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)
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.
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. "
"Look closer Lenny" There is another monitor covering part of the iMac.
... that this is not a hoax! Windows XP boots on a Mac! http://www.mathcaddy.com/windowsxpbootsonamac!!!!1 /
:)
SCNR
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.
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
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.
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
...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 :(
"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.
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.
WTF?
Not sure how PCs are designed, but I've done both electronic and mechanical design for embedded telco equipment, and the only tool that we used that only ran on windows was Outlook.
all the electronic design was Cadence's toolchain, Flowtherm for the thermal modling, I forget what the mechanical package was called, but I had a sun on my desk to run it on...
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
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.
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."
> All you'll really prove if Photoshop is faster on the PC vs Mac is that
> the PC version used a better compiler. What are you trying to show exactly?
Exactly. The only differences should depend on the OS and it's supporting infrastructure. Compiler, libraries, memory management, disk throughput, etc. And those differences are likely to be highly variable. OS X might have UNIXy goodness (not sure how Darwin stands compared to a modern Linux or Solaris though) in it's favor while Microsoft probably has the advantage on compilier tech vs GCC. Some good benchmarks should be interesting to read through.
Democrat delenda est