Slashdot Log In
Intel Macs May Boot Windows XP After All
Posted by
Hemos
on Mon Jan 16, 2006 01:19 PM
from the the-two-shall-meet dept.
from the the-two-shall-meet dept.
mister_tim writes "While we'll have to wait till someone actually tries it to get absolute confirmation, news coming from Intel in Australia, reported here by Dan Warne in the Australian Personal Computer magazine, is that the new Intel-based Macs may be able to load and boot Windows XP after all. Several of the early stories after the announcement of the MacBook Pro and the Intel-based iMac assumed that Windows XP would not boot on Intel Macs, since XP doesn't support EFI (replacing BIOS in the new Macs), and Apple's statement that they wouldn't prevent the use of XP on Apple hardware didn't really give people much assurance either way. This statement from Intel implies that there is really no issue."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Intel Macs May Boot Windows XP After All
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 486 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Just wait a couple of days! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://tsfraser.googlepages.com/index.html)
Re:Place your bets please! Linux or Windows? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Place your bets please! Linux or Windows? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Wake me up when I can run BSD on one of these new macs.
Re:Place your bets please! Linux or Windows? (Score:4, Insightful)
I was going to mod this "funny", but then I wasn't sure.
You know that the underlying base of Mac OS X is BSD, right?
A friend once said "the net is large enough that somebody won't get the joke". Therefore, always use a smiley when you're telling a joke. :-)
Re:Place your bets please! Linux or Windows? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Place your bets please! Linux or Windows? (Score:5, Informative)
Mac OS X has three distinct personalities at the kernel level: Mach, BSD, and the I/O Kit. All three live in the same address space. You can communicate with all three from user space (no wrapping involved), and BSD does substantially more than providing interfaces to Mach. The BSD portion provides interfaces to the I/O Kit, the networking core, the filesystem core, various IPC mechanisms... probably other stuff I'm not thinking about right now.
Mach pretty much provides a scheduler, some IPC mechanisms, and a VM system. Out of those, last time I checked, FreeBSD uses Mach VM, and IIRC, NetBSD contains (or at least was working on) an implementation of Mach IPC. :-)
It's fair to say that the core of Mac OS X is BSD, IMHO. It's a stretch to say that the core is a particular implementation of BSD (other than Darwin), but it definitely has a BSD flavor on the whole, IMHO.
Re:Place your bets please! Linux or Windows? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://honeypot.net/ | Last Journal: Friday April 07 2006, @09:33AM)
Poor Willy. For want of an emoticon, Shakespeare's works were lost. If only he could have written:
Just think of the treasures we've discarded because humans can't recognize irony or humor!
Re:Just wait a couple of days! (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.demaagd.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday October 27 2002, @06:53PM)
Supposedly that was already done ten years ago for some Macs, when there was a PPC port of Windows NT.
Re:Just wait a couple of days! (Score:5, Informative)
(http://das.doit.wisc.edu/)
Yes, I've got one of those boxes in my office (the one on the far left, next to my 128K Mac and NeXT Cube [wisc.edu]). And indeed, it could run Windows NT for PowerPC. It was a Motorola Viper, a prototype of one of the Mac "clones", and was to be the first shipping Common Hardware Reference Platform (CHRP) [wikipedia.org] machine. In theory, it could run Mac OS, Linux, AIX, Solaris, NetWare, and Windows NT. For various reasons, Solaris and NetWare on PowerPC were killed, as was Windows, eventually. Apple killed cloning (for Motorola's part, Apple bought back their Mac OS license for $100M), and the CHRP machines - or the first clone with the G3, the Motorola StarMax 6000 [everymac.com] - never shipped.
Re:I hereby award you... (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.angelfire...epublican/index.blog | Last Journal: Thursday July 27 2006, @12:00AM)
LK
Re:Just wait a couple of days! (Score:4, Interesting)
More technically, it was implemented by way of a daughter board plugged into the 68040's CPU socket. On there was the actual 68LC040 (which I swapped for a real 68040) and the 486. There was a separate pair of SIMM sockets for the PC side of things; it had it's own RAM and didn't share the Macintosh's. There were runner ribbon cables that ran the audio over to the Macintosh's audio input plug (shared with, and mutually exclusive with, the Macintosh A/V card), as well as an output for midi/joysticks. All in all it wasn't a bad system, might have been cool if Apple had kept it up longer and perhaps allowed an intermixed interface with a Windows running on the system.
Re:Just wait a couple of days! (Score:5, Interesting)
Mine came this morning . . . (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.wavenger.com/)
. . . so I can let you know later tonight:). I don't really have any interest in dual-booting per se, but I feel like it's my obligation as a geek.
Got delivered at about 9:00. I only had a half an hour or so to play with it before I drove to work. I'm currently trying to convert my mother, so I set it up at her place so she could play with it today. Thoughts: Just as snappy as the G5's. Much better than my laptop. My only complaint is the mighty mouse - apparently it uses inductance to determine where your finger is, and normally I have my fingers constantly resting on either side. I only played with Safari, Photo Booth, and the MS Word trial, and I opened up system information to make sure it was the right iMac, of course.
And now that I think about it, I guess Word was running on Rosetta. Holy shit! I didn't even notice.
Re:Mine came this morning . . . (Score:5, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/~tf23/journal | Last Journal: Saturday October 27, @05:48PM)
Some clarification (Score:5, Informative)
(http://das.doit.wisc.edu/)
However, Intel Australia, while being careful not to comment on Apple's hardware specifically, says motherboards based on the Intel 945 chipset already support EFI and can boot Windows with no problems.
This cryptic statement can't be taken as full reassurance though: it may be that 945 boards support EFI but do not come with it installed by default.
[...]
"For IA 32 systems, the Framework loads itself above the 1MB real-mode memory boundary to accommodate an optional Compatibility Support Module (CSM). CSM implementations can be tailored to platform requirements. A typical CSM is approximately 60KB (~38KB compressed) of firmware that is specific to each Participating Vendor and is based on that Vendor's latest BIOS code base. A contemporary implementation of the Framework on a PC includes a CSM for supplying services to operating systems that do not boot using EFI and for supporting legacy option ROMs on add-in cards. For legacy boot the Framework initialises the platform's silicon and executes EFI drivers. Then control is transferred to the CSM, which supports the legacy OS boot."
So, as long as Apple has included a Compatibility Support Module, Intel-based Macs should be able to boot XP.
It seems unlikely that Apple would have left this out. It has already said it isn't doing anything to prevent Windows from booting on a Mac.
Yes, it's true that EFI has BIOS backward compatibility layer, but it is optional for the vendor to use and provide this. And Apple has no need for legacy BIOS support.
Some further discussion of the general topic of windows booting can be found here: Will an Intel-based Mac run Windows? [appleintelfaq.com]
The more interesting possibility for many users will not be directly booting or dual-booting Windows XP, but rather running Windows XP at essentially the full speed of the underlying hardware in a virtual machine, right alongside Mac OS X. Sure, for some game and direct hardware access applications, you would want to - or you may have to - boot Windows directly. But for the vast majority of access to Windows productivity and/or other software not available on Mac OS X, running Windows alongside Mac OS X is likely more desirable than dual-booting anyway.
As has been noted, however, it is indeed extremely likely that Windows Vista will directly boot on Intel-based Macs with EFI.
Re:Some clarification (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.msgeek.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday August 23 2005, @08:30PM)
This is actually the absolute best possible scenario for running Windows on a MacIntel. The untrusted OS (Windows XP) would run sandboxed in a virtual machine. It would get access to the internet and to hardware, but not "bare metal" access. It would all be mediated through Mac OS X and the virtual machine technology. It would have a "C drive" that is basically a file on the Mac OS X filesystem. And most importantly it would not get root access on the machine. At all. Do you see how this would be a better scenario than dual-booting?
Intel has been working on virtualization technologies for years. The new Yonah/Core chips have that capability. Apple went Intel at the right time.
Re:Some clarification (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.nodomain.org/)
Once these technologies are available on the desktop the PC will IMO have come of age - able to do what the minicomputers and mainframes were doing 10 years ago, but at an affordable price.
Does anyone think these articles are nuts? (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.unanimocracy.com/about.html | Last Journal: Tuesday April 04 2006, @12:04PM)
Only on slashdot do I honestly think we'll see people buying $1000 worth of Apple Intel hardware for $2000, and put XP on it. OK, so dual booting might have SOME value to certain people. Doesn't anyone feel we'll see better Windows emulation on the Mac OS if there is an Intel processor to fall back on?
Other than that, what is the point of running XP on a Mac/Intel box? To be cool?
Re:Does anyone think these articles are nuts? (Score:5, Insightful)
The second main reason would be gaming, and simply so one could run popular Windows applications.
Where is this cheaper Intel hardware? (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Tuesday October 29 2002, @10:47AM)
No they aren't. They switched processors but are keeping the same prices.
"New Intel iMac: Same models 17 and 20, same prices"
Re:Where is this cheaper Intel hardware? (Score:5, Informative)
But on the other hand, the new Intel-based models have much higher performance than the last PPC models.
On the other other hand, the last PPC models were logging behind Moore's Law as it was, due to market conditions.
On the fourth hand, Apple has probably reduced the COST of a Mac computer, if not the price.
Okay, I'm out of hands.
Re:Does anyone think these articles are nuts? (Score:5, Informative)
Individuals would love to be able to play any windows-only game without having to shell out an additional $1000 for a gaming rig.
Work-stuff is more likely to be covered by a vmware-like os-inside-an-os solution, but it could still be handy to boot natively into XP for some work-related activities.
Basically, you'd dual-boot OS X with Windows for the same reasons you'd dual-boot Linux and Windows. It's just that OS X windows aren't quite as hardcore in their geekiness as the Linux dual-booters.
Of course for those of us who use all three OSes regularly, the ability for one box to run all of them is a bit of a dream come true.
Re:Does anyone think these articles are nuts? (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://tumbleweed.smugmug.com/)
Re:Does anyone think these articles are nuts? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://bitkari.com/)
So that we can play CounterStrike.
Not nuts -- hackers (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://picknit.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday July 29 2006, @03:58PM)
Every time we get a story of the form "I hacked A to run on B" or "I hacked C to do E", somebody always asks whether it wouldn't be more cost effective to buy something off-the-shelf. The answer is almost always "yes". Even if the hacker is saving money on hardware, he's expending a lot of his well-paid time. But that just doesn't matter.
A good hack is pretty much an end in itself. It might satisfy the hacker's curiousity, or improve his professional skills. Or it might add some minor functionality that the hacker's geeky priorities can't live without. But these are all secondary goals. The big goal is a sense of accomplishment, of having done something special. Asking a hacker why he doesn't just buy an off-the-shelf solution is like asking a Marathon running why he doesn't just call a cab.
....aaaaand? (Score:4, Funny)
sure xp probably won't (Score:4, Funny)
(Last Journal: Tuesday May 30 2006, @09:10AM)
Is this a dupe? I can't tell anymore. (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly...on the 12th we had a story [slashdot.org] on whether of not the Intel Mac would run Windows...a story that said nothing more definite than 'perhaps'. And now, today we get another story with essentially the same message...nothing definite, just useless speculation.
Please don't post another story on this subject until a story surfaces about someone who's actually tried installing a Windows OS on an Intel mac, and can actually say something definite on the matter.
Corroboration of the findings by another party or three would be nice, too.
Oh, and this is the fourth Apple story today. Slow news day?
If so, then why is the story I submitted at 8:26 am EST still 'pending'?
mother of all articles (Score:5, Funny)
(http://thepreacher.cac2.net/)
well maybe not News...
But will it boot TRSDOS or CP/M? (Score:5, Funny)
I like my machines old school.
Real old.
Wish I had moderator points to mod this up to out of sight.
y'all
Dell is the only one who should be concerned