Slashdot Mirror
No EFI Support for Vista
DietFluffy writes "Microsoft revealed today that it will not support EFI booting for Windows Vista on its launch. The news will be a shock for owners of Intel Macs who had hoped they would be able to dual-boot between Windows Vista and OS X. Intel Macs only support booting via EFI."
Quote from the article: "It said its decision to 'reprioritise'[sic] EFI development to the server version of Windows was based on a lack of available desktop PCs with EFI support on the market."
Maybe the reason that there are no desktop PCs with EFI support is because everyone knows that Windows still only boots on BIOS. If Microsoft was serious about jump-starting a move to EFI (or any other alternative) they would support it now, and watch the hardware follow.
I wonder if this is due to laziness, maliciousness, or a combination of both?
So Vista is coming to seem more and more like an XP service pack with a massive price tag and unwelcome restrictions. I don't know why Gates doesn't throw in the towel and announce that from now on the chair of Microsoft will be held on a rotating basis by the chairs of the major Hollywood studios. All Microsoft seem to be doing these days in the consumer market is kowtowing to the content providers while trying to grab a slice of the action for themselves. Microsoft offer no vision, no inspiration or feel-good factor. It's a pathetic end to the dream of a computer on every desk. What we have instead is a glorified credit card processor.
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
I'm not at all excited by the idea of shutting down my computer just to use another operating system.
Anybody who's used a virtualization product like VMWare knows what I'm talking about. That is where it's at.
One word: Games.
Unless things have changed recently, opengl, directx etc don't work.
As most owners will be 'traditional' mac users, I don't think this is a real issue.
The article also reads: Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI) is the modern and flexible successor to the 20-year-old PC BIOS. It just shows that Microsoft doesn't understand true concepts of usability, innovation and excellence. As most Windows users enjoy crippled systems, using Mac OS X will come as relief to those who dare to swap. Unless you're gaming all day...
-- Neminem laede, immo omnes, quantum potes, iuva.
Bingo! you win the prize for the most clueless comment of the day.
Emulation is hard. The Wine project has been started 13 years ago, and they still support only a handfull of applications. Apple has only been able to emulate their past architectures because they owned or licensed all the specifications for them. To emulate Windows would mean to use reverse engineering, which is a whole different ball game, and to expose themselves to potential lawsuits from Microsoft.
Plus, if there's anything to be learned from the whole OS/2 experience it's that perfect emulation of your rival's platform brings no market advantage.
In my opinion, Apple would just use a virtual machine and tell users to run Vista in that. For them, it is the perfect solutions. People would still have acces to their strategic apps on their platform, and there would also be a great incentive to port them to run natively on MacOS.
The more I think about it the more I think that if Microsoft ever provides official support for installing Windows natively on a Mac then it very likely will be the end of MacOS X and eventually Apple.
Why? Because in general developers want "one true" operating system to develop for, often religiously so. I have heard people tell Mac users to "just get a PC" to run popular Windows-only software, but that is not a realistic expectation. That would be asking the Mac user to throw away thousands of dollars of hardware, and is generally considered unreasonable.
If it ever becomes possible to easily install any version of Windows on a Mac in a manner that is supported by Microsoft, even if not by Apple, then these same people will demand that Mac users "just install Windows" to run their software. And they will consider that to be perfectly reasonable thing to do - they are adding something to they system and taking nothing away. They could afford an expensive Mac, so certainly they can afford to spend a few more buck for Microsoft Windows, right? And if it is running natively on the Mac rather than in VirtualPC developers will not worry that they might be making the users work in a crippled or limited environment.
Then in time no one will see the need to develop MacOS X applications any more and all Mac users will be forced to use Windows.
Apple will then be just another boring commodity PC maker like Dell or Gateway.
So let's please stop even thinking about running Windows on the Mac. It just isn't cool.
Wooo!! let me know how fast you can use 3dsmax or f.e.a.r. or any other 3d application or games.
And if you don't use them, tell me why you need Windows on your Mac...
While accelerated 3D is absolutely critical for some people that run Windows apps, it's not something that most people need - especially if you remove gaming (I do love F.E.A.R., btw) from the equation. At that point, you're basically just talking about people that use 3D modeling apps.
I develop Windows software for a living, but I think OSX is an amazing OS and I prefer to use it when possible and am slowly getting my feet wet with OSX development.
OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
OTOH, Apple most certainly does not see it your way – had they thought that the ability to boot windows would improve their market share, they would have included a CSM in their EFI implementation, and thus made possible to boot Windows easily.
“Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
Just because consoles fill your gaming desires doesn't mean they fill everyone's gaming desires. Tell me which console can play Civ 4. I know the game is probably being developed for the Mac right now, but I already own the Windows version. It would be nice to be able to play it and many of my older PC games on my shiny new MacBook.
I own consoles as well, and I love some of the games that are only available for them. I also love my PC games, many of which don't have a console port, or the port is inferior.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is actually playing out exactly as I predicted. Microsoft isn't going to make it easy to boot any of their OS's on a MacBook Pro or any other Intel-based Mac, because doing so would mean the slow "death by irrelevance" of their VirtualPC product they bought from Connectix a few years ago.
The beauty of forcing a Mac user to run Windows through the VirtualPC product is Microsoft can sell them a legal software license bundled with the product, making it an easy "one stop" way to collect the entire revenue stream. If they simply coded booting support for EFI on MacBooks into Vista, they'd encourage a lot more piracy. (How many Mac users do you know who despise Microsoft - and would justify running a bootleg copy of Vista in dual-boot mode as "So what? It's not really my primary OS anyway, and Microsoft doesn't need to get any more of MY money!"?)
On the flip-side, the next version of VirtualPC will be able to completely drop all the x86 emulation code, and simply become a "sandbox" that fools a Windows OS into booting up inside of it, and then passes all the x86 instructions to the Intel-based Mac's CPU natively. This will let them brag about the incredible performance boost in the latest version of VirtualPC, etc. etc.
The only thing I'm not sure about is if MS will decide to simply drop support for PPC based Macs at some point, keep both VirtualPC 7 and this new "version 8?" version as branded for "Intel Macs only", or actually code all of it together, so the traditional PPC emulation stuff is automatically installed/used where needed, and the alternate code for Intel-based Macs used where possible?
But I'd practically bet money on one of these scenarios panning out.
According to the w3schools site, As of Feb2006, market share is approximately:
Most notably, the overall share of Mac and Linux have grown steadily while Windows has shrunk at about the same rate. I agree that I doubt MS decided not to support EFI based solely on the new Intel Mac strategy, but marketshare analyses are not the way to point it out.
The point comes down to this: MS would benefit by allowing Mac hardware to boot Windows. A copy sold is a copy sold. Besides, MS already sells a Mac version of Virtual PC with a Windows license for hardly more than just a copy of Windows itself, so it's clear that they have no issue with people running Windows on Mac hardware.
I'm more willing to bet that EFI support is just one more vaporware feature that MS ran out of time to implement for Vista. Every time I hear of yet another Vista feature being axed, I have to wonder if anyone will care about Vista when its released -- what will it actually do for us?
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower