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.....
... 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
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.
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
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
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.
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?
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 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.
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! :(
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
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 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?
I understand that Canadian Geese are now contemplating walking south next winter.
why fly when you can walk like all the others?
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.
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
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.
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
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
Apple is now focusing on innovative software. The last few years has been about getting OS X out the door. Then they focused on making it better and faster. The last 10.4 release has included some really innovative features and has finally brought about a polished 'complete OS'. Safari, Mail, iLife and iChat (and dashboard for fun :) are all best of breed applications that will satisfy 90% of the basic users needs.
Even MS Office took time to get market share, but with many incremental improvements, like supporting the importing of different file formats - they slowly took down all 'the barriers of entry'.
Being able to run Windows XP natively just removes another 'barrier of entry' for the common user.
Apple has released 4 incremental improvements to OS X, while simultaneously porting their entire software suite to x86 in the time MS had to ship another windows.
When their transition to x86 is complete, all their resources can go back into bringing out more innovative products like .Mac, iLife, iWeb, Pages, Keynotes Dashboard widgets, Aperture, Final Cut Pro, etc. Once they sort out being able to run games natively there will be no reason to require windows (hopefully with the increased marketshare more games will be built on Open GL)
This is the start of Desktop Wars II. It will be an interesting year!
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.
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/
When I ran linux as my primary system and decided to dual boot Windows, it usually was to get software I had to run rather than a game. For mac users at home, being able to boot Windows on your $2k mac for something you have to use windows for would be a lot cheaper than buying two computers. For companies, it's another story.
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.