Windows XP Booting on Intel Macs?

[Chaszmyr]

Dual botting is not the best way to run Windows aplications. It would be much netter if you could run them right on the Mac OS X desktop along side Macintosh aplications. Doing this requires some type of virtual PC environment or VM. Several of these exist already.

Yes, I can understand why running Windows on Mac hardware would be good but I don't see why booting Windows would be the best way.

Basically there are 2 types of options coming up, other than dual booting. There will be VPC (and perhaps similar programs) and WINE (and likely similar things). WINE type things will likely some day in the foreseeable future emulate the full scale of Windows applications, but will leave the Mac susceptible to some forms of Windows malware. VPC, on the other hand, has the benefit of a virtual hard drive, which will protect your Mac to a greater degree. However, there is no guarantee that VPC will have full hardware video acceleration (that is to say, MS might intentionally leave that functionality out).

 

[SeaFox]

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.

Why do I keep seeing replies like this?

Why is it so hard for people to fathom that some people need BOTH of the operating systems and the fact that they want Windows bootable on their Mac in a halfway official capacity is so they DON'T have to buy and maintain two computers. It has nothing to do with the individual not wanting to use OSX. Yes, we know Apple computers are more expensive than Dell computers and can run Windows just fine right now, thanks for the information.

Really, next person who wants to reply "Why would you want to run Windows, it's so crappy." "Why would you want to run Windows on a Mac when you can buy a Dell?" or anything else like that. Please go reread all the replies here or on the earlier article about M$ dropping EFI support and you might find the answer there.

 

[Anonymous Freak]

First, Apple's EFI implementation doesn't include a BIOS Compatibility Support Module because Apple chose not to take the time to create it. It isn't something they took out, it's something that was never there in the first place. (It's like complaining that your new car only has a CD player because Ford removed the tape deck, and now you can't play your tapes.)

Second, VirtualPC would run at 'near native' speeds on an Intel system, and for processor-intensive applications, would be fast. (Windows Photoshop filters running in Intel-native Virtual PC would be faster than Rosetta-emulated Mac Photoshop.) But, because VirtualPC does emulate all the hardware, it wouldn't be fast enough for graphically intensive programs. (To go back to Photoshop, while filters would apply quickly, scrolling would be painfully slow.)

What I'd like to see is a VirtualPC like product that uses Intel's 'Virtualization Technology' that's built into the Core Duo. This technology allows the computer to run a separate virtual machine in HARDWARE, which would make the 'guest' OS 100% native speed, if the virtualization software was written correctly, and the 'host' OS handled it correctly. You would essentially be able to do a Fast User Switching-like transition and be in a 100% full speed copy of Windows. When Windows has control, it has 100% access to the 'peripheral' hardware such as the video card. But, you are still splitting your processor time and memory time. I'm also not 100% certain how this technology handles things that actually NEED to be accessed by both, like networking and disk access. I know the host and the guest both have access, but I haven't read enough of Intel's whitepapers to know how the hardware handles it. Only that the guest OS basically thinks it is completely separate, yet can't kill the host OS.

But, from what I have read, the Mac OS would have to support it, so it could handle the context switching correctly.

 

[ChrisA]

my PCs are still running windows 2000 and haven't crashed in 3 years... seriously

Does this mean the PCs are running continously for 3 years with out even one re-boot or power cycle or does this mean that fiv days a week you power them up for 8 hours and you have watched then not crash during that 8 hours of use for close to 1000 time in a row.

8 hours of up time 1000 times in a row is different then 1000 continous days of uptime.

Normally, you'd do a software update or swap out a drive or some oter maintance that would require a reboot in a thre year period

So far I've only seen Solaris do 1000+ continous days. I set up an email and DNS server at a company I used to work for. It was a Sun Solaris/SPARC system. It ran for years and then I left the company, no one touched and it continued to run for well over a year. I assume there must have been at least a couple power failures but the UPS must have carried it.

 

[jabooth]

Surely doesn't apple owe something to EFI for the superfast boot times were seeing on new intelMacs?

I mean, I've got no slouch of a win$ose PC, (A64 3500, 6800gt, 1gig RAM, A8V Mobo) but it takes 1 min 30 to boot!!

and a whole minute of that is looking at BIOS screens! I know that other BIOS'es are faster, but still, 27secs and you're into the OS???

I can't believe Microsoft is on the back foot again. When will they realise that when a company has 90% of a market, they need to be brave and move things forward! Of cause no-one's going to implement EFI into their MoBo's...Windows XP doesn't support it!

With Vista, I was hoping Microsoft would grab the market by the balls again, and turn itself around. I was worried I would my a Mac now, only to find Vista a better OS that Leopard ...but after testing the Beta (and apparently 'feature complete') Vista, I have no such worries.

Is it just me, or is this a vicious cycle?

 

[Pistol Pete]

I hate this.

Keep Windows Out. PLZ

 

[ChrisA]

Basically there are 2 types of options coming up, other than dual booting. There will be VPC....

The VPC option is available today, weeks ago really, Do a google on QEMU. There is a screen shot of Win XP running in a window on the Intel iMac.

 

[PtMD]

So far I've only seen Solaris do 1000+ continous days. I set up an email and DNS server at a company I used to work for. It was a Sun Solaris/SPARC system. It ran for years and then I left the company, no one touched and it continued to run for well over a year. I assume there must have been at least a couple power failures but the UPS must have carried it.

I guess the Solaris box was never port scanned in that 1000 days. Just teasing, but they did have one of the most unstable stacks out there for a while. But yeah, nothing beats a *nix based OS for long term stability. At work I have coming up on 4 years of constant duty from a datacenter class (hot swap drives, P/S, etc) server running Debian 3.0. Its a shame, but I need to power cycle it to update the kernel...

While its possible I dont expect many w2k systems could stay up for 3 years unless it was in a VERY isolated environment. After all, most core patches require a reboot or else you are still vulnerable (patch applied or not). Not to mention how exploits would bring you down on a failed offset, etc. We have a very stable build of w2k we use that only requires reboots for hardware swaps or patch cycles, but that still usually means 1 reboot a month on MS Tuesday!

 

[photomaniac]

Does this mean the PCs are running continously for 3 years with out even one re-boot or power cycle or does this mean that fiv days a week you power them up for 8 hours and you have watched then not crash during that 8 hours of use for close to 1000 time in a row.

8 hours of up time 1000 times in a row is different then 1000 continous days of uptime.

Normally, you'd do a software update or swap out a drive or some oter maintance that would require a reboot in a thre year period

So far I've only seen Solaris do 1000+ continous days. I set up an email and DNS server at a company I used to work for. It was a Sun Solaris/SPARC system. It ran for years and then I left the company, no one touched and it continued to run for well over a year. I assume there must have been at least a couple power failures but the UPS must have carried it.

well, they haven't crashed within that time. However, I keep all the machines on 24/7... only rebooting after software installs or security patch updates (which in windows land is very often)

 

[torncanvas]

I'm glad I didn't pay a premium for my Macbook Pro.

I compared prices online and found the MBP to match up to the other Core Duo notebooks out there with the same features. So, if you people are talking about the Intel Macs, STOP saying things like "we payed a premium for our Macs" and "that's why you pay extra" and so on. I sure as hell didn't pay extra for my MBP, so you better not be talking about the Intel Macs when you say such things.

 

[kevinuaa]

Keep Windows Out. PLZ

dude, nobody's gonna take an install disk to your Mac. Why do you care about mine?

 

[GFLPraxis]

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.

Don't forget that Windows only reads NTFS and FAT32, while Mac OS X reads everything.

Thus, your Windows partition will be unable to affect or even SEE your Mac OS X partition. Yays.

 

[GregA]

What I'd like to see is a VirtualPC like product that uses Intel's 'Virtualization Technology' that's built into the Core Duo. This technology allows the computer to run a separate virtual machine in HARDWARE, which would make the 'guest' OS 100% native speed, if the virtualization software was written correctly, and the 'host' OS handled it correctly. You would essentially be able to do a Fast User Switching-like transition and be in a 100% full speed copy of Windows. When Windows has control, it has 100% access to the 'peripheral' hardware such as the video card. But, you are still splitting your processor time and memory time. I'm also not 100% certain how this technology handles things that actually NEED to be accessed by both, like networking and disk access. I know the host and the guest both have access, but I haven't read enough of Intel's whitepapers to know how the hardware handles it. Only that the guest OS basically thinks it is completely separate, yet can't kill the host OS.

But, from what I have read, the Mac OS would have to support it, so it could handle the context switching correctly.

Yeah, virtualization allows native CPU instructions to run directly on the CPU instead of being 'filtered'. The problem until now is that if you ran an OS in a virtual-PC like environment, it would think it was alone, and there are some critical instructions it would use while assuming there's no other OS. So if the instructions were running natively it'd crash the system...

So virtualisation in the CPU is a new layer of protection (my words here) so that when an OS does those critical instructions, the CPU knows who is really the boss. This means you don't have to have your virtual environment double checking what the OS does.

AND... I think it means that OSX has to be written to understand it's the boss and act appropriately. Anyone know if that's right, and if OSX is written that way?

AFAIK virtualisation doesn't include all the other devices, they still need to be 'virtualised' by VMWare or VirtualPC or QEMU. I think (hope!) that includes the BIOS.

I'm one of those who wants virtualization. Until Intel enables this, I'll go for something like qemu.

What do you mean "until Intel enables this"?

Please take my comments above with a grain of salt, I haven't studied this just gleaned info from various comments on the web. Anyone who can correct me, or confirm what I've said, or add new info - I'd appreciate it

 

[lorien]

Great for scientists

This is really good news for all us scientists who are forced to use specialist software available only on the Windows platform (sometimes on Unix if we're lucky). Keep 'em coming I say!

 

[barstard]

Super

This is great, I knew it would happen sooner rather than later. There are some very intelligent people out there and I'm glad some of them were working on this. Fair enough, a VPC solution would be preferable for most things, except gaming obviously, but when Microsoft finally bring this out is anyone's guess.

The one thing I will use this for...?

WMP DRM pron! No way would watching pron be worth buying a PC, but now... Sorry, that all sounds rather creepy.

barstard.

 

[barstard]

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.

What? Apple machines have never booted windows! (Well once actually, but mostly). Why should they now change their setup to placate you? the only reason that Apple would have implemented the optional legacy BIOS would be to boot Windows! Why would they do that? Apple can never survive just as either a hardware or software company. They have to be both. Period. To implement something that would only be necessary to boot an alternative OS would be suicide.

It looks like it has only taken a couple of months to make this possible. This really gives people an option while waiting for a virtual machine type solution. And why don't I but a Dell or ACER? Because they suck! Apple knew that this would happen, they just would never make it happen themselves. Part of Steve's plan....?[/RANT]

barstard.

 

[Craigy]

The VPC option is available today, weeks ago really, Do a google on QEMU. There is a screen shot of Win XP running in a window on the Intel iMac.

QEMU Doesn't [realworld]work[/realword] on INTEL. It will install but it won't let you install anything useful - yet. They are doing a great job with Q and I'm sure it won't be long until it's a solid piece of software.

 

[richinspace]

A few comments:

1) Do all you people that believe you need to run Windoze really want to run the entire OS, or aren't you really looking for a way to run the Win apps inside OS X?

2) There is a special reason that Apple has removed the option to boot the Intel Macs in BIOS. If they'd left the option in, they would have to take all the sh*t people wind up with when running Windoze (since after all, they sold them the computer). Even more important, this would leave the software developers no reason to write a special version of their apps for OS X (as has been mentioned many times before). But if Mac users would be required to do some expertise surgery on their machines in order to run the Win versions, it would still leave them plenty of motivation to develop true OS X apps.

In other words, this is a win-win (Win?) situation which Apple has figured out since long ago. Apple will still sell their computers, their OS, and their apps. Bill will expand on his Winstallations, with some people even paying for it. The Mac users will have full access to both worlds. Dell will still..., well maybe Dell won't be so happy.

Now it's only up to the users to decide what products they like the most. The war is really on now, and Apple is fighting it on two fronts – the MS and the Dell front.

 

[peeInMyPantz]

A few comments:

1) Do all you people that believe you need to run Windoze really want to run the entire OS, or aren't you really looking for a way to run the Win apps inside OS X?

2) There is a special reason that Apple has removed the option to boot the Intel Macs in BIOS. If they'd left the option in, they would have to take all the sh*t people wind up with when running Windoze (since after all, they sold them the computer). Even more important, this would leave the software developers no reason to write a special version of their apps for OS X (as has been mentioned many times before). But if Mac users would be required to do some expertise surgery on their machines in order to run the Win versions, it would still leave them plenty of motivation to develop true OS X apps.

In other words, this is a win-win (Win?) situation which Apple has figured out since long ago. Apple will still sell their computers, their OS, and their apps. Bill will expand on his Winstallations, with some people even paying for it. The Mac users will have full access to both worlds. Dell will still..., well maybe Dell won't be so happy.

Now it's only up to the users to decide what products they like the most. The war is really on now, and Apple is fighting it on two fronts – the MS and the Dell front.

I just need the run the apps. I don't need windows itself

 

[Cabbit]

Basically there are 2 types of options coming up, other than dual booting. There will be VPC (and perhaps similar programs) and WINE (and likely similar things). WINE type things will likely some day in the foreseeable future emulate the full scale of Windows applications, but will leave the Mac susceptible to some forms of Windows malware. VPC, on the other hand, has the benefit of a virtual hard drive, which will protect your Mac to a greater degree. However, there is no guarantee that VPC will have full hardware video acceleration (that is to say, MS might intentionally leave that functionality out).

Why would WINE make mac less secure, and susceptible to malware when it dose not do this in linux. linux runs Crossover office(office 2003, itunes, mediaplayer, internet explorer, many more), linux aslo has Cedega (halflife 2, farcry, world of war craft). These are all built up on WINE and i have never seen a virus, mailware, or hacker in linux after 5 years of running WINE and its ofspring. dont worry not everything to do with windows is rotten apples.

 

[Chaszmyr]

Why would WINE make mac less secure, and susceptible to malware when it dose not do this in linux. linux runs Crossover office(office 2003, itunes, mediaplayer, internet explorer, many more), linux aslo has Cedega (halflife 2, farcry, world of war craft). These are all built up on WINE and i have never seen a virus, mailware, or hacker in linux after 5 years of running WINE and its ofspring. dont worry not everything to do with windows is rotten apples.

Let's say there is a Windows virus that replicates itself and infects .doc and .jpg files. It will do this just as well on a Mac running under WINE as it would running in a native Windows environment.

 

[Cabbit]

Dont forget CEGEGA has swiftshader, i have tryed this thing in development and i can run a DX9 level game shader level 2 so far on the software only with a Pentium 4 3.2 GHz i run at 1024x768, the only setting a jungle setting moderate Pixel Shaders 2 and Vertex Shaders 2 and this was with a onboard sis and that was only used to output to the monitor, this is a very good software shader used in CEDEGA if you dont have OpenGL and can run DX9 on openGL in hardware or software. and fast

 

[Cabbit]

Let's say there is a Windows virus that replicates itself and infects .doc and .jpg files. It will do this just as well on a Mac running under WINE as it would running in a native Windows environment.

dosnt work that way if it did then you it would happen if you use office 2004. If you dont understand it reserch it instead of stateing noncence. WINE will run your windows applications, the ones that are supported anyway. it works in linux you never hear of linux users with virus problems, its been running for 10 years now and running well. Remember Linux is only a little more stable and secure than os x, the only diffrence being linux has tighter security at the cost of user friendlyness.

 

[50548]

No go...

Please add me to the huge list of users that couldn't care LESS about having Winblows in their machines...I don't even know what this fuzz is all about...run some crappy stuff on emulation and that's more than enough...why else would you need Winblows? To run games? Most blockbusters are ported or being ported to the Mac, and I am already glad with my CoD 1, it's more than enough...

MS Office - there
MS Project - Merlin
Internet apps/browsers - there

Now if you excuse me, I will go back to my Mac apps, thanks very much...

 

[barstard]

Dont forget CEGEGA has swiftshader, i have tryed this thing in development and i can run a DX9 level game shader level 2 so far on the software only with a Pentium 4 3.2 GHz i run at 1024x768, the only setting a jungle setting moderate Pixel Shaders 2 and Vertex Shaders 2 and this was with a onboard sis and that was only used to output to the monitor, this is a very good software shader used in CEDEGA if you dont have OpenGL and can run DX9 on openGL in hardware or software. and fast

LOL...What?

I have no idea about most of what you said, but I'm sure that says more about me than you!

barstard.