Slashdot Mirror
Windows Vista Beta Running on a PPC Mac
goombah99 writes "Macosxhints is giving a set of tips that let any Mac user boot Windows Vista on a Mac. In this case, it's not a native Intel boot but rather VirtualPC running on a PPC G5 Mac. Thus Vista and Mac OS X can run concurrently. There are no extravagant hacks needed, just a matter of finding the right set of configurations to let VirtualPC present the proper disk images for mounting and BIOS settings to the installer. This bodes well for native installs onto the Intel Mac." Actually, there have been successful (though not glitch-free) installs of beta versions of Vista on Intel Macs for a few months now. Here's a report from Hans Verbeeck (Developer Evangelist for Microsoft EMEA) on putting Vista Beta 2 on a MacBook Pro.
That poor mac!
This bodes well for native installs onto the Intel Mac.
How so? I would like goombah99 to clarify this statement. As timothy points out, Vista has been installing on Intel Macs for a while. The thing is that it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Vista can run in an x86 emulation environment for a different processor family. It doesn't bode anything at all because it's irrelevent.
This guy's the limit!
WHY?!?!
The Dutch will inherit the earth. If not, we'll settle for a bit of ocean. Beta delenda est!
VPC emulates a traditional PC with a BIOS. An Intel Mac is an entirely different beast. Getting Vista to boot in VPC is no more difficult than getting it to boot on a generic "white box" pc, and has just as much relevance to the Intel Mac. That is, none at all.
Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
First,
Other's have only been able to install Vista by wiping out the EFI boot partition. Here's a way to concurrently run Vista. It shows it can be done without reformating the disk.
Second,
it shows that Contrary to rumors, Vista is not crippled against running on macs or under virtual systems.
Third,
it shows macs meet the minumum specs for Vista, so one need not hesitate about buying a mac now if one was worried about running vista.
Fourth,
it means you can do comparisons of Vista and mac osx.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
So an x86 emulator is capable of running Vista, an x86 operating system? Sweet!
I would not predict such a thing. But I would predict an article by Dvorak and/or Cringeley predicting such a thing.
"You can already run Windows on the Mac. And I'm talking Windows Vista. Microsoft is already doing this internally. Microsoft, given its problems with security, will buy Apple so that it can get its hands on the OS. It will then port the entire Windows API to run on top of the Darwin kernel. With Virtual PC, they're already doing this. The purchase will give Microsoft all the benefits of the Unix security model with the developer base of Windows."
There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
Given Vista's demand on systems, is there even any point in trying to run it emulated on modern-day hardware? It seems to me like the overhead presented by emulation would bring vista to a grinding halt..
Will program for karma.
After trying the Vista beta, I am convinced that it will be a huge huge flop for Microsoft. The thing is that people who likely own hardware capable of running Windows Vista don't need the constant babyish security reminders ("Is it really YOU running this program?") that users who bought an eMachines something five years ago likely do. Does your grandmother have 256 MB of memory? because even with my 128 radeon Vista was sloooow. And I will stick to OS X on my mac, thanks.
So, it's now firmly established that Windows can run on Apple hardware. Are anyone else's feet cold, or is that just me?
I'm actually thinking that having a Mac might be okay, especially if I can convince the Wife that we'll be getting so much more. Hmm, what was that? Oh you'll have to excuse me. I think I hear Half-Life 2 calling.
Meh, a real sig would take too long, and I have an MMORPG to play with....
VirtualPC for Mac is an existing product that I'm assuming has the requisite number of customers who think it's worth doing.
From a personal standpoint, some of the reasons for wanting to do this are:
1. I like working on Macs but it's a Windows world out there. I need to be able to run some Windows software but don't want to buy and maintain a separate machine just to do that.
2. Running VirtualPC makes it easer for me to share the data between my Mac and the Windows machine I occasionally need to use.
Mmmm.. Donuts
"Virtualization allows you to run an OS that was designed for another type of hardware. This is news. Really."
Even more amazing is that an x86 emulator sold by Microsoft is capable of running Vista, an x86 operating system written by Microsoft. Sweet! Dude! Sweet! Dude! Sweet!
Do you know what you Mac is doing right now???
I had this problem with my rebuilt PC. My motherboard died so I replaced it (and only the mb) and tried to do a fresh install of windows. I kept getting that same error.
It turned out my memory went bad, running memtest86 revealed it failing some tests. I don't know if the memory died along with the motherboard or if I mishandled it when transferring it to the new motherboard but it was dead all the same.
In any case, it was the first time I'd seen that error message when installing an OS. Before I tried memtest86 I tried 2 different CD ROM drives, different copies of the disk, different cables, etc. It didn't even seem like it would be a memory error but an IO or disk error.
So, check the memory and let it go ALL the way through. It'll take a while, but this way you'll know for sure. I've known people that have only failed late tests.
Other than the "it's cool, look what I can do!" factor, why would anyone do this? PPC Macs are much more expensive than Intel Macs, so why would you even WANT this on a PPC Mac?
well, some of us already have a PPC mac. I use VPC for 2 reasons; primarily to test how websites look/work in different versions of IE. sure, you could build a cheap x86 machine and pop a bunch of different versions of windows on there, but that can be expensive and requires a lot of rebooting. with VPC, I can see win2k and XP side by side, and when I close the window, it freezes the state, so I don't need to reboot windows every time I fire up VPC.
the other reason is to test how code works in cygwin and occasionally how pygtk apps run in windows.
I tried installing the vista public beta last night, but it failed complaining about the bios thing and I assumed that it wasn't possible to do, but now that this has been shown to be possible, I can actually see how the new version of IE will render my sites. I'm not really looking forward to seeing how it'll perform, though. XP is only usable for webstuff. win2k runs pretty well. my dual 2.7ghz G5 emulates about a 550mhz pentium4, so I'd hate to see what a mess vista will be.
...spike
Ewwwwww, coconut...
And then Apple would go out of business.
Rule #1 when it comes to understanding Apple is this: Apple is a hardware company . They make their money selling those Macs and iBooks, and if they lose that revenue stream they go out of business. That is why Apple will never release a version of OS X for generic PCs unless their entire business model changes. Apple is first and foremost a hardware company that only happens to make some really, really good software. The margins on software are such that Apple could not offset the losses on hardware that would be incurred by selling boxed copies of OS X.
In other words, no, that is not going to happen. You're right, the margins on Apple's hardware is quite nice, and the margins on software are nowhere near as nice. Apple doesn't play the software game for that very reason - unless it's to boost their own hardware sales.
You're describing similar problems to what I've had trying to install Vista. The things I can come up with, are, make sure that you're burning the ISO to a writable DVD drive, and not a CD-R (Hey, even the smartest people could overlook this sometimes, like how every "it won't start" troubleshooting guide starts with "is it plugged in?")
The next one, was to make sure that I'm installing off a DVD-ROM drive, and *not* a burner. This was the biggest problem I had. I could *not* get Beta 1 to install at all at home, despite having an official Microsoft Beta DVD, and I eventually traced the problem down to trying to install with my CD-RW/DVD-ROM combo drive. I went out bought a simple DVD-ROM, and plugged it in just long enough to install Vista, and it worked perfect.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
//traced the problem down to trying to install with my CD-RW/DVD-ROM combo drive. I went out bought a simple DVD-ROM, and plugged it in just long enough to install Vista, and it worked perfect.//
... that might be it ... i'm using a combo-mombo drive. I'll try a regular 'ol DVD drive.
hmmm
Frammin' on the jim-jam, frippin' at the krotz!
hmmm ... that might be it ... i'm using a combo-mombo drive. I'll try a regular 'ol DVD drive.
I hope it works out for you. I was upset when I figured out that that was the problem. It's like, why should that make a difference? *sigh* Maybe I should file a bug, I mean, how could they not already know about it though?
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
//Take away the curse... //
With a great big ZOTZ!!
Abra-Cadaver, is that you?
Frammin' on the jim-jam, frippin' at the krotz!
After RTFA, I have to say that was seriously a waste of my time. x86 OS works in x86 emulator. Wow what a breakthrough (sarcasim).
Since you claim to have read the article, you'd have noticed that the big deal isn't "It works in an emulator" but rather "At first it wouldn't install in VPC, but someone found a neat trick to get it to install." I didn't even know it was possible to get into a BIOS setup screen in VPC.
I agree, it would be extremely slow though. I have a Dual 1.8GHz G5, and the Virtual PC seems to run at ~350 MHZ for me (not a scientific measurement... just a guess based on how it 'feels'). Considering Vista's minimum requirements are at least 800 MHz, I wouldn't want to use it on a regular basis.
That being said, I'm going to try it out anyway, just to take a look at Vista.
Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together.
Did anyone else read that as Masochists "giving a set of tips that let any Mac user boot Windows Vista on a Mac?"
One important thing every Mac admin should know is that MAC = Machine Access Code. Mac = Abbreviation for Macintosh.
I know it's a douchey fanboy thing to point out, but clarity is always a good thing. It can get confusing when you send an email telling a staffer how to "assign a MAC to the MAC".
I have been tweaking with getting Vista Beta 2 (5384) working since it was released out in the wild. I have been able to install without a glitch, although slow. It works great. I have poked around and found that by installing Virtual Server 2005 R2 and extracting the files and installing the virtual machine additions that come packed with that, that you can get a significance performance increase (ppc virtual pc 7.0.2), although I have yet to get networking and sound working. anyone here been able to get these two devices working?
u alserver/software/default.mspx for FREE. As a mac user, I booted into a WinXP virtual machine and performed the following commands to extract the new virtual machine additions to be installed in Vista.
/c /t c:\temp
/a "c:\temp\Virtual Server 2005 Install.msi" targetdir=c:\temp\extract /qn
you can download Virtual Server 2005 R2 @ http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/virt
Command Prompt type:
-------------------
setup
If you then run the following command, you can unpack the MSI file. And you then you have access to the VS2005 R2 additions ISO, which you can install into your VPC (just use the CD -> Capture ISO Image... option)
msiexec
after doing this, I have been able to install Office 2007 beta on vista's virtual machine with acutally not too bad performance, considering the emulation.
> PPC Macs are much more expensive than Intel Macs
In fact, Apple will have a hard time beating the price of a Dual DualCore G5.
Just compare what a fully stacked XW9300 or Ultra40 would cost.
Also, the the PPC-Mini was cheaper than the current Intel Mini - IIRC.
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
I did this a few days ago on my 1.67GHz PowerBook G4. Yes I am insane.
All you need to do is ensure the RAM setting is at 512MB otherwise the installer refuses to work. Then just before booting hit the delete key and enable APCI in the BIOS. Once installed, you can lower the RAM setting to something like 256MB. You also need patience because it took almost four hours to install (although it only asks for information at the beginning and end.)
It's extremely pointless though. For starters the Aero Glass interface won't work because the best graphics card Virtual PC emulates is a 16MB generic VGA card.
The only thing I learnt is that Microsoft have created an installer that requires 512MB to merely display a fake Aero Glass interface, you get seemingly random error codes with less RAM. Vista seems to use about 300MB once booted.
Wow. You can take a machine that has almost a zero chance of getting malware and convert it to giant virus magnet. This is like a Priest having sex with every prostitute in the Caribbean. Repeat after me, "Sweet!"
I will create a sig when innovation restarts in the U.S.
But when, oh when, will I be able to natively boot Linux on my Intel Mac?
-Peter
This one comment summarizes this whole discussion. The worst part is that even when being refuted by very knowledgable people, Goombah still sits there telling everyone that they're wrong and that he's right.
Like here?
Especially considering that MAC equipment is way overpriced just to run windows on it.
Machine Access Code equipment is way overpriced? Holy shit, what's a network admin to do???
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
As an IT Manager, he probably could give a flying fuck what Walt Mossberg thinks. And maybe you should stop listening to other people and check the prices at Dell and HP? You can get a quite servicible business desktop computer for far below what Apple's consumer-oriented models cost.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
There's nothing new here. They're running VirtualPC, so Vista isn't really running on Mac hardware. Even installing vista on intel Mac hardware is very straightforward - if you want to dual-boot OS X and Vista, things get a little more difficult (or impossible?) but if you want to run Vista on an intel Mac, just go ahead an install it. It works.
Specialist Mac support for creative pros, Melbourne
Btw, MAC doesn't mean what you think it does, either.
Media Access Control address (MAC address). (wtf is a Machine Access Code?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Access_Control
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAC_address
Simple reason to put Windows on a Macbook Pro: Games. I'm tired of having reconnect my monitor to a Windows machine for games and one for my PowerMac. The ONLY reason I keep a Windows machine around is to play games. I don't use it for anything else. OSX does everything else (Office, banking, surfing the net, etc) better.
I also don't want two monitors. I want one machine that can run Windows for gaming, and then OSX for everything else. Apple now has a product that does this well. I'm going to purchase this.
Just for kicks, I used my Mac Book (booted to XP PRO) to d/l the ISO, booted to OS X, burned the IS0 using disk utility (BTW - the file was on the FAT32 Windows partition - created by Boot-Camp), then ran the install as an upgrade from within XP Pro on a Dell Optiplex - also using a DVD-drive - not a conbo burner. Aside from a long install time - it was close to two hours - whenI finally booted to Vista, I had Aero, network worked, and all apps that I currently use seemed to work fine. I do have a 256 meg ATI Radeon in the system, so I was expecting to see Aero.
I left the system on over the weekend and was out sick today - wonder if it's still up or will I face a BSOD upon return?
"Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair" - George Washington
I really have to ask.... WHY!
I have a 2.1GHz PPC iMac, with 1.5GB ram. I also have Office Professional with VPC. I have VPC to the max amount of memory allowed (512). It has Win XP Professional installed.
You can JUST ABOUT use VPC to render a page in IE. However, don't try anything with Flash. or Javascript. Or try any form of new application. They all run like molassas. Emulated performance is about a 300MHz machine. VPC is so sluggish, that I bought a wintel box just to do my website checking. (ok, and run oblivion)
Anyway, point is, XP is slow, Vista I am sure would be unusable.
This
I don't understand why people freak out so much over virtualization, people these products were built to do these types of tasks. Of course it can Windows, hey guess what? It'll also run Slackware, Debian, Fedora, etc. ALL AT THE SAME TIME!
You are NOT running concurrent OS's, you are running software-rendered hardware that the OS installer is too stupid to figure out that the computer doesn't exist.
Seriously, can we get better stories than this. Like a HOW-TO on installing OSX as the parent OS on my home-built machine, now that would be news. Ahhh. . . . yeah . . . . OSX . baby!
"When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you." --leonstryker