Slashdot Mirror
WinXP on a Mac, Hoax?
Brill writes "Ars Technica is reporting that a member of the 'WinXP on Mac' forums called narf2006 may have succeeded at the impossible. He's submitted his solution to get XP on an Intel Mac, for the $12,000 prize, but for now the only proof available is a blurry Flickr collection of photos that could be faked with virtual PC. His reputation on the forums however is strong, and he's already calling for testers." We've had people write in to say this has been announced a hoax on the contest page. The contest page is, of course, down due to bandwidth reasons. Engadget's conversation about this announcement has several theories on how this may have been faked. What's the verdict? Real or Fake?
Doesn't he have to explain how he did it to collect the prize? Am I missing something?
...Amit Singh from IBM and kernelthread.com (slashdotted 16 times for excellent technical articles on various bits of internals of Apple hardware and Mac OS X) has his own legacy boot solution as well. From a rejected submission:
It appears that Amit Singh of IBM Almaden Research Center, of kernelthread.com and author of Mac OS X Internals, has devised a method to allow legacy, or BIOS-based, booting on Intel-based Macs, which they're calling "BAMBIOS". This means operating systems that currently only support legacy booting, such as many Linux distributions that don't yet support EFI, or things like Windows XP and the forthcoming Windows Vista (the 32-bit version of which will lack EFI support), will now be able to run on Intel-based Macs without modification (and completely legally). There is also another solution from "narf2006", described here and shown in this flickr set of photos. narf2006's solution is awaiting verification by Colin for the $12,000 pot. Time to get that MacBook Pro you've been waiting on for the best of both worlds, everyone...
So even if narf2006's solution isn't real, Amit's solution most certainly is, since he has a great deal of credibility. One way or another, we'll all be able to boot Windows directly on our Intel-based Macs.
This will be great news for people interested in Windows gaming on an Intel-based Mac (who really need the direct video access) and/or people who just want to do it NOW; however, a virtualization solution running under Mac OS X, such as VMware or Parallels, will be the real holy grail for most users. Most people don't want/need/care about the highest graphics and I/O performance; just the ability to run Windows side-by-side with Mac OS X at a speed that is more than usable, and to also have some capability to seamlessly share things like clipboards and files between the environments (as a nice VM environment would most certainly do). Not to mention not having to reboot.
In any case, even dual booting will be a welcome capability. It remains to be seen how convoluted the process is...
Also, I just spoke with Colin Nederkoorn (the guy running the contest) moments ago, and narf2006's solution has NOT been submitted to him yet. He said that narf2006 said he's "cleaning it up" and will be submitting it "later this week". So, no one, including Colin, has actually seen this solution working yet. Also, he apparently hasn't been in communication with Amit on the BAMBIOS solution as yet...
simple answer.... YES
If I sorted out the bits of magic to get WinXP up and running on a Mac, I don't think I would post how to the outside world until *after* I collected my bounty. No shock at the lack of details here.
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
For US$12,000, I'd take a day off and fly out to the contest judge's place to show them in person.
Why is this so difficult?
I guess it's possible but better proof is needed before I'm convinced. Fake.
6 in a row
but I'd much rather see darWINE working well, or VMWare/VirtualPC running Windows at nearly native speed, or even some significant speedups that make QEMU nearly native speed. A Virtual Windows without the slowdown of emulation would be really nice; on the other hand, I have no desire whatsoever to actually boot Windows on a Mac. That's like putting 87 octane gas in a formula 1 car! ;-)
-- "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." -Joseph Stalin
It was not obvious that something like this would happen.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Let's put an insecure OS on a beautiful machine and see if we can break it. Of course, this is only a lead in to making software that will be put on a CD to destroy a system if left in the CD drive and the user is told it will do something positive to their machine. OK, it will require social engineering and a upset worker in a software company to put this on a CD. OK, there are no IT people that get upset at company they work for. What was I thinking...
You Sir, are why I don't hate Macs just Mac Users....
IIRC Apple doesn't care if you're running some Microsoft OS on Mac. After all, they're selling hardware...
Don't get me wrong, I'm not dismissing the performance but the "succeeded at the impossible" from the blurb just doesn't sound "accurate" to me. It should be more difficult to run Intel MacOS X on a PC box than the opposite.
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
The main problem I see with this one is Virtual PC. I can do the exact same thing with my iMac G5 at home by simply starting up VPC and booting XP.
While I'm on a rant... Is there some unwritten rule that says all pictures of things somewhat exciting must be taken at VGA quality on a cell phone?
I'm probably stating the obvious here, but in my opinion the opposite of this would be much more useful. Being able to put Mac OSX on non-proprietary PC hardware would be much more useful than installing windows on a pricey Mac. I would like the ability to poke around in OSX, but I'm certainly not going to throw down the cash for a Mac.
nothing
Yeah, you'd think someone who is technically saavy enough to hack this would have the skills to take some decent digital photos or video. This smacks of 12-year-old-lamer-with-cellfone-camera-and-Virtual PC fakery...
I am interested in what the device manager says, if he shows a shot of that, it would go a long way.
Wel... Games, for one, like you already said :) This is something that REALLY requires dual-booting. I mean, you're not going to run a game in VMWare or Virtual PC even if it did support OpenGL or DirectX. Just too slow.
I know a Mac is not for hardcore gamers but someone like me who wants to play the occasional game and not be tied into the pathetically small line-up for Mac games, dual-booting into Windows is a perfect solution.
But there's lots of other uses (most of which would work fine within a virtual machine), like company-supported apps that are not available for Windows.
Just see http://karlsbakk.net/fun/windowsxpbootsonamac.jpg
Computers are like air conditioners.
- They stop working when you open Windows.
What's the point here, anyhow? Besides games, and maybe some MS development stuff, why run Windows on a PC??
You do realise you answered your own question don't you?
Anyway, whilst I don't like or run windows at home, I keep a spare 1GB partition with my old legal copy of win2k on it.
Why? Because I think two operating systems are better then one - and its not exactly like its hard work (or much overhead) to set up a dual boot these days.
My pics.
For many people, those two things are reason enough to dual boot. It allows you to keep using your existing software, which makes the switch to Mac that much easier for people who have large libraries of Windows-only software.
Who would put up 12,000 bucks for something that's not really needed? I mean, sure, hacking the hardware to get it to run is kinda cool and all...but 12 grand?!?! Is it THAT important to buy Mac hardware to put Windows on?
As people have said many many times before, why buy a Porsche and put a Yugo engine in it? Yeah yeah....you use XP at work and blah blah blah and when you get home you might want to run blah blah blah so it would be nice if you could reboot into XP blah blah blah.
But fricken $12,000?
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
You're joking, but I have to wonder why Brill (submitter), who probably saw the photos himself, didn't pass them on to Slashdot or some other site to host, rather than gripe about how they're not available anymore. Seems it would have been the courteous thing to do.
Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
The iMac G5 with built-in iSight camera is visually identical to the new Intel based iMacs.
Virtual PC 7 runs on the iMac G5 without a hitch (and allows full screen mode.)
You then need only take photos of your iMac G5 running windows-xp under virtual PC in full screen mode.
Better proof is images of this method on a MacBook Pro, because intel-based macs are unable to run virtual PC.
Additionally, faking images of a MacBook Pro running XP is also trivial, as you can simply get screen shots (from virtual pc on a G4 or G5 system.. or even off the web.) and display them full screen on your new Intel Mac.
In fact I can fake pictures of my powerbook running vista via a similar method, I can fake images of my powerbook running nintendo DS games with the same method.
The truth of this will come out once the method is tested to work or not work. Only then will the prize money be rewarded.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/32436196@N00/11065077 1/
There's no way for that one to be real. The screen is overlapping the edge of the machine itself. He definitely needs some hard proof (or better pictures).
Apparently quite a lot of people, this is what the latest of perhaps a dozen articles since the mac->intel announcement?
As a small developer that with about a 50/50 split in customers that run OSX and customers running Windows, having a single machine for support is a very attractive thing.
I'm a level 60 Warrior on WoW. I battle those nasty night elves and live the high life in Orgrimmar.
Oh, you mean real life?
But seriously, and related to the first part of my post...
I would love to have a Mac for browsing, mail and multimedia editing, and to also dual-boot into XP for gaming. (Yes, I know WoW comes on Mac, but many games do not).
There are emulation solutions, at least, that run on intel-based macs. Throw a copy of QEMU onto a MacBook and run it in fullscreen mode, and the photos would look real. It would even allow you to make a fake video easier than recording a video of a WinXP desktop and playing it back.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
It's not as though it's a hard hoax to do.
1. Go to a Windows box. Take a screen shot.
2. Open the screenshot on your iMac. Display it full screen.
3. Take a picture.
I mean, he hasn't posted a video of him using the computer and his mousing syncing up with the screen, right? Just a blurry photo. So, that proves basically nothing. I'm not saying he absolutely didn't do it, just that a photo doesn't count for much.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/32436196@N00/11097774 4/in/photostream/
:P
Interesting thought there - VGA drivers arent installed now if it was a fresh install right?
"
PowerMacChris says:
oh-oh-owned!
Windows XP has a 640x480 resoulition on GUI install
Posted 3 days ago.
Paul Stamatiou Pro User says:
^ No. I've installed XP with 1280x1024.
Posted 2 days ago.
digitalpiracy says:
No he's right - you can set an option in the unattend.sif file so the resolution jumps to whatever you like once its installed the VGA drivers, but this section always runs at 640x480
Posted 2 days ago. "
http://www.osxbook.com/book/bonus/misc/legacyboot/
What next?? NES Emulators on the mac platform? When will the insanity stop?
___ Shout Central - Crushes your nuts!
... that this is not a hoax! Windows XP boots on a Mac! http://www.mathcaddy.com/windowsxpbootsonamac!!!!1 /
:)
SCNR
Turn of events: 1) someone posts some (blurry) pictures (4) of a WinXP install screen on an iMac to flickr 2) forums world-wide respond with "d00d! its a total fake! look at those pixels!" and "why can't a guy who knows how to do this use a camera? fake!" and "OMFG hwd u do that? cant be done - fake!" which results in this fine slashdot news story, based entirely on blurry photos and forum jockeys. seriously guys, we'll know someone's done it when the pot is claimed - until then, it just isn't news... daveschroeder posted a better written, more informative piece than the article he was replying to. Luke got the same uninformed forum jockey BS when he bootstrapped linux on the Treo 650.
I know Apple wants to maintain it's image and all, but I always felt that if they marketed their machines as the "run anything" computer, they would grab a nice chunk of the market. Instead of the pure Apple machine they might go the other direction with their hardware and call it a "blank slate" fit for whatever OS you want to put on it... go where YOU want to go kind of computer.
It seems pretty damn apparent that people want a dual boot Windows/Mac... There's demand there, but no company wants to risk it because it might affect other portions of their business. Oh well, baby steps I guess.
It'd be fine for (non-Source) Half-Life mods though, which are the only games I'm interested in that aren't native Mac OS already anyway.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
there's a lot of noise, over on the ars forums, about why Apple may want to prevent XP and foghorn (vista) from running on Mac hardware. I think it's the opposite. Apple won't try to hard to prevent windows operating systems from running on Mac hardware, because Apple are, primarily, a hardware company - they want to sell macs. In fact, if people are buying macs intending to install windows, Apple may hope to use that as a bate and switch tactic. I think they're more likely to attempt to prevent people from running OS X on bog standard beige PCs (or Dells or whatever) because that could hurt Mac sales.
apple monitors do require specific drivers? i thought those were standard DVI.
You Sir, are why I don't hate Macs just Mac Users....
I am hated for many reasons, many are good reasons, the least of which is the Mac.
Ok let me get this right. 99% of all /. talk trash about M$ all day. Windows is hell and Bill Gates is the devil..... Now there is a big geek contest to see who can get winXP to run on a mac? Am I missing something? Is this just for bragging rights to see who can do it first or is everyone actually wanting to install and run XP on mac?
MISSING - Sig file. 2 years old black and white and very funny. If found please email me.
This article talks about a project called BAMBIOS, BAMBIOS emulates a bios on the intel-based Mac's. This enables non-EFI OS's to run.
Bits of News Giving you the latest bits.
I've been using Windows 98SE on my MacBook Pro since I got it.
If I took a photo of it, you'd notice it has no problems running full-screen, and video would prove it's most definitely not a static screenshot - and better still, Windows XP is no obstacle, and I could even have MacOS X for PowerPC, Linux, FreeBSD, RISC OS appearing in a similar manner with no problems whatsoever.
How?
VNC. Easy!
Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
How does it run HalfLife2 for example?
Yes you can, in fact im doing it right now. But i did hear a rumour that it may cause the universe to implode or something but i mean thats just ridic!?@! (Actually a quick google answered this, pretty much straight from microsoft's mouth: no)
Two tears in a bucket. Motherfuck it.
...VMWare to come out with their VMWare Workstation (or even the player) for the Mac. Even VirtualPC, if/when it ever comes to the Intel Mac, should run Windows "well enough" for everything I would do with a PC (short of gaming, which wouldn't be very useful on a portable or a mini anyway).
I'm becoming more and more a fan of virtualization; why deal with dual booting and configuring the disk when you can just run the client OS as a task in the main operating system. Also, if you trash your copy of Windows, just restore it from a snapshot or recreate it from a "good" image.
But, OTOH, kudos to him if he has in fact gotten it to work.
It's more handy than you think: web apps of all sorts need bug testing on as many major browsers as possible. IE for Mac is not the same as IE on Windows, heck, MS didn't even produce a version 6. If I can do all that on ONE machine, it's less cost than buying a PC just to run that software, since my main platform at home is Mac OS.
Sure, I have Virtual PC, but it's dog slow even on a Dual G5. Even getting Windows or just IE to operate at 1/3 of the true processor speed would be welcome.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
I'm still having trouble getting winXP to install on my pc sata drive... maybe narf2006 can give me a hand.
Im all for this happening but... has anyone looked at the photos? The screen is on top of the bottom right cornner of the machine.
I know this is a bit off topic, but has anyone tried Solaris x86? It would probably be more interesting to me to be able to dual boot Solaris/OSX than Windows XP.
Well, Windows is what's keeping me from going fully Linux on my main system, so I would suspect that Mac users who also depend or would like to use some Windows specific apps are in a similar situation.
I can't believe nobody ever got the old PPC builds of Windows NT to boot on a PPC Mac?
"XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, use more." - Anonymous Coward
Why would people call these photos a hoax? What does it matter if he hasn't posted the solution yet? Obviously, wait until he posts a solution, and then judge.
All of you leachers calling this a hoax are super lame. Instead of wasting Internet bandwidth with stupid comments on Slashdot, try downloading Intel's EFI starter kit, and implement yourself. You don't even need a Mac, except to polish off the EFI boot environment; you can develop the entire BIOS emulation without a Mac.
I've been implementing a BIOS compatibility layer, and those photos are definitely legitimate; they show BIOS call traces.
I hope that he sells his solution. People making comments like this don't deserve the gracious effort of others.
...and badly at that...take a look at the "Real VGA!" photo...thats pretty clearly a BAD! Bad! photoshoping...
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
Probably the best reason is that you are an idiot.
You forget, Apple uses the same ATI graphics hardware that PCs use, it would be no problem to find the drivers.
You say you want a revolution....
This "XP on a Mac" thing is currently a hypothesis. It is something that has been reasoned as possible, and now has been tested one time. Provided that the tester kept meticulous notes, others should be able to follow those notes to reproduce the experiment, and report their results to the media. The more times the experiment is successful, the more it can be described as a theory or law.
However, since the current state of knowledge on this subject is thin, it is just as likely that the way to get Windows XP running on a Mac requires divine intervention. One could then describe a Mac running XP as "Intelligently Designed."
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
iMacs are all-in-one computer and monitor together. So it's either a G5 iMac running an emulator (and from looking at all the flickr photos, it's got to be more than that), or a Photochop, or it's legit.
-- Boycott Shell
...but I wish they'd concentrate more on getting Mac OS working on a PC. That to me is much more interesting that getting Windows working on a mac
'If I have seen furthur, it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants' - Sir Isaac Newton
The list of contributors to the fund is available on their site -- Apple is not one of them (obviously!).
I'm not convinced this is a good reason. Get a second machine, like I've done, that runs your Windows OS and software separate from the Mac machine. If you can afford to buy a Mac, a separate Windows box shouldn't be out of your realm. And if gaming is your thing, you wouldn't really be looking at a Mac in the first place, so why bother. Yes, I've seen the software reason cited over and over, but that's a really poor argument. Would you use a philips head screwdriver on a flat-head screw? No. Would you use a Mac to develop Windows software or to game? No. Use the right tool for the right job. It's that simple. Forcing something to work isn't going to give you the results you'd expect if you simply chose to use the proper tool in the first place, and in reality, that's all computers are: tools. You want a gaming tool? Go spend the money on an Alienware, not a Mac box. That's just stupid.
How about, coming up with a better argument? That's the question I'm asking. I would like to hear a different argument to why dual-booting on an Intel Mac is a worthwhile effort for me to engage in on a rather expensive piece of hardware. I own an Intel Mac. I bought it because Windows sucks, and frankly, so does Linux for my needs. If someone told me that, by running Windows on Apple Intel-based hardware, my OS environment would be secure, run faster, and instantly provide me with features that Mac OSX already does (Spotlight search, for instance) then yeah, maybe I'd be interested in fuddling around with my $2000+ computer. But considering how unlikely that is, I'll continue to tinker with one of my other 4 Windows boxes that cost far less.
My final question is: why on god's green earth is someone willing to pay $12,000 to get someone to make it work? Is it like some sort of bet that was wagered? "I'll bet you $12,000 you can't do it." Why is the dual-booting of Windows and Mac OSX so important to someone that they'd be willing to pay that much? You can't even use them both at the same time. Dual-boot does not mean "boot and run simultaneously." Again, I'm taken back to: why not use two separate machines at the same time? Mac OS on an Apple machine, and Windows OS on some other box. I do it just fine with my machines.
Hopefully someone with sense will read this because obviously I'm wasting my time speaking to an AC. This is my question(s) to Slashdot.
Hades, PoD: Official Advocate
Welcome to the real world where Apple no longer uses proprietary hardware (or very little). ATI makes the video card for the iMac. Intel makes the processor. Micron makes the RAM (and possibly ROM) chips. Some obscure, Korean, third-party, hardware manufacturer makes everything else (just like in your PC). So, unless ATI hasn't released the drivers for their Radeon X1600 then it should be fairly easy to get WinXP to work with "Apple's" hardware. The only big difference is the TPM chip. Shoot, with all the people booting Mac OS X natively on random PC hardware, it shouldn't be a big logical leap to grasping the concept that booting WinXP (or any Windows for that matter) on a Macintel is only a matter of time.
OSX boots on PC. Win boots on PC. OSX boots on Mac. Should not Win boot on Mac?
http://www.bynarystudio.com
...and then I installed FlyAKiteOSX. Now I'm really confused :(
I think a lot of the hate towards windows comes from having to use it for work. For many, being able to run the windows apps that we need to from time to time, and OSX the rest of the time, is actually freeing us from windows :) get it?
Website Just Down For Me? Find out
How does he sleep at night? On a huge pile of money.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
I was talking to someone in my class the other week and he was saying that his TINY laptop was better than my iBook because the CPU in his was IBM (it was AMD but I got that he was talking about x86 versus PPC). I then said that Macs actually had IBM chips in them and newer Macs had Intel chips in them but my iBook had Motorola chips in them. He was utterly confused.
I am hated for many reasons, many are good reasons, the least of which is the Mac.
I don't think he hates people just because they own Macs. I think he hates people because they own Macs and can't shut up about how fucking great they are, whether they are asked or not. The sort of people who simply cannot see a story about running anything other than OSX on a Mac on any public forum without saying, "LOL Why wuld u do that?? It's like putting a Honda engine in a Ferrari. LOL". It just seems to me that Mac owners tend to see being a close-minded, corporate kool-aid drinking, public irritant as a state to aspire to.
Of course in reality I have yet to encounter anyone who owns a Mac that doesn't fall into that group. I do however conceed that it is theoretically possible that such people may exist.
You have to use Windows for the vast majority of computer games, and for certain other software applications. You don't have to like it.
My response to this (as it was to the AC above you) was: get a windows box. I know you've said your primary environment is Mac OS (meaning you have no Windows-based computers at home), but I don't think not being able to afford a separate windows machine a good enough reason. Let's say you wanted to legally install a purchased and licensed copy of Windows XP to dual-boot on your Intel Mac. That's going to cost you somewhere in the realm of $150. I'm willing to bet you could find a machine that's costs less than that, AND will sufficiently run IE, Firefox, and any other browser you wish to test on it, with an OEM licensed copy of Windows XP. Hell, I will sell you one of my machines with an OEM licensed copy of WinXP for $75. That's half of what you'd pay for the software. Not only are you getting the benefit of a second machine, you will also be able to run it, in tandem with your Mac environment without having to leave it to boot up Windows simply for a webpage test. Modern flat-panel displays are small and inexpensive enough to accomodate most desks (particularly if you're using a 17-inch Intel Mac), and let's say for instance, you're running an Intel-based mac-mini (which means you've got to use a monitor anyhow), most of the newer monitors I've seen will allow you to switch between inputs (DVI, VGA, etc.) meaning you can hook both machines up to one monitor. Problem solved. In conclusion, I'm not seeing the benefit of dual-booting. I still think there's much better ways.
Hades, PoD: Official Advocate
Personally, I just love the form factor of the Mac Mini. That's the only mac I'd buy. I'd like it to dual boot into Windows for the odd games that I do like to play and for application development. But really, I think I could go all Mac and not really miss anything... Dual boot would just be something nice to have, but I'd be happy with either OS, I think, in that form factor.
---John Holmes...
Since VirtualPC doesn't support 3D, why not just have him post a screenshot of a 3D program running?
Well, other thoughts? What's the point here, anyhow? Besides games, and maybe some MS development stuff, why run Windows on a PC??
FlashFXP.
If I knew what I was talking about, there would prolly be more text.
The prize site ( http://winxponmac.com/ ) is 403'ing. Maybe the prizegivers are worried? :)
The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
I never said "NICE" hardware. I said "EXPENSIVE" hardware. There's a difference in context, although the reality may be that the hardware is pretty nice. Indeed, there is nicer hardware out there (that is also more expensive), but the point of my argument is: I've paid a lot of money to have a particular OS run as smoothly as possible on the hardware it was designed for. Why would I want to put a different OS on that same hardware?
In my opinion, there are far better hardware configurations on which to run Windows, however you're still going to have issues with security, hardware interoperability (unless you REALLY know you stuff; enter "computer enthusiasts"), and lack of features. This is why I liken windows on an Intel-based Mac to putting an 8-track player in a B-mer. It's not an elitist attitude, it's just plain sense. You hate Mac users for other reasons. Besides, I'm not even a "Mac User" by your definition. I own two Macs and like 4 other computers that run anything from Windows to FreeBSD. They're just tools.
Hades, PoD: Official Advocate
Hmmm, did any BMW's in the 70's roll off the showroom floor with 8-track already installed?
"Form should follow function...unless it's just plain ugly."
I disagree with you, I believe one operating system is better than two. I need to get work done and be productive, as well as enjoy and play games, but I do not want to have to use two OS's to accomplish any of these tasks. While I dual-boot currently, it is to test Linux distros in hopes of finding one which I can move completely from Windows permanently. So, right now, it is for testing and experimentation, not for any other reason. Now that I have had a chance to use OS X 10.4 on an iBook for about 6 months, I am waiting until the next revision of the MacBook Pro to switch completely to Apple. Currently, there is no reason or software on Windows that is not available in an equal or better quality product on OS X for my needs. But, I am not interested in dual-booting on my Mac because it would be counter-productive to the reasons why I bought a Mac to begin with, which was to eliminate my use of Windows.
If I needed to have another OS booted in order to test something such as Java software development, I would either find a solution with a product like VMWare or simply have another cheap computer with Windows and/or Linux running on it to test directly. But this would only be for software testing purposes, not for everyday use.
Form factor does have a lot to do with why I bought it. Saves a lot of space, and looks nice in public. Good point.
Hades, PoD: Official Advocate
WTF? Someone potentially shows a really sick hack and all people can do is bitch about how it's "obviously" photoshopped and man, who'd be stupid enough to try this?! Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, where has the hacker ethos gone? How about withholding judgment until we get solid confirmation one way or another. Since the forums got pwned, we'll have to wait and see if step-by-step instructions are forthcoming so it can be reproduced. If they don't show up in a week, or they constantly "delayed" then we can collectively denounce him as a fraud.
And as for why do this to begin with? How about because we can! Sheesh. Getting things that aren't supposed to work to work is part and parcel of being a true hacker. It's breaking the pigopolists' rules and doing things with hardware/software you bought that they never intended. Lighten up, guys. It's cool. If this is real, it's definitely a sick hack and we should salute him.
To parent: I own several macs and run a pc business. I couldn't agree with you more about the kool-aid comment! The problem is that Macusers refuse to admit that a computer is a tool made by a company that doesn't care if their fanboys live or die as long as they keep making money. I love macs for the os, but I'm sure as hell going to put XP on a mac to allow me to WORK.
Well than! Ill try to remember that in future.
My pics.
When the iBooks are released (or are they Macbooks now? -- whatever...), I will be able to work on my XP Machine (no remote desktop on OSX, or is there? NOT VNC!), and then reboot and 'play' on my OSX Machine :)
Yup, can't wait!
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
I think the biggest reason for most people contributing to the prize money (you are mistaken to think "someone is willing to pay $12,000 to get someone to make it work", rather a lot of people contributed a few bucks to the prize) is software lockin: Like it or not, there is a lot of software that doesn't work on OS X. Think in-house build software solutions and other rather highly specialised software. Heck, the till at my local pub runs on Windows. It's just not true that everything can be done on OS X that can be done in Windows.
And buying a second Windows-running machine, as you suggest, is just a stupid solution. Who wants to have two computers on his desk? Besides, contributing $20 to a prize that will surely turn out a solution is still cheaper than buying a second Windows-machine.
Does that convince you?
Here, here. I'm the same way. I bought my first Mac a few months back (a Mini) to see what all the hype surrounding OS X was about. I love it and if I could, I'd never go back to Windows but I still want a PC that can run Windows for gaming and I need a PC that can run some Windows only applications when I'm working from home.
I've been waiting for someone to figure out how to dual boot Windows and OS X on an Intel Mac since they were first announced. It would be the perfect solution for someone like me as I could finally do everythign that I want to do on a single box. As soon as someone figures out how to do it and it's independently verified then I'll be on the horn with Apple ordering an iMac.
I think it's the number one thing holding a lot of would be switchers back. The Mac fanboys will never understand it but I think most other sane Slashdot readers probably can.
Hell, you can do this for free using the OS X Remote Desktop Connection client. Just connect to the other machine, set it for fullscreen and you're done.
This guy's the limit!
hummm.... no. Apple uses the last ATI card (ATI Radeon X1600 graphics with 128MB GDDR3 memory exactly), for which no drivers as yet been released by ATI. And it seems that ati drivers do not work on that hardware (at least not in linux), it takes VESA drivers... which means: no ATI drivers yet on any other platform for this particular hardware.
Of Code And Men
Engineering:
These aren't niche needs. EVERY MODERN MACHINE was designed using one of applications above.
Games:
Some of these are old, but they're all still very popular.
Whether we like it or not, there is a great need to run Windows applications that can't be satisfied by WINE or VirtualPC (usually because of 3d graphics performance). Getting Windows running on an Intel Mac isn't just a hacking challenge; it's a fantastic opportunity at creating a machine that satisfies all needs.
Take a look at the over all picture.
Follow the line at the botton of the monitor and the line along the right hand side.
Now notice how the bottom left corner looks pulled away from the monitor also notice how the line at the bottom of the screen actually disappears under the blue windows screen (along with it attendant shadow) The same happens to the right hand side. the edge of the monitor and the shadow being cast over it also dissappears under the blue windows loading screen.
If you look at the blue windows screen itself it has a ever so slight shadow on it (a darkening of the blue color) on the right hand side. However the shadow's shape is not continuous with the showdow being cast over the monitor's edge.
As for my skills never claimed to have any documented ones, I just have a good eye. My eye tells me there is a wrongness to the image and further exploration as documented above explains the wrongness.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
Apple makes good hardware. Horrendously overpriced, but top quality. If you wanted to run windows, particularly, on a laptop, and wanted the best money-no-object hardware, I can see this being somewhat useful.
I am trolling
It's not about being unable to afford to buy an el-cheapo beige box.
I'd like to see you run thru an airpot with 2 laptops and hand carry luggage, thru 40 terminals, to catch a flight.
What about desk space? Do you really want 2 machines/keyboards/etc littering your workspace?
"Does that convince you?"
Nope. Here's why: I've seen time and again, gamers with more than one PC at their desk, be it a laptop, or other machine. One machine is running a browser with the latest info on their guild, or something, and the other runs the game. Also, I have 5 machines running at my workspace, and it's no clutter, or mess, or problem, whatsoever. I've seen bigger messes with other geeks, and if anything, the more machine mess they've got at their desk, the bigger the source of pride, and yes, GEEKS are exactly who we're talking about. They're really the only ones concerned with this dual-boot mess.
Additionally, that still does not solve the issue of running both environments simultaneously. I'd still have to take one OS down to use the other. Here's the solution I'm looking for. Dual-screens, simultaneously running OSes in two or more flavors, one mouse, one keyboard. Move the mouse from screen one (OS [foo]) over to screen two (OS [bar]) without having to perform any manual switching. I'd put some $$$ toward a project that can successfully do THAT. Otherwise, dual-booting is a waste of time.
Hades, PoD: Official Advocate
Damn straight. In fact, there'd be no bait-and-switch about it... once you've bought Apple's hardware, you've already done what they want you to do.
Apple's people have in fact already laid it out bare : they are not going to support running Windows on their hardware. They're not going to do anything special to stop you from doing so, they're just not going to help, and they're not going to help if you trash your machine trying to do so. They probably aren't ( without some serious, um, incentive ) going to help Microsoft help you run Windows, either... um, do OEMs have to do something special to market their computers as being supported by Windows? Apple wouldn't do that, if there was something there to do.
Anyway, back to the point : both Apple and Intel have stated that the one thing you won't be able to do is run OS X on non-Apple hardware. Well, obviously that statement has to be refined to mean non-hacked, supportable, updateable current-version release-quality OS X to be true right now, but I suppose with all that, it's true. But if you want to hack up a BIOS emulator or something to run a copy of Windows on your Apple? What does it matter to Apple as long as it doesn't incur support costs ? They still made their sale, and you could still use that system to connect to iTMS... fine by them.
Which is great. Some day we'll all be able to run OS X, and at the end of the day if we just _have_ to play some game that stupidly is made only for Windows, I could still manage to do so without owning more than one machine.
Where did I ever define who Mac users are? Where did I say that "I" hate Mac users?
I'm just sick of the large number of vocal Mac users who constantly look down on Windows and PC users. They are out there, they won't shut the hell up, and the attitude coming off your poorly worded post made you seem like one of them. Hell, there are examples of this in this thread.
OSX boots on PC. Win boots on PC. OSX boots on Mac. Should not Win boot on Mac?
Here is some similar logic:
Airplanes can roll along the ground. Cars can roll along the ground. Airplanes can fly through the air. Should not cars fly through the air?
Ding! Ding! Ding! Wake-up call:
o m/drivers/Catalyst_63_release_notes.html
https://a248.e.akamai.net/f/674/9206/0/www2.ati.c
http://www.flickr.com/photos/32436196@N00/10273565 5/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/32436196@N00/10273566 0/in/photostream/
What's all that read DCHS stuff? That happens normally when you install XP? Sorry, I haven't in a while, and I don't remember that.
Only one computer means:
* fewer backup schedules to deal with
* less impact on the environment to make one machine than two
* less power consumed
* no hassle with moving data around for testing - that website in development stays in one place
* only one to take on the plane with you - wanna get some work done? do it on the Mac. wanna play "The 500 Guns of Grunty McShootsalot"? do it on Windows, running on the Mac.
* no godawful Windows-world attempts at case design, or boring beige box cases, uglying up your life
egypt urnash minimal art.
Gawd, WHY?
> No, because which is faster is a very complicated answer.
No fanboi it isn't. Comparing a Windows PC to a Sun Niagra based server would be complicated, comparing a PC from Apple running typical desktop loadsets under OS X to basically the same loadsets under Windows XP on the same hardware isn't complicated at all. Encode some video, run Microsoft Office through some timed task lists, script some compute intensive Photoshop transformations, etc. If one OS is faster at all of the tasks it is the clearcut winner, if as is more likely, each excel at some tasks and falter at others this will inform customers which is more appropriate for their intended loads. Of course if the intended load doesn't imply long waits under either OS the choice of which to boot can be made purely on personal preference.
Democrat delenda est
As long as you have a big enough tebuchet.
There are many flaws in both arguments. You also bring up a good point: my argument needs to be qualified by external, supporting data.
http://www.bynarystudio.com
And, having watched "Dukes of Hazzard" (along with many other Hollywood gems), I can assure you that cars DO fly through the air*.
.
.
.
.
.
.
*The glide ratio is pretty bad though.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Nice post, I'd put up with redundancy over posts that offer no value, no information, just rude comments and irelevant, irrational anger
This is where Xen support for Mac OS X would rock. With a VT-enabled CPU (the coming Core Duos should be) it'd be possible to run Windows and Mac OS X side by side. Xen can also handle all the legacy BIOS emulation, etc.
Sounds nice, eh? Like you said, potentially just a hotkey to switch. It'd be harder to do if you wanted accelerated 3D etc but I doubt it's impossible. I'd be surprised if the TPM chip got in the way either.
For this to work really well it'd need support from Apple, and alas that pretty much means it won't happen thanks to the joys of Not Invented Here (TM).
The purpose of the contest isn't to answer the question, "why would someone run this on that," but rather, "can this be run on that?"
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
Issue 158: Full Of It
Issue 235: The Lights
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
I don't know - why don't you go google it...
You're right. This is Slashdot. I'm asking the wrong questions in the first place.
Hades, PoD: Official Advocate
You probably don't understand the expression "bait and switch". It refers to a deceptive (and I think illegal) business practice of luring in customers with a fake ad (probably a ridiculously cheap price) - the "bait" - but selling them only some other product because the great deal is "out of stock" - the "switch".
Unfortunately most games only play on the "8-Track player". Among other things... so stop making this argument, please.
The only big difference is the TPM chip. Shoot, with all the people booting Mac OS X natively on random PC hardware, it shouldn't be a big logical leap to grasping the concept that booting WinXP (or any Windows for that matter) on a Macintel is only a matter of time.
You seem a little confused. The "TPM chip" as you put it has nothing to do with stopping other OS's from booting on macs, it is just a way to harder to make OS X boot on a machine without the right one. The reason it is hard to get WinXP booting on an Intel mac is because Windows utilizes BIOS to boot on all 32 bit systems. Apple did not include BIOS, opting for the more advanced EFI. Windows does support EFI, but only on 64 bit chips. Apple is using 32 bit chips. Hence, the Apple machines are hardware Windows does not support.
You are likely right that Windows will eventually boot on Macs, just because eventually Apple will move to 64 bit Intel chips, which Windows does support, or MS may implement the ability to boot from 32 bit EFI systems. Yes Apple uses mostly commodity hardware, but it is usually newer hardware and they often don't bother implementing 20 year old legacy features like PS/2 ports, floppy drives, BIOS, etc. As a result, it is entirely possible that Apple machines may stay ahead of the curve of Windows support and thus Windows users will have a hard time using Apple hardware. This is mostly because Apple has such a limited hardware set it needs to support, it can adapt much more quickly to new hardware.
As a final point, with the new virtualization features in the newest Intel chips, I don't see many people dual booting macs anyway. When you can run multiple OS's hosted on top of OS X, at nearly the same speed as a fresh boot (RAM notwithstanding) I suspect most users will prefer that route. I know I will.
The keyword here is "support." Apple does not "support" running Windows, or any OS besides Mac OS X, on its hardware. Why they chose this route is very easy to understand.
When Apple designed the MacIntel architecture, it started with a clean sheet of paper, including only the hardware and firmware that would be useful to a Mac OS customer. The result was a simple, legacy-free design that avoids much of the baggage that the x86 world has carried for over 20 years.
To support Windows, Apple would have to include a legacy BIOS layer, VGA BIOS, and who knows what else. This would complicate the hardware from the get-go. Second, Apple would have to either A) License Windows from Microsoft, and include it with every Macintel (a very expensive proposition) or B) answer dozens of AppleCare calls from users as they try to install WinXP, configure appropriate drivers, and get a registration key (also a very expensive proposition, especially for a company that does not already have Windows-trained call center techs.
I know of no mainstream vendors who support home users with a dual-boot configuration. And very few will support even corporate customers who dual-boot.
The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
Not confused, just ignorant. Thanks for the info.
http://www.bynarystudio.com
If you are so sure they said it would be impossible, then tell us where did they said it.
The parent message is referring to well-reported statements by Apple's Jobs and Schiller, who both said Apple would do nothing to prevent people from running Windows on Intel-based Macs. See this link: http://news.com.com/2100-1014_3-5733756-2.html
As the article states, Schiller's words were, "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will. We won't do anything to preclude that."
You just need to give him $12,000 in return.
“Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
like hiring a Supermodel to wash the dishes.
like buying a BMW and filling up at ARCO.
like renting out a Mansion for your cats.
And if he's faking, he won't be able to hide. Anybody know more details on narf2006?
Wel... Games, for one, like you already said :) This is something that REALLY requires dual-booting. I mean, you're not going to run a game in VMWare or Virtual PC even if it did support OpenGL or DirectX. Just too slow.
I'm not sure that this is true. Plenty of people run games in WINE on Linux and the slowdown is pretty acceptable, and sometimes even outweighed by the better memory management. As for real emulators and VMs (rather than partial re-implementations of APIs) when it is running on hardware that is supported the biggest slowdowns are available RAM and sharing the CPU. With Intel's new hardware virtulaization the second problem goes away and you're left with pretty much just RAM. Given Mac user's propensity to avoid reboots (I reboot about once a month when updating the OS) and given the cost/convenience I know a lot of us might well do our gaming in a virtual machines in the future. I'd rather shell out $100-200 for an extra couple of gigs of RAM for my laptop than have to buy and use a whole extra machine. I'm sure there are plenty of people in the same boat.
I have yet to find a program on Windows that isn't directly ported to the Mac or that I couldn't find a comparable "replica" on the Mac.
PRODAS (Projectile Rocket and Ordinance Design and Analysis Software)
Don't know if you are trolling or serious, I am an aerospace engineer wrapping up my masters and I use this piece of software regularly to do 6DOF ballistics and trajectory modeling. There **are** no substitutes for a mac. Similar programs exist for radar modeling, etc. that have no Mac equivalent.
Besides the key apps that target a small but deep-pocketed audience (PRODAS license: $6000) (hence no motivation to port - small audiences, target 1 popular platform) you have gamers: a very large audience with smaller pocketbooks, but you have volume. Gamers want to customize their systems - they can't do that currently with a mac. Now with the move to Intel hardware, Apple has the chance to change that trend. We will see...
I couldn't care less about booting Windows - I just want to be able to RUN it (or the brain-dead apps I'm sometimes forced to work with). Dual-booting is a pain in the ass - who the hell wants to run only in windows with no OSX available?
Give me basically a natively fast virtual machine. I don't ever want to boot my mac into Windows. Just let me run it like VPC on steroids when I have to, and you've got a sale.
-- http://frobnosticate.com
Just wait until the Zapruda film comes out, then we'll know for sure . . . . (!)
spoonerize "magic trackpad"
You need to make more friends then. I don't go on and on about my Mac without being prompted, and all the Mac users I've ever known are the same.
Most PC users I've known are like that as well, but I've had more than my fair share of bozos who (when they find out I've got a Mac) crap on and on endlessly about how much better PCs are than Macs. I tend to back away, maintaining eye contact until I get to a doorway to escape through.
Forums are not representative of Mac or PC users. Only a small proportion of enthusiasts spend time around these sites.
Now notice how the bottom left corner looks pulled away from the monitor also notice how the line at the bottom of the screen actually disappears under the blue windows screen (along with it attendant shadow) The same happens to the right hand side. the edge of the monitor and the shadow being cast over it also dissappears under the blue windows loading screen.
If you look at the blue windows screen itself it has a ever so slight shadow on it (a darkening of the blue color) on the right hand side. However the shadow's shape is not continuous with the showdow being cast over the monitor's edge.
welcome to the world of chromatic abberation.
you can demonstrate this effect with glasses. open up a terminal window and display some red, white, and blue text on a black background. now angle your glasses vs the display (eg, look through the narrow part of your lens, then pan through to the thicker parts) and see how the blue and red text move up and down while the white text stays.
you may also notice, looking through glasses, "shadowing" of blue boxes against other backgrounds, especially white and red.
this is what you get from cheap cameras (eg cellphones). good cameras with good lenses won't do that.
chromatic abberation test
you won't see the effect unless you're wearing glasses though.
So you are saying maybe I should carry a MacBook and a windows laptop to work/school? Not all of us sit at a desk all day...a lot of us move around, and two computers are twice as heavy.
Shoot, PC companies make more $ from laptops than desktops these days--you'd think a few in the Slashdot audience would realize that for a mainstream user/power user, laptops are much more important than desktops. Dual boot > dual laptops. Nuff said.
Why would you do this instead of buying a cheaper, non-Mac laptop and putting OS X on it?
I can't believe that Microsoft wouldn't care about running Windows on an Intel Mac, but Apple would care about running OS X on anything other than an Intel Mac. But, if I'm wrong about that, I guess I just answered my own question.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Overpriced? Compared to what? Compare a Core Duo Macbook Prp with Sony Vaio Core Duos and the macbook pro is cheaper. Compare with a Toshiba and again, it is either cheaper or in price parity depending on whether you count software.
Apple does not sell ultra low end or highly subsidized hardware. If you are a coupon collecting cheapskate with a lot of time on your hands, get a Dell. But if you are looking for reasonable prices with "value added" bundled hardware and software, the macbooks are competitive.
You can bring up the old straw man 500 USD laptops but chances are that you would never buy one anyway. They are just artificial examples used by geeks with no concept of "value" and "reasonable" prices to win an argument on the internet.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
So this guy hasn't proved that this is not a PowerPC iMac G5 running Virtual PC with Windows XP full-screen (including the some of the installation process).
5 94082389573/
He hasn't taken a screen shot of the Device Manager to show us how the hardware components appear.
Not to be dismissive, but it would be nice to see more proof. I know there are screen shots with the installation appearing to occur with some feedback in an EFI shell, but that doesn't mean it actually finished. He could have had the installation appear, but used Virtual PC on a PowerPC iMac G5 to make it appear as if it finished.
Without posting or responding to messages about how he has done this or when he will give more details about the CSM that he programmed, it makes people more skeptical.
I mean, I could just do something similar like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/superrcat/sets/72057
It would likely be trivial to port PRODAS to Mac OS X. I think PRODAS is definitely an example of software which hasn't been ported to Mac OS X, as opposed to software which can't be ported to Mac OS X.
The bits on the bus go on and off... on and off... on and off...
I wasn't counting software, because if you're switching to winxp all the software you get will be wasted. Also there is no way that, to me at least, the software is worth what they charge for it. If you think the bundled software is worth what apple would charge you for it then the pricing is comparable to a similar quality non-apple product, though still slightly worse from what I've seen.
I am trolling
Should not Win boot on Mac?
Windows needs a BIOS to run. OS X intel can do either BIOS or EFI. EFI is basically a complete replacement for the over-20-year-old BIOS.
The new Intel macs are all based on EFI.
Windows (any version) doesn't support EFI.
=> Windows doesn't run on Mac. Hence the contest, and the $12k.
Not saying that _you_ would do something that isn't legal, but most people that would just "like the ability to poke around in OSX" would probably just download it from the Internet instead of buying it...
Hey, it's not like you're acctually using it, you're just learning more about it so that you one day might buy Apple hardware, so although technically not legal is actually good for Apple... or so people will justify it.
Then at least some of them will find themselfs booting into MacOS more and more, but still, you already got something working, so why buy something which is already there... you'll just wait for the next time you buy hardware, or for the next large(ish) upgrade of MacOS...
Then when it's time for you to get new hardware you'll find that although Apple computers look good, there are still a few things wrong and/or you feel that you can get a better solution by building a computer yourself; or just upgrade the one you've already got, and/or just pick some parts from the one you've got. So no new fancy Apple hardware.
Then it's time for that large upgrade of MacOS... well, since you can't buy MacOS for just any PC you'll feel that why support a company that doesn't support you, so technically, you'll think, you are doing a great thing by not buying the latest MacOS, as that makes you a protester which will change the world... "force" Apple into releasing MacOS for generic hardware...
What if they then one day do release it for generic hardware? Well, just take a look at most peoples (Windows) computers today, are they really filled with paid for software...?! Is even Windows paid for...?!
I'm not saying that it wouldn't be good for Apple to release MacOS for generic hardware (I'm not saying it wouldn't bad either), I'm just saying that it isn't such huge good thing (for Apple) that most people seem to think...
perl -e'print$_{$_} for sort%_=`lynx -dump svanstrom.com/t`'
Releasing a card without drivers would be the stupidest thing to do ever. No Linux drivers maybe, but Windows and OS X definitely.
You say you want a revolution....
Such is the reality. Most people just use the term Xerox in reference to using a copier. Besides Pshop is still the generally dominant editor so odds are that was used.
The box said I needed Windows XP or better so I bought a Mac.
Screenshot here
Video available here
http://clips1.vimeo.com.nyud.net:8080/video_files/ 2006/03/15/vimeo.74487.mov
He just posted a video of it booting. While it's not the answer of how to do it, it's better than possible 'PHOTOSHOPED' photos. Kantara
"Everyone spoke of an information overload, but what there was in fact was a non-information overload."
Your submission contains 9 links, without clear indication of which contains the "scoop." Links aren't just paths to other pages; they highlight text and draw the reader's eye to what should be important. You mix in links to completely unnecessary pages that any reader (if interested) could Google on his own. The slashdot editors sagely rejected your submission; you failed to whittle down your story to its heart, instead littering it with noise most readers want to avoid.
According to Intel documentation, using a CSM that plugs into the EFI framework should allow for booting BIOS-based operating systems:So far (to me at least), it looks like narf2006 (and his accomplice, blanka) might have truly done it.
That's not the point. Parent stated that he hadn't found software that " that isn't directly ported to the Mac or that I couldn't find a comparable "replica" on the Mac.". Doesn't matter if it is trivial or not. It isn't there and there's no replacement. Windows is the only choice. And there is a whole host of other pieces of software like it, that are unique and only available for Windows.
Running Windows XP on a mac has to be the dumbest thing you could do with a 1,200 laptop.Apples Mac OSX is much more Advanced and powerful than Microsoft Windows.come-on face it,putting windows on a mac is like butchering the laptop after you just bought it...