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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.