backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 63 comment(s) - last by Jacek845.. on Feb 7 at 3:17 PM
Recent attempts at installing Windows XP have left users scratching their heads. Hopefully a $6000 prize will inspire creative thinking

InformationWeek is reporting that a Mac user has launched a contest in which a prize of $6000 and higher, will be awarded to the first person or group that can successfully install Windows XP on the new Intel Core Duo based Macs.

Previously it was thought that installing Windows XP would be easy but Apple had changed the way the new Macs start up by replacing the traditional BIOS with a new firmware architecture called EFI or Extensible Firmware Interface. So far attempts at installing Windows XP using traditional means have been unsuccessful. The contest hopes to give enthusiasts a big incentive to get a dual boot Mac working. No virtualization is allowed and the contest requires that OS selection must be available at startup.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Leave it to Apple...
By JarredWalton on 1/26/2006 1:27:13 AM , Rating: 5
...to cripple what was potentially the biggest feature of their new systems. Maybe Vista will address the EFI problem, but seriously, WTF is Apple thinking? If someone buys an Apple system and wants to dual-boot XP, Apple should be actively targeting that market. "Leave Windows behind without fully leaving it behind - migrate slowly and get the best of both worlds."

I don't know what Jobs is doing a lot of the time. He should be courting the additional customer base, rather than being antagonistic. The new Mac commercials are a great example. Show us why the Mac is actually better, rather than just calling all the old Intel PCs boring. Bleh. Guess I'm not enough of an Artiste to properly appreciate Macs....




RE: Leave it to Apple...
By Furen on 1/26/2006 1:57:52 AM , Rating: 1
Isnt EFI the reason why the new Intel Macs boot up so fast? The BIOS should have been dumped a long time ago anyway, asking Apple to use something that will obviously be retired soon enough is like asking them to put ISA slots just because. Yes, you lose Windows compatibility 'till Vista (I've heard that it'll be EFI compatible) but a few months is not too long a wait. I'm actually glad someone actually jumped out of the BIOS "box"... now we just have to wait on Microsoft to do so on the PC side.

One question for anyone that knows... I've never used an EFI system (and havent looked much into them) and was wondering just where the EFI information is stored. Is it stored on a flash ram chip like current or is it stored on a hard drive partition (like I've heard it works on Itanium)?


RE: Leave it to Apple...
By Furen on 1/26/2006 2:00:04 AM , Rating: 2
... like current BIOS systems...

Man, I really need an edit or preview function... or maybe I just need to pay attention to what I post.


RE: Leave it to Apple...
By JarredWalton on 1/26/2006 2:41:00 AM , Rating: 2
I know at WinHEC 2005 I saw several PCs running off of EFI instead of BIOS. I guess they must have been prototypes and not XP machines, though I could have sworn some had XP running? It's been almost a year now, so my memory is a bit foggy. LOL

One EFI machine actually had an integrated web browser, which was rather cool. Not sure it's really that useful, but the mere fact that you could browse the web without even loading an OS could be good for embedded appliances.


RE: Leave it to Apple...
By adt6247 on 1/26/2006 9:47:34 AM , Rating: 2
A web browser in EFI would be monstrously useful, though not as much so as the network stack itself. Think about it -- remember updating your BIOS? Download the update tool, download the image, copy them to a self-booting DOS floppy, etc...

Now, in EFI, one could implement a net-aware firmware update app.

Also, I think it's great that one could create a dumb terminal using EFI. Think about it -- you just want a bunch of web terminals for kiosks or whatever. Just have a bunch of VIA boards with EFI boot into this web browser -- no need for an OS, no need for a hard drive -- hell, no need for an LTSP server or similar.


RE: Leave it to Apple...
By mindless1 on 1/28/2006 8:56:16 AM , Rating: 2
How can you be glad someone "jumped out of the BIOS box" if you're never even used an alternative?

You're the worst kind of technowhore, randomly assuming newer must be better without any idea. Maybe it'll boot faster. Maybe it'll have a crude browser or networking. Would you use those or run the OS for that? "Maybe" you'd use them once, setting up a system so you are saved 1 minute to plug in a thumbdrive with a driver, BUT there's the very important problem.

As demonstrated with this new Apple, this can lock down hardware. Want to buy a system with Vista then 2 years later install Vista2 (or whatever it's called at that point)? So sorry, you're not going to unless they "allow" you to. Want to do anything other than what someone else permits? Forget about it.

What the bios does is provides the most flexible system. EFI will have benefits, but only within the context of reigning in control away from the user or owner of the system. They know that's an unpopular topic and will spend much time trying to focus on anything but that aspect of it.


RE: Leave it to Apple...
By teutonicknight on 1/26/2006 1:58:48 AM , Rating: 2
The biggest problem is Microsoft's lack of EFI support, not Apple. All Apple did was use Intel's newest technologies, it's not like they wanted to block Windows from their machines.Why use the ancient BIOS anyway? It would be a huge step down from the somewhat elegant Open Firmware that Apples' Power based machines used.

Microsoft just needs to get with the program and write XP with EFI support.

(Currently only the 64-bit version has EFI support)


RE: Leave it to Apple...
By Griswold on 1/26/2006 11:05:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
(Currently only the 64-bit version has EFI support)


I hope you didnt mean XP 64bit edition, as it does not support EFI.


RE: Leave it to Apple...
By smn198 on 1/26/2006 11:22:24 AM , Rating: 2
That is not what I heard. http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;294773&sd=tech


RE: Leave it to Apple...
By DigitalFreak on 1/26/2006 1:23:57 PM , Rating: 2
The 64bit Itanium version


RE: Leave it to Apple...
By Jackyl on 1/26/2006 2:01:29 AM , Rating: 2
Wow...I'll enter contest but have little time to dedicate to it. I have been researching EFI architecture. This will be a pain to do, but should be possible under Linux. Yes, Linux. Call the Linux boot loader on the CD, and use a wrapper for the EFI. I go research more now. Time wasting. Though this probably is worth more than $6000. Maybe they should hire winner and make employee too?


RE: Leave it to Apple...
By AppaYipYip on 1/26/06, Rating: 0
RE: Leave it to Apple...
By Griswold on 1/26/2006 11:09:11 AM , Rating: 2
Do you work with your computer? Probably not, otherwise you would know why people, who would move from Windows to apple based computers, might want dual boot. Not every application is available on the max side - some will probably never be.

And last but not least, theres also people who work with their computer and want to play a game or two on it. Good luck playing the latest and greatest on an apple. Its why people dualboot windows and linux, you know...


RE: Leave it to Apple...
By Practice on 1/27/2006 3:10:48 AM , Rating: 2
If people want to do both so bad, why not have two computers, one Mac and one PC? I for example have two computers just in case one goes down I have a backup. They are both PCs though, but if I were in to Macs at all, I'd have one of each.


RE: Leave it to Apple...
By Caligynemaniac on 2/1/2006 1:22:06 AM , Rating: 2
Operating systems are much cheaper than computers.


RE: Leave it to Apple...
By RandomFool on 1/26/2006 11:09:56 AM , Rating: 2
It's almost like people want to be able to use 90% of the software availible...weird.


RE: Leave it to Apple...
By RandomFool on 1/26/2006 1:50:05 PM , Rating: 2
is it just me or did the comment I replied to disappear? Which of course makes my comment look useless and stupid.


RE: Leave it to Apple...
By MrSmurf on 1/26/2006 10:28:09 AM , Rating: 2
I think the argument Apple would have is if you could put Windows on a Mac, people wouldn't spend $100 each time Apple releases a better version of OSX.


RE: Leave it to Apple...
By Lifted on 1/26/2006 11:23:32 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I never understood Apple when it came to this. If you look at Microsoft and Dell, it is apparent that companies are much more profitable when they don't tie a computer to an OS. You'd think Apple would have learned that from IBM. Apple has the potential to be the next Dell and to grab more OS market share from MS. Tons of people would by Mac's running Windows (just look at the ipod), and tons would also by OSX for their x86 box. Steve Jobs is a buffon and Apple shareholders should have MADE him do this ages ago.


Some comments
By plinden on 1/26/2006 12:02:50 PM , Rating: 5
I'm a lifelong WinPC user whose Core Duo iMac is currently on its way to me. I want to comment on a few things:
1. So, you get XP running on a Mac ... what do you do then? 90% of Mac users would just shrug and never boot into Windows after the first time.
2. I have three programs that I know won't work on Macs. I would keep a PC around anyway, since I wouldn't want to log out of Mac OSX into Windows just to run them. I would be interested in virtualisation, though.
3. 90% of software may be for Windows, but 90% of anything is crap. Also, there's almost nothing important available for Windows that's has not equivalent or better for Mac OSX (in my case see point 2). Where's iLife for Windows?
4. The iMac IS CHEAPER THAN COMPARABLE DUAL CORE DELLS!!!!
5. About booting into Windows for games - you mean FPS games. Most people just aren't interested in them. I want decent performance in CivIV and SimCity ... don't care about Doom. But we need more games benchmarks before commenting on this. I've heard that some FPS games are as good if not better than the G5 even in Rosetta emulation - wait for the Universal Binaries to see how they perform.

However, the iMac is NOT a games machine. If you want super performance, you'll still have to build your own.
6. EFI apparently has an optional compatibility module (someone else who knows more should comment), hence the Gateway machines and other prototype mobos that run Windows under EFI. But Apple have apparently not included this compatibility module.




RE: Some comments
By tmp8000 on 1/26/2006 1:53:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
4. The iMac IS CHEAPER THAN COMPARABLE DUAL CORE DELLS!!!!


Umm, you can get a more powerful Dell for the same price as the new iMac, I just checked. With a current deal Dell has you even get a better monitor. Plus it's not all mashed together so it is easier to upgrade.

quote:
5. About booting into Windows for games - you mean FPS games. Most people just aren't interested in them.


I think the millions of people who play FPS games all the time might disagree with you on that point.


RE: Some comments
By plinden on 1/26/2006 3:13:32 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Umm, you can get a more powerful Dell for the same price as the new iMac, I just checked. With a current deal Dell has you even get a better monitor. Plus it's not all mashed together so it is easier to upgrade.


Not sure where you get this - a XPS 600 dual core P4, 3GHz with remote, 20" screen, 1GB RAM, DVD burner, 250GB HD, no added s/w, comes to $2300 (before taxes and delivery). And you get a humungous heater sitting on or near your desk.

A 2GHz Core Duo (roughly == 3GHz dual P4 in performance) 20" iMac with 2x512KB RAM, 256MB GPU is $1875 and is quiet (apparently, to all accounts), cool, uses 1/4 the power and takes up the same space as a Dell monitor. Granted, you get the Apple mighty mouse with that, but it's easy to replace with your own favourite mouse.


RE: Some comments
By quickk on 1/26/2006 3:30:17 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
20" iMac with 2x512KB RAM


That's a hell of a lot of ram!


RE: Some comments
By Alphafox78 on 1/27/2006 1:38:53 PM , Rating: 2
A 2GHz Core Duo (roughly == 3GHz dual P4 in performance)

Hows that?? they are the same chip!


RE: Some comments
By Nekrik on 1/27/2006 1:47:24 PM , Rating: 2
Not in Steve's mind, one is in a mac, there for it is by nature faster.

Besides, that would completely screw up the comparison.


comments on coments
By RandomFool on 1/26/2006 2:01:33 PM , Rating: 2
1. My guess is that dual-booting is more for current windows users who want to dabble in OS X but not switch.
2. You've got a point, I'd prefer a dual boot myself emulation is too slow but good for some things.
3. There is a lot of crap but there's also a ton of stuff that is handy and I'd miss. My roommate could never find a guitar tuner for Mac and where are the Mac games at? Either way you get more choice with windows as to what you want to use. Word vs. Corel vs. open office. Macs seem to have really just one choice for software most of the time.
4. Which makes them a perfect candidate for a cheaper windows machine.
5. There's thousands of people who play fps games everyday many of them are exactly the kinds of people who would want to dual boot a machine, the average user might not care but the average user probably wouldn't even know what a dual boot is. No one is asking for super performance, but you'd get good enough performance out of the ATI card in there.
6. I don't know anything about EFI.


RE: Some comments
By BladeVenom on 1/26/2006 8:34:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
1. So, you get XP running on a Mac ... what do you do then? 90% of Mac users would just shrug and never boot into Windows after the first time.


Total nonsense. Every Mac user I know also uses a PC.


Dual-Boot? No Thanks - VirtualPC Please
By kelmon on 1/26/2006 3:52:38 AM , Rating: 5
I'd like to have the option to run Windows on my Mac but I really am not interested in a dual-boot configuration. What I want is a version of Microsoft's VirtualPC application capable of running Windows at the same time as OS X such that I can share resources between both operating systems, such as copy/paste operations. If I could then I'd do all my work in OS X but my organisation only officially supports Windows and some of the web applications require Internet Explorer so I currently make do with a Remote Desktop Connection to a real PC (where copy/paste works).

Dual-Boot is just too much hassle. Each time that I want to change applications/operating systems I'll need to ensure that the data I wish to share is saved and accessible, and then reboot the whole system. What a pain. I'm hoping that the Merom-based systems with Virtualisation will go some way to allowing Windows and OS X to run at the same time but dual-boot is just not something that I find attractive.




By Snuffalufagus on 1/26/2006 4:49:18 AM , Rating: 2
I agree, I'd like to be able to access XP or Vista without having to shutdown and reboot out of OS X.


RE: Dual-Boot? No Thanks - VirtualPC Please
By MrSmurf on 1/26/2006 10:30:37 AM , Rating: 2
Are Macs compatible with Window's file format?


RE: Dual-Boot? No Thanks - VirtualPC Please
By rcc on 1/26/2006 11:51:19 AM , Rating: 2
Macs have been reading the Windows/DOS file formats in one form or another since the 80's.


RE: Dual-Boot? No Thanks - VirtualPC Please
By mindless1 on 1/28/2006 11:08:50 PM , Rating: 2
SO the answer is really, "usually no"?

Who is running DOS? Typical PC has NTFS and subsequent Windows will have ever-evolving filesystems.


RE: Dual-Boot? No Thanks - VirtualPC Please
By kelmon on 1/29/2006 2:05:12 PM , Rating: 2
I think you mis-interpreted the answer. I have never had a problem connecting to Windows PCs or reading files stored on the computer (NTFS or FAT32). However, I do believe (and I could be mistaken here) that the Mac cannot natively read NTFS in much the same way that Linux cannot. File sharing between a PC and Mac is achieved by SMB so I guess that SMB is acting as an interpreter.


By oTAL (blog) on 1/29/2006 10:38:57 PM , Rating: 2
Yes - Samba does it. But that can be achieved if you use virtualization. Set up a Samba server on one end and connect to you own PC from OSX. Extremelly easy :).
*Argh* Can't wait for virtualization... when will the A64 get Pacifica? I'd probably get one if they were for sale...


EFI and TPM
By gamara on 1/26/2006 1:10:05 PM , Rating: 2
The TPM use is to keep the OS from being installed on a regular PC, not to prevent XP from installing on the MAC. OSX looks for the TPM protection to keep itself from going onto your PC. If you get a build that works on a regular PC, it was from one of the DevKit machines that did not have EFI and TPM worked out yet.

I agree that Dual Boot would have limited use. I disagree that Jobs is Satan, he's only a lesser demon. Gates is the Devil. ;)

One last. MacBook $1999 with 1.67Ghz Duo and 512MB Ram, Mobile Radeon x1600, and 15.4" monitor. Inspiron E1705 with 1.83 Duo and 1GB Ram, go7800, and 17" UXGA panel is 2107.(Standard 17" XGA panel and it is 1995)
As close as you can get Apple to Dell comparison. Apple's 1.83 Duo with 1GB is 2500.




RE: EFI and TPM
By Questar on 1/26/2006 2:25:03 PM , Rating: 2
Add a pretty dang good camera to the Dell. Add optical audio outputs. Add dual link DVI. Add Gb Ethernet. Add Bluetooth.

Yes, the Mac is cheaper.


RE: EFI and TPM
By bob661 on 1/26/2006 3:10:16 PM , Rating: 2
You can't really compare a 7800go to a X1600. Not the same price or performance range.


RE: EFI and TPM
By knightspawn1138 on 1/26/2006 4:07:55 PM , Rating: 2
I think that was the point - Same price, but more bang for the buck on the Dell.

And anyway, when it comes to games, it's not only the FPS that gets the short end of the stick - there are lots of other gaming genres that never make it to the mac for months or years after they've become old news on the PC. RTS, MMO, RPG, adventure games, flight sims, driving games, sports titles. About the only thing that the Mac does get at the same time as the PC is flash-based web-games. And even then, the Mac is limited because it can't run some of the more advanced web-based games that require ActiveX. And until Apple had a dual-core G5, my old P2 300Mhz could run circles around the Mac's Java performance. Seriously, anything older than a G5 would run Java, Flash, and anything using Shockwave at about half the speed of my 10-yr old P2. And my P2 (I'm proud to say) is running Windows 2000, something with just as much (if not more) overhead than Mac OSX.


RE: EFI and TPM
By Snuffalufagus on 1/26/2006 5:28:47 PM , Rating: 2
"running Windows 2000, something with just as much (if not more) overhead than Mac OSX"


How do you figure that?


efi
By DigitalDivine on 1/26/2006 1:58:23 AM , Rating: 3
i've worked with EFI before on test development motherboards and we were able to boot windows server 2003 and redhat just fine with it. perhaps apple enabled the TPM protection now found present in all current intel motherboards, and not EFI.

*apple sucks... and steve jobs is the devil, all the man does is lie.




RE: efi
By DigitalDivine on 1/26/2006 1:59:38 AM , Rating: 2
>>and not EFI.

i meant to expand that to "and maybe the problem is not efi"


RE: efi
By ninjit on 1/26/2006 2:59:01 AM , Rating: 2
Yeh, people wondered about that, but Apple has apaprently publicly stated they would be enabling TPM protection to lock their machines to OSX.

From what I've read, the EFI specification also describes a regular BIOS emulation layer to allow older OSes to still be installed and function properly on EFI systems.

So if they aren't lying about TPM usage, then maybe the emulation system hasn't been implemented?


RE: efi
By Questar on 1/26/2006 2:14:01 PM , Rating: 2
Correct, the Emulation layer is optional.


ok listen
By DIGI V on 1/30/2006 1:54:05 AM , Rating: 2
i've been a mac user since early 90's.

i find it increasingly annoying listening to analysts, windows uers, blabbers who think apple and mainly steve jobs should get on their knees and lick every stock holders butt.

sorry , i dont think steve has this in mind. the mac community strives on secure, high quality products. people use a mac for OSX so dont forget that. yes it would be nice to get every program you need to run on the machine but sometimes you cant.

for me i am willing to give that up for what i get in return. apples target market is not that of windows and microsofts, understand?

would they like their computer share to increase? sure. are they going to do this at the expense of their already loyal user base? i hope not, and so far it doesn't look to be so.


so enough about expanding. personally the hell if any of you cross over or not. i rather keep everyone out and enjoy my experience with apple since it got back on the ball.

does anyone know what damage could be done if the windows was ran on macs? i'm not sure anyone does yet. so to be safe i'll keep it off my machine.


apple shoudl do things to better their market but only within the limits of keeping it a mac product.




RE: ok listen
By kelmon on 1/30/2006 3:03:20 AM , Rating: 2
This, I have to note, is an important point. The Apple community is, by and large, really quite happy with life at the moment regardless of whether Windows has a 99.9% market share. Seriously, we don't care. We have our over-priced hardware that just keeps on ticking, a bullet-proof OS and lot of really great software that suites our purposes down to the ground. Sure, we don't get all the newest games, but frankly, who really cares?

If people want to switch, then that's great but no one is being forced to and at least we have a choice.

I have to note, however, that for software development purposes, being able to run all major operating systems on a single computer would be damned useful but, as noted, the actual impact of having Windows on Apple hardware is currently unknown.


This is why Apple always fails
By BenSkywalker on 1/30/2006 9:45:34 AM , Rating: 1
Apple spends too much effort focusing on *their* users instead of their *potential* users. Noone is saying Apple should take the slightest little bit away from any of their faithful- but by refusing to give the slightest little thing they have told hundreds of millions of users to go screw off. Memo to Steve- MOST people LIKE Windows. They MAY end up liking OSX BETTER but because of your half witted bumbling they aren't going to find out too soon.


RE: ok listen
By ninjit on 1/30/2006 8:07:55 PM , Rating: 2
The thing is with the switch to intel, there is nothing "Apple" about the hardware anymore, besides case design.

They use an intel CPU, with an intel chipset, and ATI gpus? and who knows what for memory/DVD-drives/Hard drives (Toshiba, Samsung, Hitachi??)

Hardware-wise there is NOTHING seperating the new core-duo macs from the new core-duo PCs.

That said, the fact that no one can get Windows XP to work on the new macs is no fault of Apple's. They are using the latest/greatest hardware (again, from intel) which windows XP doesn't support.

If anything, they didn't implement the BIOS emulation layer of EFI which would have made it easy to install Windows XP. But that's silly, EFI now makes the whole computer legacy free (which is great).
So saying that Apple should implement the BIOS part of EFI so that someone MAY install windows XP, is like telling them to include parallel ports because someone MAY want to use an old dot-matrix printer.
If you really really need a parallel port, you can get breakout USB boxes that provide that connection. Similarly someone will eventually get windows to work on the new macs, for those who really really want it - either simply through Vista supporting EFI directly, or with some hacker rewriting the mac EFI code to let windows XP run on it.

Sure it would have been nice to see windows running on the Mac hardware right-off the bat, but we're just going to have to wait.


RE: ok listen
By ub3rnewb on 1/31/2006 5:49:29 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I have quite a few printers using a parallel port, as I'm sure many others do. A networked All-In-One is my main printer, but the others have their uses - it doesn't take a USB port to print a Word document.


Has anybody heard of Wine?
By dragonopolis on 1/26/2006 4:21:37 PM , Rating: 3
Here is the first paragraph from their introduction page at: www.winehq.com

Wine is a translation layer (a program loader) capable of running Windows applications on Linux and other POSIX compatible operating systems. Windows programs running in Wine act as native programs would, running without the performance or memory usage penalties of an emulator, with a similar look and feel to other applications on your desktop.

One of the major issues that winehq has stated in the past as to why they have not created an Apple osx flavor is that it would require emulation since the Apple *ix flavor ran on a totally different cpu architecture. Emulation is not the goal of wine developement and never will be. They have not disapproved of other projects that would like to use the code in a emulator to improve performance(in theory) and the open-darwin project was supposedly attempting such a feat the last time I check( that news was really old news and not sure whatever came of it) That said, now that Apple has moved over to the same cpu architecture that wine was built for there really is no excuse not too. I think the winehq guys would have heavily advertise their desire to get the code ported to OSX now that Apple has made the move to the Intel CPU. However, I have yet to see any endeavors to do so. That is the one thing I really don't like about Linux crowd is their bias toward other unix or posix systems. I was shock when they release a freeBSD version. If they can do it for them they can do it for us Mac fanatics. I am suprise at all the comments I see from the Mac community that nobody has even metioned wine or asked if the question. When? My conclusion is that this lack of interest comes from a lack of knowledge from both the winehq and the mac community in general. If winehq isn't knock on our door's then perhaps once the mac community is educated about this project - we should be banging on their doors. If a wine developer just happens to read this - just a thought -

Apple consumers are consumers who are willing to pay for convience which is contrary to the linux way of thinking. Currently the best implementation of your code has come from commercial products such as Codeweavers and Cedega who, in my opinion, would make a heck of alot of money in an Apple market than in a linux or freeBSD market. As far as to why Apple for the Wine project itself, Mac consumers are more about finding alternative solutions to run propriety software and if they can't find it, will pay top dollars to get it even if it means a reduction in performance (i.e emulation software ) Linux and other Free Posix users are about finding FREE alternatives to REPLACE propriety software with an open source alternative and usually will circumvent the law (yeah you know who you are) and run quicktime in mplayer or a dvd movie using libdvdcss rather than run wine with the closed source version of quicktime or any windows capatible media player for a dvd movie which would be more legal. My point is that the mac community would be more supportive I feel than the Linux community who's only real fuel for this project is win32 games. Mac community also gave up alot of software choices in favor of a better and more secure GUI experience and porting wine over to MacIntel .... what's that old religious phrase... ah .... A match made in Heaven.




RE: Has anybody heard of Wine?
By IdntUnknwn on 1/27/2006 1:43:49 AM , Rating: 3
I created an account just to reply to you.

http://darwine.opendarwin.org//


RE: Has anybody heard of Wine?
By IdntUnknwn on 1/27/2006 1:46:04 AM , Rating: 2
My conclusion is that you shouldn't jump to conclusions.


...
By nwrigley on 1/26/2006 1:53:58 AM , Rating: 2
It's ridiculous that they don't make dual-boot of Windows and Mac OS easy. What's the point of switching to Intel if you don't expect this to be one of the main selling points? I know that I personally will not be interested in purcashing a Mac until I can run Windows on it.




RE: ...
By SNM on 1/26/2006 2:19:15 AM , Rating: 2
There are a lot of analysts who believe that if running Windows were supported by Apple, OS X would simply die because nobody would update their apps for it anymore. And that would suck for Apple.


RE: ...
By OCedHrt on 1/26/2006 5:31:33 AM , Rating: 3
I'm more under the impression that people buy MACs for OS X, not for the hardware.


Morons
By Zebo on 1/26/2006 3:22:19 AM , Rating: 3
So they think people are going to pay twice the price as a Dell Duo and it can't even run Dual OS's? Well they prolly will pay it since there's some pretty stupid people out there. But just think how many xtra they would have sold had it supported both OSX and XP.




RE: Morons
By kelmon on 1/26/2006 3:57:58 AM , Rating: 2
Have paid, will pay again, and have no intention of going back. I have a Dell at work and there is no chance in hell that I'd spend my own money on one. I'm quite happy to pay more for less hassles and my aging PowerBook has repaid the investment many times over. Price is not a primary consideration if you spend much of your waking life using a computer - features, software and reliability are.


tHEY HAVE IT BACKWARDS, PERHAPS?
By Xenoterranos on 1/26/2006 1:35:07 AM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't it be easier to mod OsX to run on any X86 hardware. Get some drivers written and what not. Seems like a better idea than hacking up the hardware in irreversable ways. After that, you're just a case-mod away from having a WinMac!




Lies and misinformation
By godfetish on 1/29/2006 4:27:00 AM , Rating: 3
This was not Apple's doing. It's part of the new chipset, and anyone purchasing a newer Intel motherboard will have the same problem eventually. Intel is moving to EFI instead of BIOS, just like BTX cases, PCIe gfx, and so on. In fact, EFI was not even made for Apple, it has been around running Itanium chips for a while, and some OSes do support it. I'm not sure about Windows server editions, but I suspect they do. The writer should have checked out some facts before before trying to start a Windows vs OSX flamefest, when it was Intel that did the changing, it was just Apple who adapted first because they got the DUO capable chipsets first. Don't worry though, your motherboard manufacturer will provide boards with both EFI and BIOS chipsets until things switch over - I've heard some are already out there.




Gateway
By kalaap on 1/26/2006 11:06:34 AM , Rating: 2
I read somewhere that gateway already has a version of WinXP that runs on EFI.




Why Do This?
By Criminey on 1/27/2006 10:16:49 AM , Rating: 2
I love both platforms. There I said it.

I need to sometimes use database and backend tools for writing apps and server side tech. I wouldn't fool around with anything other than .net, erwin, devcenter, MSProject and other PC only tools.

I need to sometimes be creative and create images, music, and video and motion graphics. The software might exist on both platforms but the critical mass of creative professionals use macs and the suppor, add ons, plugins, fonts, brushes, filters and every conceivable additional resource beyond the software itself exists on the macs not PCs because of it.

To have one piece of hardware that ran all software I needed to get through a single day would be a godsend- For those who say why not have two computers and a KVM switch, i ask why have two pieces of hardware at twice the cost with twice the number of cables and peripherals or at best multple port splitters and KVM switches when you can simply have a single computer capable of doing everything? Answer is pretty simple to me and it IS why so many people are bent on completing this task and that is...

One piece of hardware, capable of running all modern operating systems running all the software solutions available equals absolute computing power period. No one but the truly ignorant would argue against this logic.




XP on Mac
By RonjoI on 2/2/2006 9:43:41 AM , Rating: 2
What I would really like to see is Mac os on my Dou Core Gateway. No offence to Bill and co. but_ _ _. I have never gone to Linux but I have always chaffed under the yoke of Windows. I loved my Amiga way back in the day and have never given up hope for a robust challange to Windows. My perceptions has alway been that Microsoft wants to be biggest not best. So my hope is that Apple going to Intel may make it possible to dual boot my new (insert company name) with a tested and suported OS tiger.




EFI vs BIOS
By Jacek845 on 2/7/2006 3:17:49 PM , Rating: 2
I think that EFI is the reason macs boot so quickly. This being said, the reason is that EFI doesnt initialize gardware in the same way that BIOS does. If noone has gotten the $6000 prize yet, here is how to do it. I lack the experience at the BIOS level. What you need is a piece of software to run as soon as the computer is turned on. Then you get to select - OSX or Windows. If the user selects OSX - normal boot is resumed. For Windows, another program is run, which makes the windows OS think that there is a BIOS present and that all of the device drivers are loaded. This is a bitch because every motherboard has a different hardware config when it comes to BIOS. But since apple uses a similar, if not hte same chipset in the currently available Intel DUO's, it should be feasible. So you mimic the BIOS and then the computer couldnt care less whether it is a PC or a Mac. I think Jobs may have done that on purpose. He is running out of them, so he has to save up his "one more thing" ammunition.




"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki