Slashdot Mirror
Intel Macs May Boot Windows XP After All
mister_tim writes "While we'll have to wait till someone actually tries it to get absolute confirmation, news coming from Intel in Australia, reported here by Dan Warne in the Australian Personal Computer magazine, is that the new Intel-based Macs may be able to load and boot Windows XP after all. Several of the early stories after the announcement of the MacBook Pro and the Intel-based iMac assumed that Windows XP would not boot on Intel Macs, since XP doesn't support EFI (replacing BIOS in the new Macs), and Apple's statement that they wouldn't prevent the use of XP on Apple hardware didn't really give people much assurance either way. This statement from Intel implies that there is really no issue."
Except for hedging your bets. Why not wait at least a week, possible less. I am sure There are Thousands of people who will soon get their iMacI and try to install XP on it and post it for an attempt to have "eternal internet glory" for being the first to get a Production Macintosh to run Windows, along with other people who don't want to get outdone who will Try to have x86 Linux installed, with vmware that will run Windows, and possible OS X(But unlikely until...), then I give 1 month for them to figure out how to get OS X to run on normal PC hardware, and Vmware.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I give it two hours before somebody tries this and posts results. *starts stopwatch*
..like 2003 Server. XP is a step back. 2003 is lean, mean, locked-down and can play all the games and multimedia you want.
From the artricle:
However, Intel Australia, while being careful not to comment on Apple's hardware specifically, says motherboards based on the Intel 945 chipset already support EFI and can boot Windows with no problems.
This cryptic statement can't be taken as full reassurance though: it may be that 945 boards support EFI but do not come with it installed by default.
[...]
"For IA 32 systems, the Framework loads itself above the 1MB real-mode memory boundary to accommodate an optional Compatibility Support Module (CSM). CSM implementations can be tailored to platform requirements. A typical CSM is approximately 60KB (~38KB compressed) of firmware that is specific to each Participating Vendor and is based on that Vendor's latest BIOS code base. A contemporary implementation of the Framework on a PC includes a CSM for supplying services to operating systems that do not boot using EFI and for supporting legacy option ROMs on add-in cards. For legacy boot the Framework initialises the platform's silicon and executes EFI drivers. Then control is transferred to the CSM, which supports the legacy OS boot."
So, as long as Apple has included a Compatibility Support Module, Intel-based Macs should be able to boot XP.
It seems unlikely that Apple would have left this out. It has already said it isn't doing anything to prevent Windows from booting on a Mac.
Yes, it's true that EFI has BIOS backward compatibility layer, but it is optional for the vendor to use and provide this. And Apple has no need for legacy BIOS support.
Some further discussion of the general topic of windows booting can be found here: Will an Intel-based Mac run Windows?
The more interesting possibility for many users will not be directly booting or dual-booting Windows XP, but rather running Windows XP at essentially the full speed of the underlying hardware in a virtual machine, right alongside Mac OS X. Sure, for some game and direct hardware access applications, you would want to - or you may have to - boot Windows directly. But for the vast majority of access to Windows productivity and/or other software not available on Mac OS X, running Windows alongside Mac OS X is likely more desirable than dual-booting anyway.
As has been noted, however, it is indeed extremely likely that Windows Vista will directly boot on Intel-based Macs with EFI.
For years Mac users wanted cheaper hardware -- Apple is finding a way to provide lower prices by jumping on the most popular PC processor company's ability to consistently make quality products are reasonable prices. Mac users love the OS, I don't know of on Machead friend who would ever run XP, even under penalty of death.
Only on slashdot do I honestly think we'll see people buying $1000 worth of Apple Intel hardware for $2000, and put XP on it. OK, so dual booting might have SOME value to certain people. Doesn't anyone feel we'll see better Windows emulation on the Mac OS if there is an Intel processor to fall back on?
Other than that, what is the point of running XP on a Mac/Intel box? To be cool?
The Windows Server 2003 Enterprise doesn't support Infrared. :-)
It would be a a shame to lose such an important connectivity link on an Laptop...
So what? This is tantamount to saying something like "Hey, I just got a new Ferrari and the engine bay will accept a four-cylinder Chevrolet engine...." OK, OK....Perhaps a bit overstated, but still.....
To be honest, i'm surprised microsoft hasn't had the drivers and ability to run on macintosh's stuck in windows for a long time. They wanted to be able to run on any grey box out there, so why not every box. It would be good for both companies even, as apple is a hardware manufacturer and would still sell units, maybe even with windows instead of OSX or a dual boot setup of some sort. And of course all microsoft care about is selling their OS. It might even (who knows) bring the stability that specific hardware can give to an OS to windows. stranger things have happened
... but vista should http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10794396/from/RS.3/
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine. My sig is my best friend. It is my life.
does it run Linux?
*ducks*
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
I understand that dual booting because you can is nice, but I would much rather see Apple and MS work together on a wine-like semi-seemless solution that would allow the use of apps like Visio Pro in OSX
Honestly...on the 12th we had a story on whether of not the Intel Mac would run Windows...a story that said nothing more definite than 'perhaps'. And now, today we get another story with essentially the same message...nothing definite, just useless speculation.
Please don't post another story on this subject until a story surfaces about someone who's actually tried installing a Windows OS on an Intel mac, and can actually say something definite on the matter.
Corroboration of the findings by another party or three would be nice, too.
Oh, and this is the fourth Apple story today. Slow news day?
If so, then why is the story I submitted at 8:26 am EST still 'pending'?
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
More importantly, will OSX install and boot on white-box Intel, or will it need Apple-specific hardware?
I know a ton of people who will buy an iMac if it can boot Windows for gaming. If this turns out to work right out of the box, a few of them will probably order their new Macs in a couple days. =)
While I can understand that people want to play games and such, I don't get why you'd want to boot into windows on these new macs. Anybody who wants to play games that badly more than likely already has a windows system to game on, and with the price of PC hardware through the floor lately, it would seem a waste to spend the extra money on an Apple computer only to install windows on it. Since I made the switch to OS X, I haven't missed windows, and anything that I've needed a replacement for apps I used in windows, I've found elsewhere. So other than the "I did it just to do it" aspect, what is the point?
Just when I thought we had hit the cap on stories posted concerning Microsoft, Apple, and Intel, we get one that could reasonably be filed under Microsoft, Windows, Apple, Intel, News, etc.
well maybe not News...
This would be an interesting race:
- Will Windows or Linux be ported to these new MacTel boxes first?
- Which OS will support 90% of the hardware on one of these boxes first?
Linux is more modifiable, but Windows has a far larger userbase then Linux on the desktop. Porting "Linux to Mac" doesn't seem to have the same coolness factor of porting Windows to Mac.
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
This realy shouldent be big news anyhow.... we all know that it would be possible like ... the first day a modder gets his hands on such a (intel) mac.
http://free.hostdepartment.com/8/81fortune/
This is just going to bring around more of those wealthy friend people who buy a Mac to look cool with it. Then the losers put on Windhoze so they can run their favourite applications, which kind of kills the whole idea. Yeah. Yay for white LEDs.
500 MHz +/- 100 MHz
"Apple is finding a way to provide lower prices by jumping on the most popular PC processor company's ability to consistently make quality products are reasonable prices."
No they aren't. They switched processors but are keeping the same prices.
"New Intel iMac: Same models 17 and 20, same prices"
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
I don't think I'd run Windows on it unless I had some urgent need to run a Windows only app. I hope this debate dies soon and there's a port for VMWare on the new Macs.
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
Will it boot up TRSDOS or CP/M?
I like my machines old school.
Real old.
Wish I had moderator points to mod this up to out of sight.
y'all
The even more interesting /. story will be when someone finds a way to make OS X run on their home build PC. Not that I would particularly care to do so, but it would still be cool that it's possible.
Used IRDA all the time for peer-file transfers and printing, until the advent of bluetooth. Still use the IRDA port from time to time because my company has been slow to procure bluetooth-capable equipment.
I'm posting to you from OSX on an Inspiron 4150.. Haven't tried it on my home built box, though.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Assuming you're a "Good Person"(tm), none of the companies directly involved should care if you could boot XP onto a Mac.
You've bought the hardware from Apple, and part of your purchase price included the OS. So long as your check clears they don't care if you ever turn the damn thing on.
You've purchased XP from Microsoft (and likely paid more for it than if it came OEM) so they don't care if you try and install it on your toaster.
Dell would be the big loser in this scenario as they failed to sell you a PC.
Now if someone should get WINE running under OS X, or get OS X to easily install on a generic PC then you will see an unholy alliance of MS and Apple attempt to destroy the persons responsible.
Wasn't it last week, or the week before when CmdrTaco posted his response to the Beatles-Beatles theories? That was a pretty lively discussion, and I think he answered this during one of the threads. Since it is a slow day, maybe he can re-post it as a dupe and we can have the discussion again. Try submitting that, and I'll bet it will get accepted. You must know how all of this works by now, I've seen you around for a while. ;)
Oh, and so I stay on topic, hopefully in the next few days we'll see that some l337 hacker has a beowolf cluster of Intel Macs running XP and will be hosting his video of how he did it using that cluster, and then he'll have to post another video of the whole thing going up in flames when it gets slashdotted.
You can run Windows XP on a cheap x86 box and spare yourself the hassle and cost! (Who would've thought!?!)
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
I can understand and appreciate the reason "just because" because I had a blast modding my Xbox. But besides that, what would be the practical reason for XP on a Mac? It's not like the PC hardware is too expensive or anything. I've played with OSX a little, and from what I can tell it's 90% of the "Owning a Mac" experience. I considered an Apple machine before deciding just to upgrade my current PC just because I loved what I saw of OSX. I'd much rather see Apple port OSX to the PC, if that happened software makers would do more things for the OS, and then M$ would finally have some strong competition. (Yea, don't flame, but Linux is not going to compete against M$ for the home market anytime soon). Apple would make a killing, but would risk being known as M$ v. 2.0 since Apple's advantage is they own the hardware and can write the OS around one type of hardware.
Obviously, you don't know ~me~, Sir.
I use infrared for exchanging data between Palm Pilot (Vx), mobile telephone (Nokia), and notebook (ThinkPad). Have done so for the last seven years.
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
Why would you want to run the worst operating system ever on a mac? that just defeats the purpose. The only two reasons why windows is so popular is because: 1. most people do not no better. 2. games Which are both terrible reasons for sticking to windows. Now if i could get Mac OSX working on a pc....
Good luck finding a USB 8" floppy drive, champ!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
*ahem*
Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of {*WHAM!!!*}
[...didn't duck in time...]
A goal is a dream with a deadline
Someome please, for the love of all that is holy explain to me why you would spend that kind of money to get intel hardware and then boot Windows XP? If you want to boot windows XP, AMD is your friend. Price AND Performance crowns are with AMD.
Oh, you want to run some windows application? Isn't that what vmware and virtual pc are for? Why bother with the dual booting?
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
there's a lot of posts like yours. That's nice that you feel that way. But let me know when I can download thousands of pirated games that run on Mac OS X. Or let me know when I can run SQL Server 2000 or something comparable in power and flexibility on Mac OS X. For those of you who don't need it, cool. For those of use who need it, Linux is a much better alternative than Mac. Most likely, I'll be buying one ONLY if it'll dual boot Windows.
Time was, people would replace the Jaguar engines
with Chevy V-8's. Reliability.
Not that I am saying that OSX and WinXP share that
relationship, mind you.
emt 377 emt 4
There are an enormous amount of people who develop for windows, either native client or web and often with a DB that has only a Windows Installer. Doing this in an emulator might work some of the time, but it sure as hell won't work all of the time.
In my job I develop for both a huge legacy ASP application and Java. Running a complex ASP application in an emulator is a torture and unusable for work. Therefore I need a Windows machine, even though I already have a powerbook. Give me a Mac that I can dualboot and I will be enormously happy. Even VMWare running on my mac machine would be fantastic.
How about a SuperIO chip and bus pins that fits into the AirPort slot?
Every time we get a story of the form "I hacked A to run on B" or "I hacked C to do E", somebody always asks whether it wouldn't be more cost effective to buy something off-the-shelf. The answer is almost always "yes". Even if the hacker is saving money on hardware, he's expending a lot of his well-paid time. But that just doesn't matter.
A good hack is pretty much an end in itself. It might satisfy the hacker's curiousity, or improve his professional skills. Or it might add some minor functionality that the hacker's geeky priorities can't live without. But these are all secondary goals. The big goal is a sense of accomplishment, of having done something special. Asking a hacker why he doesn't just buy an off-the-shelf solution is like asking a Marathon running why he doesn't just call a cab.
Like a few others here I would much rather see OSX installed on my windows box. Apple stuff is nice but I don't really wanna pay that much for the "look". I like OSX and have always had a enjoyable experience working with it. But I don't like it enough to shell out 2 grand.
"Intel Macs May Boot Windows XP After All"
Okay, maybe it may be able to boot WinXP . . . buy why in the hell would they want to?!
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
Just wait for VMware/OSX to come out, then you can have snapshots and whatnot and even Winblows becomes somewhat manageable. Plus, any serious fuckup or new Windoze virus will not ruin the whole machine, just the sandbox, that can be repaired by selecting "VM-Snapshot-Revert."
'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
Should be fairly easy to make one... Most USB 1.44" floppy drives already use a USB->MFM adapter to connect the archaic 1.44MB floppy drive to USB systems. The signaling hasn't changed since way back in the 8" floppy days. Your only problem may be powering the beast. I bet they suck more juice than USB can provide.
First Palm decides to use Windows Mobile for the Treo 700, now there is a good possibility that Windows will run on Intel-based Macs.
As an aside, does anyone know if NT4 could run on PPC-based Macs (since NT4 had support for x86, PPC, and Alpha processors)?
I can think of reasons why Apple would have left this out. Why would they want to support this legacy support code for OSX as it gives them nothing? It makes supporting the boot ROM cleaner, and I'm sure the code is smaller by leaving it out. The only reason they might leave it in is if they get the example code from Intel, and it'd be more trouble than it's worth to take it out.
As to Apple saying they wouldn't do anything to prevent Windows from booting on a Mac, well that sounds more like they won't actively prevent Windows from booting like by putting in code to detect Windows, and then booting it. If they take out the legacy BIOS compatibility code for other reasons I just don't see that as preventing Windows from booting, since Vista is supposed to support EFI.
So, I think the question is still very open. Until I see someone with an x86 Mac running Windows natively, the jury is still out.
AccountKiller
EFI is supposedly backwords compatible with BIOS... so even at first glance, it is likely that XP and all BIOS dependent Windows versions should work on Macs.
The Admin and the Engineer
So we can stop seeing this argument every couple of days?
Clear, Dark Skies
... are we gonna be running Windows on a Mac, or Mac(OSX) on a PC?
(or linux on a mac but with pc hardware.. but you could do that before, only now it's on x86 hardware.. so it'd be a x86 linux distro but running on a mac... er.. aghh.. my head hurts..)
"Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
Because for some, their primary OS is Mac OS X, and they occasionally need Winders.
"It seems unlikely that Apple would have left this out. It has already said it isn't doing anything to prevent Windows from booting on a Mac."
They have said they won't actively take any measures to prevent Windows from booting on an Intel-based Mac, but they've also made it clear they have no intention of actively supporting Windows on a Mac.
It's not like removing the CSM would require any additional work, considering that unless it's written for the platform in question, the CSM doesn't exist in the first place! From the documentation I've seen, the compatibility module is not a generic off-the-shelf component that you can just compile in - It has to be custom-built for the platform, just like legacy BIOS is always specific to a particular platform (usually specific to only one single motherboard design.) Adding legacy compatibility to their Intel products would require a LOT of development work on Apple's part.
In short, Apple will take the easiest and cheapest route. If it were harder to release an EFI system without legacy compatibility, Apple would just leave the compatibility module in. Unfortunately, it's almost guaranteed that it will be the other way around - putting in the optional compatibility module will require significant effort.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Wouldn't booting into Windows XP ( or whichever insecure OS) give full control over your computer to a insecure OS (mores insecure than OS X anyway). Would it then not be possible to overwrite parts of the OS X partition in such a way that it is rooted, owned or has some spyware on it? I'm guessing that the relative security of OS X is irrelevant in that case.
In short does dual booting between OS X and Windows XP put your OS X install at risk? (I'm guessing it does, but I am not a security expert by a long shot.) Would running XP in some emulator not be way safer.
PS I know this is probably a trivial observation, but I haven't read about it anywhere (which does not mean nobody wrote about it already).
BIOS was needed for DOS and the earlier versions of Windows, but Windows NT/etc is a real operating system and actually uses *device drivers* (Wow-Wee!) for access hardware, not BIOS calls!
Since I write Windows software during the day and play Windows-based games at night, OSX has zero appeal to me; but Apple's packaging is reasonably good, and the price is in the ballpark of high-end Dell and HP laptops. So, what's wrong with running the OS I want on the box I want?
Or they could just boot something better like OSX or Linux
I have to agree with this. It's not that I wouldn't like to own a Mac but I have no real use for one, more a curiosity. If they make a Mac that can boot Windows and OSX without major problems for either OS I'd probably buy one at some point in time.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
The mini mac was supposed to be the risk free way that someone could cheaply try out a mac with little risk, but an Intel Mac dual booting windows is an even better trial and transition machine.
Naturally you only plan to dual boot with a few key apps and seldom may soon become never, but it gives piece of mind about leaving behind your windows software.
I am waiting for the Intel Mac Mini as my first potential Mac.
From TFA: EFI allows devices in the PC to be initialised before the operating system boots, and has features like full network support before the PC has even booted, allowing drivers to be downloaded and updated before an operating system loads.
I hope someone has thought through the security issues of that. Are EFI boards required to have hardware firewalls on the motherboard like the nForce 4 boards do?
. . . so I can let you know later tonight:). I don't really have any interest in dual-booting per se, but I feel like it's my obligation as a geek.
Got delivered at about 9:00. I only had a half an hour or so to play with it before I drove to work. I'm currently trying to convert my mother, so I set it up at her place so she could play with it today. Thoughts: Just as snappy as the G5's. Much better than my laptop. My only complaint is the mighty mouse - apparently it uses inductance to determine where your finger is, and normally I have my fingers constantly resting on either side. I only played with Safari, Photo Booth, and the MS Word trial, and I opened up system information to make sure it was the right iMac, of course.
And now that I think about it, I guess Word was running on Rosetta. Holy shit! I didn't even notice.
There hardware being able to run Windows seems like it would have insane value for the consumer due to compatibility and could boost Mac ownership by quite a bit (Gaming on a Mac sounds like a great idea with a two buttom mouse attached). Yet we all know Apple's dealings with their products tends to be rather complex, and may not follow the same business model a competitor would. There's also the legality involved with it being able to run Windows XP when Apple could disable that feature. I see no reason why it could cause them legal issues to be able to run Windows XP, and as long as they don't pre-load them with Windows XP or officially support Windows on it, they would probably be untouchable by competitors claiming some sort of unfair practice. But you can bet someone would try to make a scene (A PC manufactuer arguing about licensing issues Apple doesn't need to follow, or any other bs since Apple would then officially have hardware that could be considered "commodity hardware"). I for one hope I would be able to Install Windows. I would then be done with traditional PCs (other then maybe server building). If so, I see another change in Mac selling. All those unofficial Mac stores could probably get a big increase in business by preloading Windows onto them along side OS X if they made it consumer friendly. Up to now, There has been no reason to buy a new mac from an unofficial source since the prices are still about the same as from Apple, and offer no advantages to the consumer over buying straight from Apple.
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
Now, if i format the HD in 2 partitions. 1 in a UNIX or mac only filesystem (HFS+?) and the other in a Windows compatible file system. If i now install Windows it will see only this one partition yes, viruses too? Does XP always need a C-drive? I'm new to all this as its been years since i last used Windows but i want the games! :(
> Why would anyone want to run Microsoft crapware on a Mac?
Games.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
One machine to Rule Them All. One machine to Find Them. One machine to Bring Them All and In The Darkness Bind Them.
Physics is imagination in a straight jacket. ~John Moffat
a lot of people have been assuming that, but the chips Apple is using (so far in the iMac and MacBook Pro) are actually more expensive then their PPC counterparts. Apple jumped to Intel for something more than cost, Jobs said it was the Intel roadmap, and ability to provide powerful chips for portables etc. the Power and PPC chips are workhorses, but have not scaled down well to cool running low power consumption chips... or not as well as hoped?
the true side-by-side comparisons of Mac vs PC hardware will really start when the towers come out. you can not compare a $2000 Mac tower to a $400 eMachine and scream what a rip off the Apple one is just because both can connect to ebay.
i think people want to run Windows just to be first, but otherwise there is a market for virtualPC on the Mac. some people work at companies that have software custom written for windows, or software that just does not exist for OS X. if the speed is there, maybe games too? Mac gamers often complain about lagging behind. in general i think it would be for that rare occasion that one may need to run a windows app, and the need does not justify having two machines.... or if they need windows for their job, but prefer Mac OS for personal use.
i suppose it is also theoretically an easier hack than the flipside of getting OS X on commodity PS hardware.
Is that a store bought copy of OS X, or a developer copy?
One box to find them
One box to bring them all
And on the desk to boot them
it's right here! only 512 of ram but man does it run fast. I don't know where i should start though on how i should properly test if it can run windows. any ideas?
www.omglolh4x.com
Aztkgeek: I don't know why someone wants to buy a iMac to install a WinXP after all, iMac have all someone needs and want, better I install on that a Linux/GNU distribution, but a WinXP and have problems with that, no, oh no man, is like a buy a BMW and then a install on that a bad tires, or something like that
Unless they start bundling iPods with their macs, they aren't going to sell any better than they are now.
If people wanted to dual-boot, they would build their own rig and either buy a copy of OSX that will run on it (or just pirate it if Apple won't allow).
You should read up on Yonah's (aka Core Duo) virtualization technology. It should be very possible to run two or more OSs at almost full speed.
read this for more info
http://www.advogato.org/article/860.html
-Jon
this is my sig.
A quick google search would've given you this page with the system requirements. Mac is clearly supported.
The other two games run under WINE and theoretically could run under an x86 OSX system under WINE as well.
I'm seeing no need to actually run Windows.
What people in general seems to be disregarding is the partitioning-style that the new Intel-Macs are using.
Old Macs use a clean, simple, nice and flexible partitioning-system called Apple Partition Table. PPC-Mac OS can read those disks and boot from them. Intel-Mac OS can read them, but not boot from them (EFI does not like APT). Windows XP can neither read not do anything else with it.
New Intel-style Macs use Intel/Microsofts new GPT, GUID Partition Table. It is a clean, simple and flexible way of partitioning the disks. Intel-Mac OS can read and boot from drives partitioned with GPT. PPC-Mac OS can not boot from them (but it might be able to read them with an update, although Apple says to use APT on all external drives to avoid such issues). Windows XP can read and boot them, but only the 64-bit version of Windows XP.
Intel-PCs of today use MBR-partitioning. The MBR-way of booting and partitioning is a general pain in the butt, but it is what Windows XP (32bit) can understand and boot from.
Of course, there might be a way to make Mac OS boot from MBR-disks, since it did in the developer-intel-version, and so it would be possible to runt Windows XP and Mac OS from the same MBR-partitioned disk, but I would not really feel at ease running my Mac-partition as one of the four primary partitions on the weird old legacy MBR-disk-system.
Anyway. The iMacs with Intel CPUs have been out a couple of days now. Kodawarisan has even posted images of the insides of it, so if it was all that easy to run Windows, why have no one posted any pictures yet?
Of course, there may be a way to get 32-bit windows to boot from GPT-drives. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I could care less about running XP on a Mactel. To do that, I have to spend $2000 on a new laptop/deskop, then $300 for an extra copy of XP.
OR
I could pick up an copy of MacOSX for x86 for what, $150 and install it on my current machines...
Saves a lot of money
So, what happens if I need to *uhm*, right-click, in my {dual boot, vm, emulated} XP application?
Ok, so I got a new fangled multi button mouse on my Mac, changed my Apple Key on my keyboard to look like a Windows Key, put a D to the left of the Apple logo and two L's to the right, add a couple of LED Case fans (loud ones are better), and stuck my Windows XP Home product key sticker on the outside of the case where it belongs. Somehow it still doesn't seem quite right.
DAoC most definately does not run under WINE, except possibly the SI client which has for all practical purposes been obsoleted by Mythic. Transgaming didn't even support the SI client the last time I checked, they only supported the Classic client, which has been totally obsoleted by Mythic since the release of New Frontiers, their free (and essentially required) RvR expansion.
None of the more recent DAoC clients run under WINE or Cedega - I've tried with every Cedega release and failed. Also, even if they did get it working, something about WINE/Cedega's filesystem handling code makes the patcher's file check extremely slow, on the order of 5-10 minutes under WINE or Cedega vs. 10 seconds under Windows.
My other two examples may have been bad, but there are still hundreds of games out there that have no Mac support and no ports planned.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
I know that some PPC Linux distros had trouble controlling the fan speed on G5 PowerMacs, causing the fans to run at full-speed continuously. If cooling is maintained by OS X on these machines, would one really want to bother installing Windows on them?
Wow! A triple booting Intel-based Mac laptop! Yes! But does it also run Solaris 10 x86?
Im sure the primary concern is to lock OSX in to their machines, not necessarily to lock-out other OSs.
1) Anyone who's bought an x86 MAC already paid for the bundled OSX.
2) Being able to dual-boot windows might actually be a come-on for some people who just can't leave a favorite game/app behind.
Apple has got nothing to lose! OTOH, Generic x86 PCs booting OSX is a potential problem for them. No big reason to buy them fancy new MACs when you can build a PC for cheaper, and get the advantages of OSX too.
If you had RTFA or any of the other thousand /. stories on this topic, you would know that the backwards-compatibility module is optional and no one knows yet whether Apple is including it.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Come on people... Why would someone want to run windows on an Apple computer? Not only you wouldn't be able to use it without plugging an usb mouse with more than 1 button, you wouldn't be able to type anything correctly without putting an USB windows compatible keyboard.
And honestly, it's such a pain in the ass to get the drivers for a supported "designed for windows" laptop, that I don't even imagine you will be able to find drivers for your hardware.
Running linux or BSD however could be an option as they generally recognize most of your hardware out of the box and have "drivers" for Apple designed keyboards.
I gave up with the idea of an useful sig...
Oracle do ya?
Explain the advantage or even the point, of buying a machine that costs upwards to 4 times the cost of a regular PC to run Windows XP? Because I'd really like to understand that. If you want to impress me, show me OSX on a Pocket PC.
MadOgre.com
I understand that Canadian Geese are now contemplating walking south next winter.
why fly when you can walk like all the others?
Pfffaw... There aren't many equivalents that spec close to either version of the MacBook out right now, and guess what? The ones that are out, and are due out in a within a month or two ***WILL COST ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME*** while not having so many of the cool things the Apple does, and they will be bigger and heavier, and come with a whore of an OS. Seriously, they might be a hundred bucks cheaper... So fucking what?! That's 5% more! OMG, you'll probably have a fit over that!
Sure, you can go and spec out an HP or DELL or something that could have a better bang for buck value than the Mac hardware on the iMac front... There, they may be 15-25% more expensive than some equivalent PC. I can disagree, that's signifigant.... BUT, and a big but, those are all tower systems, with an included LCD. They're not a combined unit, which may or may not be desireable for some people. Let's face it, if one's looking at an iBook, there are only a few reasons why one would want it. One is certianly the form factor! OS is the other big one.
Many of these comments are back and forth of "why would anyone want/need to run both OS X and Win XP/2000/2003 Server/etc"? Quite simply, I believe there is a large market of folks out there that would shell out the dollars for a nice Mac, particularly in the notebook realm, in order to be able to run OS X for personal preference but must carry a laptop that boots Windows in order to work on any number of enterprise applications. Take anyone out of a consulting or services business. Its a virtual guarantee that in day to day work that they will need to interoperate with one or more applications that reside on Windows but the footprint is too large to be workable under virtualization. (I know - I've tried to use Virtual PC on a loaded Powerbook to run a local copy of an enterprise app and the performance was dismal.)
However, you give this market the choice of a laptop that can span both worlds equally well, Apple will sell a bunch.
The Windows NT kernel (for Windows 2000, XP, etc.) has supported EFI for many years. NT systems that boot on Itanium use EFI. There are even some vendor-specific platforms that boot NT using EFI on x86 systems.
So please get the facts straight. The "mainstream" version of Windows that people buy don't support EFI because the machines it is intended for don't support EFI, either. But Microsoft has supported and pushed EFI for many years. So it's not like EFI is magic, and Microsoft doesn't understand it. Microsoft has even contributed to the EFI standard.
Extensible Firmware Interface.
I nterface
As I and you probably guessed, this is a BIOS replacement technology.
More info here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Firmware_
hmm...so how much would (or did?) Microsoft pay Apple secretly to include CSM? i can see either party initialising an off-record deal, because it's mutually beneficial (it's much easier to imagine the business-driven dispassionate Gates proffering, and a little hard to imagine Jobs trying to use CSM as a leverage with MS, but that's me). or is it sheer philanthropy on Jobs' part to not cash in on such an excellent opportunity?
My sig has been answered.
Running Windows on a Mac is a bit like buying a Delorean and spray painting it with Rust-Oleum...
Oh yeah. I almost forgot. All those Windows geeks think Mac users have OS-envy...
The geek doth protest too much, methinks...
It's not "why would I want to?", it's more like "Why would I even care?" I am really going to buy overpriced hardware designed to use softare that only elite snobs run (or doorstops) when I can run anything from anyone on affordable hardware? This is really a waste of valuable internet space.
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
...with this plaque for "ETERNAL INTERNET GLORY"!
long live teh king!
"Why would someone want to buy a shiny new super-mac to run XP?"
They don't want to run just XP. They want to run XP AND OS X!. Face it zealots, not all excellent programs are ported to OS X, some are XP only, and I'm sure a virtual PC would be slower than the real thing (maybe not on the new intels with a new virtual program, but who knows...). Sorry, but consoles are just OK for games IMO. Apple has a few decent ones, but the vast majority (and niche) games are for xp only.
Why would anyone _ever_ want to Boot XP on one of these things?
Why not Virtualize? Modern versions of VMware include OpenGL support. Wine has OpenGL/DirectX support. Cedega has damn good DirectX support.
Some inbetween layer of OS virutalization or Win32 API support seems vastly superior to running XP straight on the machine, no?
The only possible exception would be Xen, methinks, especially because these new machines are VT (vanderpool) capable. But still; the _only_ group of people for whom virtualization is not a good option is crazy hard core gamers. For the rest of us, running XP in a sandbox is vastly superior to running it native, no?
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
1. The new iMacs don't include the shell component of EFI. So no EFI shell.
. txt
2. The command-line utility, bless, has a bunch of new stuff to enable multi-OS booting. Take a look at the manpage for bless(8):
http://absent.org.nyud.net:8090/~jgw/stuff/bless8
According to a little interview done by Inside Mac Games, the ATi cards use a custom firmware on the Macs. They don't just use the generic "PC" firmware.
s tory.php?ID=12680
http://www.insidemacgames.com.nyud.net:8090/news/
Also, if you look around the internet you can find a system profiler dump, which does mention EFI firmware interface or something, on the ATi chipset.
Some Windows XP entusiasts will buy Mac hardware, with no interest in OS X - simply because it is the best quality, designed and engineered computer money can buy.
:)
Many people who spend 10+ hours a day looking at a computer will be willing to shell out the extra $100's for something beautiful to look at.
It's easy to get attached to sexy machinery
If they think they will sell more Macbooks because they can run Windows, it might be true in the short while, but in the long run, this will be their undoing.
Apple still insist on charging a premium for their name. PC users want good value for their money. Apple might inspire some PC users to adopt a higher priced Wintel machine, but in the end, PC users will avoid something overpriced and keep to their Dell's, HP's, Gateways, and the rest.
Apple can't compete against PC's on their own turf. Apple's only ace up their sleeves has been OSX.
If Apple things that by allowing dual booting of Windows with OSX will cause more sales, then they will also be saddly mistaken. Despite offering a good 1-2 punch in terms of good quality hardware and superior OS, Apple hasn't gained 1% more market share over the last few years. This is because, despite how superior OSX is compared to Windows, PC users use Windows at work, at home, at school, everywhere, so why bother trying to use another OS in one location. OSX is a novelty for most people, offering them some easier ways to do common things, but OSX has not triggered hordes of PC users to switch to Mac's.
In the end, Apple will become the best PC OEM distributor, for a while. Once Dell and HP see DIRECT competition from Apple (in terms of winning over Wintel customers), Dell and HP and all the rest will start to offer creatively styled PC's with superior hardware and undercut Apple on price, a price ware between Wintel and Mactell will occur, which is Apple's biggest weakness. Apple could never contend against Dell in terms of a price war, Dell sell's 10 times more computers per quarter then Apple. Dell has the wholesale agreements with PC component suppliers to guarantee low cost components (much like Apple and the flash ram suppliers), thus Dell will always be able to undercut Apple in terms of price.
If Apple truely hasn't done ANYTHING to prevent Windows from running on their products, this will be the biggest mistake they have ever made. They may generate a large amount of sales in the beginning, but eventually once the hype over running Windows on a Mac is over, PC users will go back to buying cheaper PC brands and Apple will have lost their edge and lost their identity in admist a highly competitive market. Apple probably has already lost their loyal fan base by moving to Intel. What market they may gain in the short term won't be of the same loyalty as those feverent Mac heads, PC users are a fickle bunch. If some new carrot is dangled in front of a PC user running Windows on a Mac, they will jump ship in a heartbeat. For instance, AMD comes out with some superior product compared to Intel's Duo Core technology. PC users are not loyal, they want the best performance for the best price, and Apple won't maintain that lead for long.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
If so, then why is the story I submitted at 8:26 am EST still 'pending'?
Because you are a retarded, whining douchebag. You're lucky they don't reject your submissions outright just because you are such a fucking idiot. Why don't you take your dumbass ascii art sig and anime smiley and start your own fucking blog where you can post all the crap stories you want (followed by the first three links google turns up) and stop being such a asshatted whiner.
...at the thought of ever wanting to or attempting to run Windows on any of my Macs. I was a Windows user for since 3.1 and only when OS X came out became a convert.
Why in the world would someone want to risk getting part of their HD messed up (the Win partition) because of the multitude of windows problems that constantly crop up? Also, since Mac users are relatively immune to Win viruses, worms, etc., how many of them aren't even going to realize how vulnerable the windows partition will be on their Mac?
Silly.
whats with you people, why does every device have to run every OS. Give it up, use stuff for its "intended" puprose
They can boot Windows XP and when it turns they kick it in the nuts.
..But can you load the new MacOS on a Dell?
What I'm _far_ more interested in is: rather than booting Windows on an Intel Mac, running Windows (or Linux, or Solaris, or...) in a VMWare style environment. This will be far more versatile as I don't have to quit my OS X apps, yet I can run Windows (etc) apps at pretty much full speed.
Specialist Mac support for creative pros, Melbourne
... do you go to jail?
Yes, but only if noone is looking when you do it. Also, you may well get to jail before you even broke the law that sent you to jail. That's physics!
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
I'm actually suprised on how many people there is out there who would willingly put their expensive hardware in a wheelchair.
doesn't ANYONE have a macintel imac that they could just TRY this with and tell us what happens?
It's been on sale for quite some time now and unlike the Powerb- I mean MacBook Pro.
Apple is the only provider currently positioned to provide a seamless experience for the end user, starting with quality engineered hardware, coupled with a integrated OS that is perfectly complemented by .Mac internet connectivity.
Controlling the hardware will be a huge advantage. Most current and all future Mac's will be shipping with a built in camera, DVD burner, massive hd space, remote control, fast wireless as standard. These specs are a recipe for a multi-media power house.
Knowing this allows for apple to build unique 'killer apps' such as Front Row and iWeb, that no one else (not even MS) can provide. Soon you will know that everyone with an IM account ending with @mac will be able to do video conferencing out of the box instead.
Imagine interupting the on-demand movie your streaming, and taking a video call, and then resume watching with a few clicks of a 6 button remote.
The difference with Apple is they aren't telling you to put your 20" iMac in your living room. They just build hardware so beautiful and easy to use that you will think it is your idea!
There will always be a demand for integrated, high quality solutions.
WELL THANK GOD!!!! This goes under the category of "why?". Why do people even care about this? Dual boot people, get another box. Why distroy a good thing. ~n
Does it run Windows?
Oh god, we're losing ground here folks.
I think this is great, personally. I really can't wait to have a machine that triple boots into OSX/Linux/Windows. It'll make my job all the easier only carrying around a single laptop w/ the ability to demonstrate client solutions at 100% native hardware speeds -- and without losing the attention of said client when the inevitable mention of "virtual machine" or "hardware emulation" comes up.
#SickNotWeak
Wake me up when it can run Windows RG.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Linux runs Macs.
The crimes of eBay are a disgrace to it's pig latin heritage!
With new Duo laptops hitting the market, I am more interested in getting OSX to run on non-MacBooks.
I don't think you really grasp what virtualization is capable of. Once the software support is there (i.e. the new VPC, VMWare, Xen, etc), it is almost a certainty that e.g. BF2 for Windows will be able to run at near-native speed on virtualized Windows (though perhaps not til vista), with full support for any graphics card features.
3 ,00.asp for more.
See: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,179168
-justinb
oh for FUCK sakes, go OUTSIDE, get a LIFE, you FUCKING loser
Windows XP ships on Compact Discs (CDs) with Read-Only Memory (ROM) stored in an ISO 9660 file system format. If your iMac is equipped with compatible input disc drive hardware, you may be able to use the Windows XP CD-ROM to install the Operating System (OS). This is a tremendous risk though; it involves rebooting, an advanced topic perhaps foreign to you.
Okay let me throw my two cents out on a couple things.
1.) The new iMac's are the same price! Yea, we know. However, the PPC iMacs were 1.6Ghz, the new Intel iMacs are 3.6Ghz. Plus the new Mactels perform almost 3 times faster than the PPC iMacs did. That's THREE TIMES the MAC for the SAME PRICE. Sounds cheaper to me!
2.) Who in there right freaking mind would pay $2000 for an iMac so they can run WindowsXP on it? That is like buying a $200,000 Ferrari and then putting a Volkswagon 2100cc engine in it. Come on people, get your GEEK HEADS out of the perverbial "I CAN DO IT" sand.
3.) The better question would be: Can a "Designed for Windows" or "Designed for Linux" hardware box run the Intel version Mac OSX? Now think about it, if you could write a small TSR (Terminate and Stay Resident) program that loaded from the MBR (Master Boot Record) like a Boot Manager does that would translate the PC Bios to EFI you could easily run OSX on computer designed for Windows or Linux. That means you could effectively buy a $400 linux box and install OSX on it. Now that would be FREAKING COOL and very very useful. Imagine being able to build/buy a PC with comparable hardware to the iMac for $1000 and then run OSX on it....Along side WindowsXP.....WAY COOL....WAY USEFUL....EXTREMELY GEEKY
The whole Windows-on-Mac brings to mind a topic that has been discussed before regarding Windows and x86 hardware.
We're all aware of the so-called "Microsoft Tax" on x86 hardware. To turn the table around for a minute, let's put it in the light of OS X on Apple hardware.
Let's say that WinXP will in fact boot on a Intel iMac, and not just boot--but boot well, full hardware support, and be actually useful with no limitations. Let's also say for some reason a user wants to buy an iMac (or MacBook, doesn't matter which for this discussion) for the hardware (or any other reason) but wants to use Windows on it and not OS X at all.
(Yes, a very hypothetical situation, but let's pretend.)
Said user calls up Apple and wants to buy an Intel-based iMac but doesn't want OS X. Obviously, the two won't be separated, since Apple markets the Mac "experience" as opposed to just hardware and software (plus the whole engineering hardware for a known OS and vice versa.) Would Apple's refusal to unbundle OS X constitute an "Apple Tax" on the hardware?
I would contend it does not, as Apple manufactures both the OS and hardware and bundles them on its own accord; they are not forced to do so by an outside company. Microsoft, OTOH, "influences" other hardware manufacturers into including Windows, whether or not they really want to bundle Windows withe their hardware. Maybe more appropriately, Microsoft influences them to NOT bundle other software (Firefox, Thunderbird, etc.)
At the same time, since OS X is not the only OS that will run on the hardware, there are alternative options to OS X on Apple hardware. Furthermore, Apple is perfectly happy to sell you OS X without hardware, why not sell the hardware without OS X?
Maybe it's an obvious non-issue but I thought it would make for interesting conversation.
(As a side note, the discussion seems to have focused on Windows running on Apple hardware, but I haven't seen much on OS X Intel running on run-of-the-mill x86 hardware. Is there something in OS X Intel that specifically looks for Apple hardware? I thought I saw something about that but I can't recall exactly. Wow, that would really put Apple's panties in a bunch wouldn't it? OS X on a Dell?)
Random thoughts on a Monday evening...
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
Hahaha. Afraid to attach your name to that comment?
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
Myself, I always wondered why they don't just call a cab... :)
So, they don't want their OS running on other platforms, but they don't mind if Windows runs on their hardware. Apple don't want to become Microsoft. They want to become Dell. They can shift a significant number of hardware units to people who previously wouldn't have considered a Macintosh, but now it can also boot Windows might buy one because it means as well as playing with OS X, they still have the comfort zone of retaining Windows.
EFI is a boot loader. Bios is a program. Why not get one of the free Bios systems and reconfigure it so EFI boots to it and then it can boot windows. Hasn't someone already done this sort of thing for grub?
No they aren't. They switched processors but are keeping the same prices.
That's misleading. They occupy the same slots on the webpage, but the different CPU architecture isn't the only change: the performance went way up with the new Intel Core Duo chips.
A (more) fair comparison would be between the old high-end systems and the new low-end systems. The new slowest Core Duo systems are significantly faster than the old fastest PPC systems, and are cheaper.
And that's after shipping them for 1 week, with pretty much nobody else buying any. It can only get better when Intel starts producing these in volume.
Usually Apple improves performance but keeps the prices the same, but there have been exceptions, and the price has gradually lowered, too; a 128K Mac cost $2500 (more, in today's dollars), but now an entry-level all-in-one is half that. Remember when a color Mac -- with no extra options -- was $4000? You have to get a top-end PowerMac G5 with some extras to hit $4000 now.
I actually *had* a Mac which was fully capable of booting into a working MSDOS environment, using what I'd guess to be a built in x86 chip. It was manufactured by Apple, but I sorely wish I knew the information on the box. Anyway, I freaked out my dad (it was his computer) when I shut it down, and had it magically boot up to "C:\>", since he was actually very unfamiliar with Windows, let alone MS-DOS. He didn't let me touch his computer after that.
"Apple has already stated they didn't do anything to prevent people from booting windows".
I think the key words in that statement are "didn't" and "prevent". I keep seeing people saying this, but in my mind, it doesn't mean they *enabled* anyone to do so either.
The MacNN forums have a thread by a guy with a new MacIntel machine. I don't know how hard the guy is trying, but he tried to load various Linux distro's and Windows XP from his and didn't get very far.
Vista might load, but XP doesn't do EFI. Hacks, workarounds, etc. might be forthcoming, but right now.....It ain't happening from reports around the web.
And obvious. Who really cares about Mac hardware? It's all the same components anyway. Is Tropicana OJ any different than the supermarket brand? No, same orange growers different labels and price tags. So why pay $1200 for Apple's hardware when a $500 Dell will do just fine? And don't tell me that Apple uses flux capacitors and so thats why it's twice the price! It's all bullshit. If Linux (an open source product) can run on multitudes of hardware, why not the Mac? Even Sun has the decency to let you run Solaris x86 on ANY PC you want.
Because Apple loves to play head games. They get you to believe that their precious hardware is somehow different than the rest of the world's simply because the box is translucent, fashionable and doesn't need a second mouse button. My PC doesn't need to be fashionable. Hey Jobs! It's obvious by now that you REALLY want people to move to Mac OS. Obvious enough that you moved your flagship system to the same architecture as your arch rival. So why don't you just sell me the damn OS (you know you want to) and let me pick my own hardware buddy! This ain't AS/400. Stop with the games. I'll make my own Apple experience with my own hardware. Capiche?
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0506intelmac.html Has anyone else seen this?
.adios/losers ~snake
It's already out there. There's torrents of OSX for x86 (from the Mactel test machines) already out there. The test boxes didn't use EFI, from what I recall, so OSX should install on PC hardware.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Can't say about the pirated games.d b.html. html
About SQL Server 2000...
How about MySQL: http://developer.apple.com/internet/opensource/os
or better still, Oracle: http://www.oracle.com/technology/tech/macos/index
A lot of stuff that you can do on Linux, you can do on Mac.
All the reasons that I had to use Linux on by beigebox went out the window when I got my Mac.
What are yours, other than what you've stated above?
cat
Maybe the story you submitted sucked?
Sweeeet Motorola. That would have been my first PPC Mac but they were never released. I ended up buying an Akia, Japanese Mac clone, instead.
But let me know when I can download thousands of pirated games that run on Mac OS X.
Also, someone please let him know when he can download thousands of anti-spyware/trojan/virus packages to run with his pirated games.
Or let me know when I can run SQL Server 2000 or something comparable in power and flexibility on Mac OS X.
Ummm... okay, here's Oracle for OS X. Or maybe you prefer Sybase Adaptive Enterprise Server? Or if you want something free, but enterprise quality there's PostgreSQL. Or something free, flexible and fast that's decent enough to power slashdot there's mysql.
SQL Server is decent for small to medium-sized databases, but you're not going to be handling tables mesured in gigabytes in SQL server like in sybase, db2, or oracle. Not unless Microsoft really puts a lot more work into SQL Server and the memory management of Windows itself.
Doesn't this go along the lines of mircosoft pulling support for mac ports of their popular software such as office?
does solaris require open firmware? or will it run on a BIOS machine? the new macs seem to emulate open firmware, seeing as how the boot drive selection is the same on intel and PPC macs.
moox. for a new generation.
...through the use of VirtualPC. Now that the CPU is Intel, VirtualPC will probably run at near native speeds. I agree with the poster who said that running Windows in such a VM (sandbox) would be much preferable in most instances to dual booting. And with a dual-core chip with one CPU running VirtualPC and one running OSX, you'd probably get pretty good performance for both OS's.
P.
"That's exactly what I said, only different."
I haven't verified this information, but I'm pretty sure this is how you get an EFI prompt on the new Macs:
3 &showtopic=10606
http://www.afp548.com/forum/viewtopic.php?forum=4
"Was on the floor at Macworld and spoke to one of the Apple people huddled protectively around the new iMacs - while the Help Viewer docs still say Command-Option-O-F, he told me that you access EFI while holding down the "X" key at boot."
"War makes me sad." - Me
OpenOSX has release Wintel 2.0 as a Universal Binary, along with various x86 OS images. Windows runs at "near native" speed, which I guess it should. http://openosx.com/wintel/
Your prejudice on database servers is about 3 years old. Check out the performance measurements for Oracle vs. Microsoft SQL Server 2005. It's almost the same performance, with the same capacity, with an infinitely easier to use package and administration tools (DTS, Analysis Services, CLR integration with .NET, excellent XML support) all bundled for a MUCH cheaper license than ORACLE. MySQL is hacky at best... just try doing nested queries with any sort of performance. You'd have to be crazy to use Sybase since there's nothing you can use to develop against it short of the monopoly platform that that one company charges you an arm and a leg for. And PostgresSQL is great but poorly documented, and without any of the features of SQL Server. Please, don't just regurgitate nonsensical oppinions with no experience to back them up. My entire home network runs Ubuntu - a server, two workstations and a laptop and I've had experience with all the databases you mention. SQL Server is by far the best. ORACLE is better technically but in terms of what you can produce with it, they have nothing on Microsoft.
well, like i replied to someone else, MySQL and Oracle are nice, but don't compare to SQL Server in features and productivity.
.net because you can use C# with modules in Haskell and Perl for specialized things. I'm not saying Visual Studio .net, Holy God no, but .net is a great framework. I'm not saying I don't wish Microsoft offered these on Macs and Linux, but as it is, they're not available for those platforms.
games in general (not just pirated) are another one. Setting up a Home Media Center is considerably harder with Linux (I have Ubuntu and I know) than with Windows. For development, I believe the best development platform out there right now is
The Windows speculation was a tiny part of the article which was the first ever review of an Intel based consumer Mac. If you had read the article or even had read the full article summary, you would have known this.
It's a stolen copy, being used in violation of the EULA.
I believe your question was "let me know when I can run SQL Server 2000 or something comparable in power and flexibility on Mac OS X" not "let me know when I can run SQL Server 2000 on Mac OS X".
.net integration (you never mentioned this originally) then your question should have been "can it run Microsoft SQL Server?" since no other platform has the same level of support for this. If it's XML support, Oracle is fine. PostgreSQL may or may not meet your needs.
While SQL Server has default admin tools that are among the most user-friendly available, admin tools do not an RDBMS make. SQL Server's graphical query modelling tools, for example produce horrificly bad SQL. There are tons of equally friendly tools out there for all of the platforms I listed, sometimes free, sometimes not.
Look, I've worked for years with SQL Server, and have decent experience with both Oracle and Sybase. In the end the friendly tools will never output particularly good SQL and you'll always be dealing with SQL at some level. There are a ton of 3rd party tools (eg. dbartisan/rapidsql from embarcadero) available in this arena -- not just the ones that ship with the app.
As for mysql, it has very legitimate uses -- sites like slashdot and free tools like wordpress do just fine with it. It doesn't have full SQL92 support, and it's certainly not a full-featured general-purpose RDBMS, but if you're dealing with a very simple problem, and it fits your needs, it's a simple, lightweight solution.
And PostgresSQL is great but poorly documented, and without any of the features of SQL Server.
I'll assume you meant "many", since the above statement is patently false. Given that, what feature is it you need that SQL Server has and PostgreSQL doesn't?
You made no statement as to what your actual requirements were aside from being comparable in power and flexibility to SQL Server 2000 -- Oracle, Sybase, and Postgres all fit that bill. MySQL may or may not depending on your needs (which now appear to include cost and whether a big monopoly corporation provides you with tools for it (choose Microsoft, Sybase, Oracle, IBM) which anyone can choose to use or avoid).
If you need
So I ask again, what is it you need that SQL Server has that the others don't? There are legitimate requirements that only SQL Server currently supports. That said, no RDBMS is the best solution for every job; and there's no one best all-round general solution. It all depends on your needs.
So Apple prevents MAC OS from running on anything but on MAC hardware, wise thing to do. This forces hardware sales up since you have to buy a MAC to run the MAC OS. If MAC ran on any x86 why buy mac hardware? and if you have hacked copies Apple wouldnt make a dime,,, bye bye mac... DAS ES NO GOOD. The good thing for Apple (and MS) is if MS makes a windows version that runs on IBM or MAC. Now if MAC hardware is "better" then IBM and you need to run windows software you can just buy a mac. This is good for MS because it can move its market into the mac world and make Mac Windows software. Mac might see a dip in OS sales but im sure hardware sales would boost. The day I can buy an AMD based system that can run WIN, MAC, and Linux will be the happiest day in my life. Dream machine-> Quad core AMD running +2 TB of RAID QUAD video array 16GB of RAM running Linux and having virtual MAC/Windows.... *druels*
Who in hell would want tp buy a Mac and then install WXP on it instead of Mac OS X ???
...
So this article and all speculation on that kind of possibility is just mental masturbation for people with absolutelly nothing else to do
here's something really simple that i wasn't able to do in MySQL: change the ordering of columns through their GUI without removing and putting them back.
.net)
... find nothing. And no, I don't have a simple problem and I don't need a simple RDBMS. I need the best I can get without killing my budget like Oracle would.
here are the things I love about SQL Server that the others don't have (to my knowledge)
- analysis services (you know, like cubes, multi dimensional data modelling and data warehousing)
- DTS packages and general data transformation services made as easy as the DTS package builder is in SQL
- Integration with a good free (as in beer) application platform (such as
I've nothing against the other RDBMSs, I'm just at a loss when in SQL Server you can right click and copy tables, views, stored procedures and just move them to another database and when I try to do the same thing in PostgresSQL and
Of course, if you just want to player-hate the Mac, be my guest. But I hope you realize that most of the compelling open source software also runs on Mac OS X, right?
ok, i'm not playa-hatin da mac dog,
i'm jus sayin dat da mac ain't no good at enterprise level software that i can afford. I already done told youse I can't afford no damn Oracle. That shit will break my bank. So I'se got to stick wit da SQL Server and till da mac runs dat shit, I'm not buyin it. Nuttin against the mac, I like the machines. I prefer IBM, but mac is cool by me.
peace
Stolen? Not really. I only copied a series of bits from multiple sources. ;)
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Don't make me get all Jennifer-Aniston-in-the-car-scene-in-Office-Space on your ass.
First of all, you are all up in my grill, postin' some lame shiznit 'bout wanting to run some pi-sizzled games on a Mac. Then you come outta nowhere with some SQL Server stuff.
So I pimp-slapped with some O-to-the-Rackel, and now y'all come back some weakness, talkin' 'bout you gots no cash for a database. You givin' me some line about no cash when I bet you're rollin's on 22s, pushin' up on the honeys in a fine ride, but you're gonna act like you can't pay The Big E.
Nerdie, please.
Did I not send you a link to download a free copy of Oracle for Mac OS X server?
Are you hating the game?
Don't front on me...
Anyways I can't be mad at you... we's cool.. but just so's you know... I know you're frontin', 'cause we both know the Mac can do enterprise: J2EE (even WebLogic),
You can do whatever you want. I didn't "steal" anything.
And Office Space? Over-rated.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Apple charges money for Mac OS X.
Did you pay them for it?
No, but to say "steal" implies that I took something from them. Which I did not.
For someone with such a low UID, you're a complete fucking moron.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
There are plenty of complete fucking morons with low UIDs. See for example this idiot.