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*
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.
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. =)
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."
"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
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.
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
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.
Legally, it'll need Apple specific hardware.
Illegally, I'm sure it'll eventually be cracked, but it'll prolly have extra flaws in it, and every update might break a cracked version.
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.
Except with Nvidia some games and 3dmark 2001 detect the installed DirectX as version 3 not 9 and refuse to run.
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
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?
I'll buy one for consolidating functionality onto fewer machines. Not all applications will run well in a virtual machine. VMware has no OS X client. It is still being developed. VirtualPC would be Intel emulating PPC emulating Intel. That is to say, slow as a dead monkey. No word yet on a timetable for a new version. So for today, Dual booting is the only option available.
If you want to boot windows XP, AMD is your friend. Price AND Performance crowns are with AMD.
This is true on desktops and servers, but not on laptops right now. The Intel Duo blows away any AMD offering I have seen for performance/power consumption. AMDs are cheap and fast, but they suck power like mad compared to the 65nm Intel CPUs and the AMD competitor is not due till Q4.
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
Hmm, let me list a few applications that virtualization/emulation won't work for, which also aren't available for OSX.
World of Warcraft
Dark Age of Camelot
Battlefield 2 (possibly available under OSX, but I don't think so...)
Do you sense a recurring theme yet?
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
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
"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?
Exactly.. Using a virtual machine is a lot less painful than rebooting into another OS. VMWare will be a great option to run those few Windows-only apps I need occasionally. Especially with a dual core system, VMWare should run very well, while neither side will suffer too much (assuming you have enough RAM).
Once VirtualPC or VMWare are available for the MacBook, I will be selling my current PowerBook and getting one. Go for the 120GB disk option, and upgrade the RAM to 2GB, and this should be a really nice machine.
Also, wasn't the Intel CPU used in the MacBook supposed to have some new virtual machine hardware support? I wonder if this will offer any improvements in VirtualPC/VMWare.
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?
I can't speak for everyone, but as an industrial designer, I'd love to be able to run CAD apps and OSX on the same box. Right now, there are virtually no 3D design and drafting apps that run on OSX, and all the industry standards (SolidWorks, AutoCAD) are Windows only. I strongly prefer the day-to-day usability of OSX (it's what I use at home), but I'm still locked in to using Windows at work. There might be plans to port them to OSX later, but as of right now my only option for getting everything I need on one box would be to dual boot.
The other thing to keep in mind is the transition. A lot of people might want to try OSX, but only know Windows. Having the option of still being able to use Windows as a security blanket could be a deciding point for many users.
World of Warcraft does run on Mac. The very same discs you buy for Windows ;) can play WoW with their friends.
also contain the Mac client. The patchday is in sync, from what I've read, so Mac
users (all six of them
but I would much rather see Apple and MS work together
What the hell are you smoking...
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.
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.
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.
Well, if Apple had used x86-64 chips, one could just load Windows XP x64, which is a nice combination of XP and 2003. You'd lose the locked-down component, of course.
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.
For me, it's very simple. This September, I'm heading back to school -- some third-tier polytechnic with a bus. admin. + IT program, if you must know -- and I am required to have a laptop that will boot Windows. On the other hand, they can take away my Mac OS when they pry iLife from my cold, dead fingers. The MacBook Pro configured to dual-boot is the only computer on the market that can meet both those requirements. Hobson's choice.
The question is why? Why run a pirated version of OSX86 on your typical PC clone? Is it to save money or something? Can't afford the $500 Intel based Mac Mini? Want to show off to your friends how your Compaq, Dell, IBM, HP, etc runs OSX86 just like their more expensive Intel based Mac? Like runing the risk that the cracked version of OSX86 may have trojans in it, and an update will ruin the cracked copy protection? Perhaps Apple will catch you downloading it from some P2P file sharing network and subpeona you like they did those kids who pirated Tiger last Christmas?
I can see trying to run XP natively on an Intel Mac to run Game software written for Windows, maybe dual boot it or something. I think Apple would have tried to put something in the EFI BIOS or hardware to prevent Windows from installing. I doubt Microsoft or Apple would support XP on an Intel Mac anyway.
I don't really have an interest in running an Intel Mac with XP or a PC Clone with a cracked version of OSX86. I'll buy an Intel Mac if I ever decide to develop for that platform or something. I'd rather develop for Linux first, because it has a larger market share.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
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.
Hey! Let's stop breathing air, it's so poluted! Breathing to live is such a terrible reason to breathe.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
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
Actually World of Warcraft has been available on OS X since launch, and Aspyr is likely going to port Battle Field 2 as it has already ported the bulk of the Battlefield 1942 series.
So the theme I'm sensing is ignorance.
Thanks for playing!
brightloudnoise.com
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?
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...
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?
I use OSX and Windows in my work - I'm a Prepress Geek/Typesetter/Designer.
It would be freakin brilliant to have a machine that can dual-boot - or better yet, run the two OSs concurrently. Or even a native VM for that matter.
Most of the software I use is available for both platforms (Adobe Suite, etc) but there are a few apps that aren't (most notably CorelDRAW - the latest versions, anyway).
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...
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.
Why would Microsoft want to do that? They would lose the sale of a Windows license. More likely is they will get Virtual PC ported over so you still have to buy Windows.
I work with an apple guru... he says there is some software called iEmulator that will run native on the intelmac, as well as a new release of VPC, which I use on occoasion, and have good success with, on a medicore 15" alum. PB As long as I have IE 5.5+ for the dwindling few sites that still require it, I will need a dual boot, or Virtual option.
Sig Hansen?
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.
whats with you people, why does every device have to run every OS. Give it up, use stuff for its "intended" puprose
Is VirtualPC or VMWare available yet for the Intel Macs? No.
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
They can boot Windows XP and when it turns they kick it in the nuts.
I was thinking of awarding him a medallion for "ETERNAL VIRGINITY".
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I doubt Microsoft or Apple would support XP on an Intel Mac anyway.
Why? This is the question I've been asking myself while reading this topic: Why shouldn't Microsoft release a version of Windows specifically designed to run on Intel-based Mac products (dual-booting automagically), with full support for games, hardware, etc.? After all, Microsoft doesn't make any money when Intel or AMD sells a chip; they make money when someone sells a PC with Windows installed. And, presumably, they wouldn't have to change the base Windows code significantly (if at all) to get it running so the cost (production - I'm sure it would sell at the same price as MCE) of this new product would be minimal.
Microsoft, in theory, shouldn't care on what system you're running Windows as long as you pay them money to do so. The only "good" reason they wouldn't make Windows for a Mac is if they have an agreement with Apple not to do so or (as was the case before now) if they considered the market too small and the PCs too different for development to be worthwhile.
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.
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!
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
The reason i am considering a Mac for my next main computer is because i am sick of Windows with its patch-patch-patch.
Why would i want to boot XP if i am convinced to make a switch? I have always considered The Apple Computer Company as an icon to how computing should be done. Why do they want to go so commerical now.
Years ago i tried the dual and triple boot thing when "System Commander" first came out and made resizing partitions easy without having to reinstall anything. In one case i had 4 OS's on one machine; DOS6, W98, Redhat, and OS/2. Guess what...its too much work! So i agree with you, "get another box."
This has been another valuable and informative opinion from:
Catahoula!
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
Yeah, because OSX never has patches.. *cough*
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."
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?
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.
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0506intelmac.html Has anyone else seen this?
.adios/losers ~snake
*shrug* My company is subscribed to MS's "Action Pack" and my bosses don't know it. As far as I'm concerned everything MS makes is gratis... Still doesn't make me use it.
All's true that is mistrusted
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
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."
VirtualPC doesn't even run at all on intel macs, according to an MS press statement: http://www.macfixit.com/article.php?story=20060110 120028762
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
> Is the slightly more expensive Mac really that more expensive over time? I think not.
Mac's are not slightly more expensive. I can buy a $8000 PC too, that will blow away a Mac, but that doesn't mean I need to spend $8000.
> that is now 6 years old but running MacOS X 10.4.4 and doing it well enough that I do not feel that I need to upgrade the machine yet.
The same can be said for PC. There are plently of PC owners who have their machines for the same amount of time and don't feel they need to upgrade.
> The fact that Apple uses higher quality components in and of itself justifies a price that is higher than that of a PC
Sure maybe a couple hundred bucks difference. I could see that, but not twice the price!
Look, I'll bet any money that Apple's OS will run just as fast and just as stable on any modern day PC and I'm not alone. All your dealing with here is a BSD OS with a really nice GUI. You certainly don't need to buy any "special" hardware from Apple for that. It's all marketing and appealing to people that love hearing all the fancy buzz words like hyper-threading and dual core.
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
Sure OSX needs an occasional patch.
But nothing like an MS-OS. Even some of the commerical flavors of linux have become 2nd place to MS's first place with the patch-n-prey mentality.
I wonder what computing would be like today had it been Apple as the #1 supplier of personal computers in the world.
This has been another valuable and informative opinion from:
Catahoula!
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.
Well Microsoft gets a share of the profits of each PC sold if it has Windows or not installed on it. This was one of the issues the DOJ brought against Microsoft.
I would imagine that Microsoft waves this fee to Apple, as long as Microsoft promises not to make Windows work with the Mactel, so Apple can have a monopoly on the OS market for the Mactel systems. This was very much like when Microsoft agreed with Apple to stop making the PPC version of Windows NT.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
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.
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
When will VMWare do EFI? Now *that* would be interesting.
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?
But Apple would get the money anyway. MacOS X would be shipped on the Mac anyway.
I do however feel that its more likely we'll see Virtual PC for Mac now REALLY kick into gear and Microsoft loves selling Mac people a (for a change) totally fast PC emulator with a Windows licence that will let Mac users run the occasional windows program but still work on their Mac. That's imho a more likely Microsoft happy scenario.
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.