Windows XP Booting on Intel Macs?

[57004]

What I'd like to see is a VirtualPC like product that uses Intel's 'Virtualization Technology' that's built into the Core Duo.

As far as I've read, the current generation of Core Duo CPU's does not support Vanderpool Technology yet. Whether it is there but just disabled inside the chip or not actually present is still up for debate, but the chances are very slim it could be enabled anyway. There is no software that supports this technology yet, but when it arrives, owners of current-generation Intel Macs will have to upgrade their CPU's or be out of luck. Especially MBP owners since the chip is soldered on the motherboard.

I read this in a magazine (C'T in Holland) so I can't send a link but a google search should provide more information.

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

Yes, however I do see an option where you'd use a third OS (e.g. Linux) to run two guest-VM's (Mac OS X and Windows) through virtualization software which supports hardware-VT (such as Xen). I believe that in that case you could do it without Windows or Mac OS supporting virtualization. Mac OS only has to support it when you run it as the host-OS.

 

[ArizonaKid]

Not Just Me

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.

Bastard,

lol Kinda fun using name as a opening.

Because Macs never booted Windows doesn't mean that past practices can't be broken. Additionally, I don't see how supporting "legacy" (Apple's Words) BIOS on EFI hurts them in anyway. Apple's statement sounded arrogant, as if they would not be bothered by such trivial implementations of BIOS support on EFI.

On suiting my needs: With the amount of attention this topic is getting, it’s obviously more than just my needs.

Even though I don't agree with software limited to hardware, my call wasn't so much for Apple to open their OS, rather to point out the irony of past post, which screamed a MS for "potentially" looking out Windows on Apple - that's all.

I understand your belief, that Apple's OS perhaps may not be able to provide the revenue basis simply on its own. And yes, I acknowledge that their current business model is based on a complete software and hardware system solution. But no one these boards, even me, can really discredit an untested theory. That theory being that Apple could succeed greatly on just OS X and additional software sales. This frontal attack against MS may be a reality some day with a larger install base.

Back to the Point: Running Windows on an Apple is a win win for both companies. Apple gets that sale of software and hardware with every new system (the price of software is built in you know), and MS gets a sale for its OS. That is if you are using a genuine certified MS copy.

 

[Chaszmyr]

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.

It absolutely does work that way. Viruses running under WINE will likely not be fully effective when not in a Windows environment, but if you search around on Google you will find numerous articles about Windows viruses that can effect WINE-equipped Linux systems. Get a spellchecker, and don't accuse me of spouting nonsense.

 

[weg]

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.

Hmm.. would a virtual PC solution allow you to exploit the full power of the dual core, or would it just run on one core. Anyways, the graphic card emulation would probably not be good enough to play games...

 

[WildPalms]

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.

actually, Q (QEMU) DOES work. I have installed Windows 2000 Professional in Q on my Intel Mac Mini with no issues aside from it taking around 1 hour and 40 minutes to install. Actual cold boot of Win2K takes only 4 minutes within Q and is what I would consider very usuable. Only as 'laggy' in feel as though the OS were being remote controlled like say VNC.

And I have already decided to use Darwine as the 2 applications that I really need to use are running fine in Darwine....native....fast. (Darwine 0.99)

 

[AidenShaw]

I doubt that's "reality"

First, Apple's EFI implementation doesn't include a BIOS Compatibility Support Module because Apple chose not to take the time to create it.

Do you really think that Apple starting with a blank sheet of paper to write an EFI for the Yonah?

What do you think the Intel Apple group (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1891873,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03119TX1K0000594, https://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/11/20051122092351.shtml) was doing?

I'll bet that one prime task was to help Apple with the firmware for the MacIntels.

I expect that a conversation like the following ensued:

Intel: Steve, here's a Yonah proto on a Napa motherboard - complete with EFI and the BIOS compatibility. We recommend using the EFI for booting, that's the future. Let our team work with you to enhance the EFI for the MacIntels.

The Steve: What's BIOS compatibility for?

Intel: To boot Windows XP and older, Linux, and other OS that use the legacy ABIs.

The Steve: "Steve" the BIOS layer.​

 

[Kelmon]

So Many Emotions

I'm pretty happy at this news but it brings up a lot of questions and the posts so far made add certain amounts of confusion as to what is best.

My feelings are that having the ability to run Windows applications on a Mac will be a great thing and I'm really happy that it sounds as though I will have the ability to do so. At present I am continuing to maintain an ageing Pentium 4 system that I refuse to upgrade but which is still capable of playing the odd PC games that I have bought (mostly Dawn of War that shows no signs of coming to the Mac). Given this it would be very nice to be able to just install Dawn of War on whatever bad-ass Merom-based MacBook Pro I can get later this year, run the game and any others on a more powerful system, and throw out the old PC and reclaim some office space. All in all this represents a very good thing.

Issues, however, begin to arise when thinking about what I want in terms of the actual implementation. I can appreciate that dual-boot has certain advantages but requiring a complete log-out means that no only will I have to close down my Mac applications but also that swapping data will be more difficult. At present I am using Remote Desktop Connection (RDC) that allows me to copy/paste data and SMB to move files between OSs while still having both running on separate machines. This is convenient and a dual-boot single system would not demonstrate that level of convenience, so that's a bit of a black mark. However, I can also appreciate that a VPC or Virtualised implementation may also show problems in the form of reduced performance and, potentially, not being able to take full advantage of the hardware available in the Mac, potentially preventing Dawn of War from running. That would be a bugger and I'm therefore not sure now which implementation I would like best. This said, an implementation that works, regardless of whether it is dual-boot or VPC has to be better than no options.

Finally, what does worry me the most about all this is the potential, if any, for terminally screwing your Mac and losing valuable disk space to the Windows partition. I'll have waited a couple of years for a new Mac by the end of the year and, while being able to install Windows would be great, I'm not sure I'd be willing to try it unless the process was simple and with very limited risks (i.e. if making changes to the EFI was needed that it could be restored to factory settings in the event of "problems"). Further, the prospect of 100+ GB disk space is very attractive at the moment as my 60GB disk is getting packed, but putting Windows and its applications on the Mac would mean losing around 10-20GB and that's quite a lot.

Overall I think I am happy at the news but a little apprehensive.

 

[GregA]

actually, Q (QEMU) DOES work. I have installed Windows 2000 Professional in Q on my Intel Mac Mini with no issues aside from it taking around 1 hour and 40 minutes to install. <snip>Only as 'laggy' in feel as though the OS were being remote controlled like say VNC.

I've heard the same - Win2K works (Win98 & WinXP don't work properly). I'll be installing Win2K shortly, I just have to dig up my old install CDs.

 

[ctachme]

It's not removed from the 64-bit versions of Vista, only the 32-bit versions. Everyone here is missing the point that the x64/EMT64 Vista will be the version with the majority of sales in its lifetime. MS has obviously seen that there isn't much more life in non-x64, and the chances of widespread EFI support on 32-bit hw are slim. Why burn test cycles on something that won't be implemented on 32-bit other than Apple?

Apple's the one who chose to put x86 into the Macs with the Cores, and go the 32-bit route here in this "transition" phase. The writing is on the wall that x86/EMT64 are the future, and once Apple gets some Intel 64-bit procs in their boxes this issue will be moot.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong. What MS said was that at the intial release of Vista there would be NO (0) EFI support. Eventually, they plan on adding it to 64-bit versions, but don't give a crap about the 32-bit versions.

So even whet 64-bit Intel Macs come out... we could still have to wait a couple years for them to add EFI support.

 

[pizzach]

Meh

Meh. I think Mac users are the best Windows users in the world. They are the only ones that pay to get it on their machines. Windows users only use it because it's pre-installed. ...and it's not like linux user pay for anything.

 

[mark88]

Meh. I think Mac users are the best Windows users in the world. They are the only ones that pay to get it on their machines. Windows users only use it because it's pre-installed.

Right, and the millions of PC users who build their machines themselves, Windows XP came pre installed on the hard drives they bought right? :-/

 

[Cabbit]

Meh. I think Mac users are the best Windows users in the world. They are the only ones that pay to get it on their machines. Windows users only use it because it's pre-installed. ...and it's not like linux user pay for anything.

Well we in the linux world pay $60 for crossover office, then for my M$ office 2003 SBE disk, Doom 3 still costs the same but i have to choose to buy it for my mac or my linux box or pay twice. Dont think linux users dont pay, a lot of them pay for the os to SUSE is the same RRP as OSX.

 

[Leoff]

Instead of trying to get Windows to boot on a Mac, why aren't we pressuring the software manufacterers more on getting Mac OSX native software? There are many programs for Windows, but the fact that it has to WORK on Windows will make it more prone to all the problems we've heard about before.

How about, you know, more Mac software instead?

 

[grimmace]

If gaming companies would just make more games for the apple OS, then we really would not need to boot windows, now would we? I thought there was once a push to get the gaming industry to make more but the graphics cards were not up to par... they are now, so where's the games? Not enough.

If XP can run on a mac, sales should soar for all platforms.

 

[tdar]

Instead of trying to get Windows to boot on a Mac, why aren't we pressuring the software manufacterers more on getting Mac OSX native software? There are many programs for Windows, but the fact that it has to WORK on Windows will make it more prone to all the problems we've heard about before.

How about, you know, more Mac software instead?

what part of 5% market share don't you understand

 

[deitytay]

Think People Think

THINK PEOPLE THINK !!!!! DAMN!


There are so far only two main arguements people are using to justify running windows. People who want games and for those who need it.

As far as 5% market share goes, so effen what. Apple is a big name in headlines and in the media. For only 5% of the market share we are already causing enough rukus. I never knew a company with only 5% could maintain the headlines with each new computer related annoucement. Mac people have money to spend and software companies are starting to see that, just look at how quick apple reached the over 1000 list of native Intel software.

But anyway back to my anger.....

you jackasses are going to kill any support for future Mac gaming. Companies like aspyr , who spend good money porting popular games over to MAC. I am loving the fact I am going to play CIV 4 on my own safe and secure mac. Sure I had to wait a few extra months but I have a great game on a great OS. Now if this was vista we are talking about which is much more secruity and perks than XP thats a different story later to be agrued.

Did i mention Vista is just a knock off of Tiger??? you paying $300 plus dollars for a knock off

anyway If dual/virutal booting takes off like mostly everyone on this thread is suggesting in about a year or so, maybe longer, people would give up trying to support MAC NATIVE SOFTWARE. Only major companies like adobe and like a few others would still write software for the mac.


Instead of BITCHING about your wants and needs of dual booting, why dont you just get the damn companies to write the software for the INTEL mac now. The entire reason there is not as much software on the mac now is because people were to lazy to convert their program to PPC. Now that mac's are on Intel it is much much easier to write these programs for lets say SCIENTIST. Look at how Blizzard turned out an Intel Mac patch. it took them a matter of weeks not months. and each patch gets better and better. Hell even Adobe is still on track with their work on CS3 for PPC/Intel mac even taking into account Job's surprise Intel annoucment.


If I am able to tell my friends, hey WE GOT THE SAME SOFTWARE it has the same effect of telling them you can dual boot. granted people would jump the windows boat faster for dual boat, but then after a year or so time, the Mac world would just become a windoized world again because of NO MAC SOFTWARE support other than apple. Now we are back to point A.


At first i thought running windows on a mac would be great. but F that, I love my Native Mac software and I want people to keep writing that software and updating it. Yea we were so sure about going into Iraq for war, it was a good thing, but look at us now, all hell broke loose. Even if you dont like my logic atleast look at the big ***** picture, get your head out of your naive little ass and look into 2008, 2009, 2010 of were the mac will be because of this. But it doesnt matter anyway because if you fools have your way you are still just going to make microsoft richer by using their OS for a game here and there or for just 1 program.................right....... and I thought I was the retarded

 

[Whistleway]

Great stuff !!! I am TOTALLY annoyed at folks who just keep questioning why you need windows.. If you don't want or need or like to run windows on a mac, why are you reading this thread? Buzz off !!

 

[mark88]

Great stuff !!! I am TOTALLY annoyed at folks who just keep questioning why you need windows.. If you don't want or need or like to run windows on a mac, why are you reading this thread? Buzz off !!

A M E N

 

[Chaszmyr]

For all of you saying this is going to keep software developers from having an interest in developing Mac software, your view may be correct but short sighted.

Right now, companies are thinking "Apple has a 5% marketshare, maybe we should develop software for their platform..." and some say yes, but most say no.

Steve Jobs probably wants it to go like this:
1. People start dual booting Windows, and software developers say "They only have 5% marketshare and they can run our Windows software anyway, we definitely don't need to develop for their platform." This is the step you're predicting. Keep in mind, developers already loyal to the Mac platform will likely remain that way, and other developers were unpersuaded to make Mac software right now anyway.
2. People continue to switch to Macs because of cool products and the iPod halo effect boosting Apple's marketshare to 7%
3. Windows users realize they can run Windows software on Macs, and get the benefits of using a Mac, boosting Apple's marketshare to 9%
4. Those Windows users tell their Windows using friends how great OSX is, and steps 2 and 3 continue, boosting Apple's marketshare to 15%
5. With Apple now having 15% marketshare, more software developers start to make OSX native software, and even OSX-exclusive software.
6. OSX continues to grow and grow and grow

 

[rabatjoie]

hmmm

I don't mean to sound like a paranoiac or a conspiracy theorist, but i think that in the long term a well-working and easy-to-implement solution for windows on a mac could pose a serious problem for the macintosh platform.

I know that right now, the possibility of booting windows on a mac would be an incentive for many to buy a mac. But imagine that (at some point in the future) it has become commonplace to boot windows on a mac easily. what incentive would software makers have to continue developing programs for the OS X platform? it would be much easier to tell the customer to boot windows if they want to use the software.

The only thing that could keep this from happening would be a major switching movement to the OS X platform... which i doubt will happen. There have been so many technologies who went down the drain although they were technically superior to their competitors. I hope this won't happen with OS X, but I think that booting windows on macs could be the start of this (albeit slow) downfall.

 

[glassbathroom]

Instead of BITCHING about your wants and needs of dual booting, why dont you just get the damn companies to write the software for the INTEL mac now. The entire reason there is not as much software on the mac now is because people were to lazy to convert their program to PPC. Now that mac's are on Intel it is much much easier to write these programs for lets say SCIENTIST.

I really hope you are right, however I am not completely convinced. I think Apples recent switch to Intel is just going to annoy the software companies even more. Granted many will be happy to oblige and convert their software. Some who can't be bothered to port their apps previously (eg. Autodesk) will just see it as another reason not to bother trying ("Apple are always messing with their OSX etc."). I think that the safety net of being able to dual boot (if everything else goes wrong) will be enough to encourage a load of switchers. Once Apples hardware share of the market is up at 20-30%, then we will have more power to demand OSX versions. It really is a chicken and egg thing.

OK, so maybe 20-30% is a bit optimistic.

 

[rabatjoie]

so, i guess in 10 minutes it took me to write my post (i'm german) deitytay beat me to it.

Chaszmyr: I think the development you predict is a bit too optimistic. I yet have to see a reason why developers should continue to write software for OS X if people can boot easily into windows. I don't know if loyalty for a platform is a strong enough factor. People want to make money, after all.

 

[Leoff]

what part of 5% market share don't you understand

What part of "up from 3% market share" don't you understand?

Apple's market share has grown over the past few years, and that certainly isn't because of Macs being able to run Windows programs.

 

[Chaszmyr]

Chaszmyr: I think the development you predict is a bit too optimistic. I yet have to see a reason why developers should continue to write software for OS X if people can boot easily into windows. I don't know if loyalty for a platform is a strong enough factor. People want to make money, after all.

Most conscious Mac users use a Mac because, well, they want to use a Mac. There is a definite market of people (gamers especially) who would boot into Windows or whatever it took to run specific software, but I don't think the average Mac user (including professionals) would be satisfied with using Windows software. We know that programs like Adobe CS3 and Microsoft Office whatever are going to be made available Mactel native later this year or early next year. If Adobe decided CS3 would be their last OSX native release, I'd be willing to bet that most Mac users would stick with CS3, rather than buying a Windows version of CS4 or CS5.

 

[Leoff]

4. Those Windows users tell their Windows using friends how great OSX is, and steps 2 and 3 continue, boosting Apple's marketshare to 15%

Um... Why are those Windows users going to tell their friends how great OSX is when they're USING WINDOWS on the Mac?