're concerned.

I think it's Microsoft, that doesn't want Apple users being able to dual-boot windows effortlessly out of the box. This is the ultimate trojan horse. Allow people to experience OS X, but still have the comfort of falling back on windows. Almost every single person I show my Mac to falls in love with the OS, but has trepidation about software choices. Hell, I was that person up until a year and a half ago. Microsoft knows this. Still having the archaic BIOS in use for machines in 2006-07 is ridiculous.

This is correct. EFI as essentially a programming language standard that allows companies extreme flexibility in custom building firmware to get the most out of their software and hardware when using Intel mobos and processors.

Apple chose to use EFI. That is, Apple chose to program an EFI implementation to do the talking between OS X and the Intel hardware. Because Apple has never used BIOS and is a software company using a highly specialized version of BSD there was absolutely no reason to use anything other than a fully custom and verry lean EFI build.

Taken another way: Apple has never used BIOS or designed machines to run Windows so a BIOS layer was about as relevant as chloroplasts in a mammal.

EFI is not a thing the way BIOS is, it's a way of creating firmware; the same way C is a way of creating software or Copper-on-silicon is a way of making chips.

 

[toneloco2881]

I just don't understand this. Why would you want windoze on an Apple machine. Yes, I understand the value of windoze, and why many people need it. Why then, would you spend the extra cash for an Apple machine when windoze will run just fine on a cheap-o dell? Not to mention you don't have to work for it, it comes on there.

Before you freak out on me I know some people don't like OSX. It happens to be my OS of choice, therefore I buy Apple machines. If I wanted windoze I would just buy a dell or a sony or whatever the best hardware manufacturer is. It just seems bizzare to me that people want an Apple machine but don't want Apple software.

Apple has stated that they will actively block the running of their OS on non-native hardware. I would love to never have to fire up a windows program, but the cold reality is that it comprises 95% of the market. Not ever having to use windows is not an option for many of us.

It seems even more bizarre to me, that you presume that people who want to run windows, have no appreciation for Apple's software. Quite the opposite is true, which is why some are willing to pay a slight premium to be afforded the luxury of having options.