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?
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....
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
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.
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.
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.
No single person or organization put up $12K. A lot of people chipped in a few bucks at a time to get to that level.
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).
It's pretty much inevitable that someone will call them wanting support for the Apple machine they screwed up by trying to install Windows. Just answering the phone probably costs them $20-$30, so even if the users are forthcoming that they tried to install Windows and Apple tells them they can't be helped until they reinstall OSX off the restore DVDs, those calls will eat into Apple's profit margin. If a lot of people start doing that, Apple might have to hire another support person. That would double the cost of their support center and Steve will never get to finish his game of solitaire (Or whatever the Apple equivalent is.) All that engineering up front to discourage installing Windows on their hardware was probably just an attempt to avoid those support calls.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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).
But of course... As soon as the number of Macs running Windows to do real work outnumbers the number of Macs running Mac OS, can you imagine the reaction of the die hard Mac fanboys? Just that alone is worth $12,000 x 100. ;P (JOKE ALERT!!! JOKE ALERT!!! JOKE ALERT!!!)
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
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/
... 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.
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.
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.
...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.
You forgot the Tile Game!
Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
They have stated over and over again that it would be impossible for someone to boot XP on a Intel Mac. Now we have claims by someone that it can be done.
I think you have that backwards.
Apple has said they don't care if you want to by their hardware and boot XP on it, feel free. They're not doing anything to stop it, but they are also not doing anything to enable it.
What they are against is Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware.
- Tony
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.
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
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?
It's not about buying mac hardware specifically to run windows, it's about the ability to dual boot mac osx and windows on the same laptop. Honestly, I'm at the point in my life where I need fewer computers, not more of them. Having a whole closet full of junky old PC's isn't worth the time and energy anymore, so I just have 2 laptops now, a powerbook and an old gateway. I'd gladly sell them both if I could buy one laptop that could run both OS's.
For what I do (audio programming and music production), emulation is not an acceptable solution due to obvious performance and hardware issues. Plus, there is so much good software available for both platforms, why limit yourself to just one?
"Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
Because WinXP boots just as nicely on a Walmart laptop. If people who own Mac hardware find themselves booting to Windows as often or more often than OSX, their next purchase may rationalize that the premium is just not worth it to run OSX.
The debate goes two ways - way one, I get to run both OSes, how wonderful is that? Way two, I run XP more and more, why buy Mac hardware?
It's only time that will tell us which is which...
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
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
...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
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 :(
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.
Since VirtualPC doesn't support 3D, why not just have him post a screenshot of a 3D program running?
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
"Who would put up 12,000 bucks?"
Microsoft
Fix Your Own TV - RiddledTV.com Avoid the Landfill
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.
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.
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
Unfortunately, this would kill a lot of their developer base.
If almost all PC's have Windows, and almost all Macs run Windows apps, then you can just write a program for Windows, and there is no need to make a Mac specific port.
If there is no native Mac OS software, why get a Mac?
Sure, lots of developers would develop for the Mac out of love for the platform or whatever, but a lot of other devs would declare that just supporting Windows is sufficient for a very large percentage of their user base.
> 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.
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.
This seems doubtful to happen in any significant numbers. It isn't as if Intel Mac owners don't know about this option known as the "Windows PC", or the "cheap Walmart Laptop" that you mention. The systems have been available for just a bit more than two months now -- if Intel Mac owners wanted a Windows XP machine running on cheap Intel hardware, they would have bought a Windows XP machine running on cheap Intel hardware.
There may be a percentage of "switchers" who decide to "switch back" -- but I imagine this has always been the case, so I don't see how anything would really be changing here. The only thing that is new is that the "switch back-ers" don't have to buy a new PC -- they can do it on their existing Mac hardware (assuming the challenge has indeed been met).
Yaz.
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.
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."
So, what you're really saying is, "Once you go Mac, you never go back"
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?
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
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.
Screenshot here
Video available here
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.