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.
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?
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
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. =)
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.
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.
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.
Half right. MS would care about WINE, but they'd care only slightly more than they care about it on Linux. Apple wouldn't mind WINE (for the reasons you described), and would prolly be just as happy if you used it, as it is less money going to MS. But you're right in that a OS X on a generic box would mean such an unholy alliance.
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
"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?
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 carry a laptop with me every day. You don't see any value in that laptop being able to run applications for Windows, OS X, and Linux as opposed to just two of those three? Well, we probably use our machines for very different things then.
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.
This is not really an option. The computer OS market is 99% the pre-installed computer OS market. If it does not come on the machine, most users will never buy it. No major OEM will pre-install OS X, since they rely upon MS's differential pricing goodwill. MS can raise the OEM price for Dell from $25 to $100 and suddenly they are dying on price comparisons. If you ran Dell would you risk your successful business on the gamble that OS X would suddenly take off? Only a new hardware maker with a bundled OS has any hope of competing, like Apple. Maybe a new company would be created, but then they would be beholden to Apple, just as the existing companies are to MS, except also directly competing. At the same time as all of this, many Apple users, who are among the tech savvy minority, would purchase the OS and run it on x86, thus greatly hurting their main source of income, hardware sales. So Apple loses half it's incoming profit in an attempt to gain market share for the tiny percentage of users who will use a non-preinstalled OS. And what can they hope to achieve here? Dell hold abut 20% of the market right now (they are number 1) and they are valued as less than Apple already. You are proposing huge risks and changing a successful business model with very little potential return.
Yes, people on Slashdot and other technical sites would like Apple to release OS X for generic x86. That does not mean it makes business sense to do so.
"So, what's wrong with running the OS I want on the box I want?"
You are right of course, running the OS of your choice on the box of your choice is the way the industry is going. But a lot of the mac people are stuck in the past. The reason they ask the question, why would anyone want to run Windows on a Mac, is that they do not realise what has happened with this move. You won't be, in the old sense, running Windows on a Mac. You'll be running it on an Intel machine branded Apple. Its perfectly reasonable thing to do, as reasonable as running it on any other Intel machine with any other brand. As reasonable as running it on one branded Dell. Probably came out of the same factory in fact.
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.
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.
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.
I agree, but there's another issue you're neglecting: I think it's actually very important to Apple that their x86 machines be able to run Windows, because it allows them the chance to sell a lot more hardware (which is their bread and butter). There are some people who like OS X but need Windows apps, and the Windows-in-a-VM situation is almost ideal for them (better would be an OS X implementation of WINE that works extremly well), but there are a couple other groups that Apple can tap into as well.
First, there are the people who really like the elegance and quality of Apple hardware but don't want to run OS X. I don't know how large this market is, but people *do* appreciate the styling and design of Apple hardware, and there will be people who are willing to pay a small premium to get that, even if they prefer Windows.
Much more imporantly, it will allow Apple to market their hardware and operating system to people who might not be sure they want to use OS X. At present, when you buy a computer, you have to decide if you want Apple or Microsoft. Few people who already know Windows are willing to take the plunge and buy a Mac, no matter how much their friends, relatives, etc., talk up the wonders of OS X. With a Mac that can run Windows, there's no risk in trying OS X, and people will do it.
I don't think it will happen, but I think Apple might want to consider trying to negotiate an OEM license deal with Microsoft so that they can offer dual-boot systems as an option. Then, Windows users who'd like to try OS X wouldn't even have to know how to install Windows. As I said, I don't think it will happen, partly because Apple wouldn't want to be seen offering Windows as an "upgrade" and partly because I don't think Microsoft would want Apple selling dual-boot machines, and so wouldn't offer workable terms/pricing. In an ideal world, however, I think Apple could sell a lot of dual-boot machines. Given a Windows license for the box, they could also bundle VMWare or similar, and configure the Windows OS so that it can boot either standalone or as a VM, which would make the machine even more attractive to the wants-OS-X-but-needs-Windows crowd.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I was going to mod this "funny", but then I wasn't sure.
You know that the underlying base of Mac OS X is BSD, right?
A friend once said "the net is large enough that somebody won't get the joke". Therefore, always use a smiley when you're telling a joke. :-)
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.
It goes far beyond the driver issue. Why would I want to run XP on it period? If I wanted to run windows, I'd buy a Dell or something. What exactly would you need to run XP for. Oh yeah, for developers, cross platform, yada yada. I doubt seriously though that other than the "hey, look what I did" factor, there's little reason to run XP on a Mac. As for games, unless microsoft ports DirectX to the Mac (highly unlikely), then there's not going to be a flood of new games. Jobs doesn't want the Mac to be a gaming platform (like Gates did, way back when), nor does he want to really be a pure hardware company again. they have too much invested in the iApps, plus the OS itself to be a pretty piece of hardware. The IntelMac is aimed at serious content creators and the like, who need the power that the G4 (and even the G5) lacked. The iMac is of course aimed at the consumer, but again, it's the total package they're selling. I seriously doubt the need for a dual boot XP/OS X system. Maybe a few around here need, er want, it, but I'd say 99% of people have no use. Being able to run OS X then fire up XP for a quick game or two is hardly worth the hassle. And I seriously doubt any company is going to purchase a bunch of IntelMacs to run windows.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
To me, the software is the most important part of the system.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
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
First, there is NO PPC comparable to the chips in these first macintel's. Second Apple gets a lower cost system even if the chips are slightly more expensive because they no longer have to develop all the other parts of the chipset themselves. Third and possibly most important they don't have to deal with supply disruptions and long process delays that were caused by Motorolla's inability and unwillingness to do things that were in the best interest of their only desktop customer.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Well, the other guy answered your last question... let me explain why Apple will go out of their way to prevent you from running OSX on your eMachines PC. Apple sells hardware. OSX, iTMS, Garage Band, FCP, Logic, all exist to sell Apple hardware. They may pay for themselves, or even manage a profit. But, make no mistake, they are there to sell hardware.
I have no doubt that someone will manage to get OSX intel running on a beige PC. But Apple will never allow it to become easy or widespread. Every update (and OSX is updated frequently) will break the compatability. For most people it will be far too great a hassle to maintain. Those determined enough to press on were likely never going to buy OSX or a mac anyway.
For those who would claim Apple could make up for lost hardware sales in software sales, you are wrong. The DIRECT ancestor (to the point that they are nearly the same thing) was available for intel PC's in the mid 90's. It had a niche market, much smaller than MacOSX's and never went much beyond that, despite having nearly every technical advance available in OSX and some that arent. Steve Jobs remembers that because he was also the CEO of NeXT.