Slashdot Log In
WinXP on a Mac, Hoax?
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Mar 14, 2006 10:09 AM
from the could-be dept.
from the could-be dept.
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?
Related Stories
[+]
Slashback: Real-ID, PriceRitePhoto, RIM 75 comments
Slashback tonight brings some corrections, clarifications, and updates to previous Slashdot stories, including a possible iBill framejob, the first steps towards defying the Real ID act, Peter Quinn continues his support for Open Source, Judge flunks lawsuit against spammers, WinXP on a Mac, round 2, Juniper drops message board suit, Vint Cerf answers questions on TLDs, PriceRitePhoto gets relisted, and RIM goes on the offensive for patent reform -- Read on for details.
[+]
Windows XP on Intel Mac Confirmed 627 comments
niemassacre writes "According to winxponmac.com, the contest has been won - nearly $14k to narf2006 for submitting a working solution to dual-booting Windows XP and Mac OS X on an Intel-Powered mac. A thread on osx86project.org has confirmations from several testers that the procedure works on the 17" iMac, the Mac mini, and the MacBook Pro. Many sets of pictures and videos (such as this installation video) are floating around (and mentioned in the thread). The solution itself should be posted soon." Poit! Congratulations to narf.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Explain how? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://scott.saskatoon.com/)
Re:Explain how? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.cookingwiththewarchef.com/ | Last Journal: Friday February 04 2005, @03:24PM)
Re:Explain how? (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.bradvrooman.com/)
Or such is my understanding, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Re:Explain the fricken 12,000 bucks for this... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Explain the fricken 12,000 bucks for this... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.example.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday October 15 2002, @12:42PM)
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?
Re:Explain the fricken 12,000 bucks for this... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.riddledtv.com/)
Microsoft
Re:Explain the fricken 12,000 bucks for this... (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://blog.thebarproject.com/ | Last Journal: Friday April 21 2006, @10:16AM)
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...
Re:Explain the fricken 12,000 bucks for this... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.uswx.com/us/wx/)
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
Re: they never said it would be impossible (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [com.com]
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."
Even if this one isn't real... (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://das.doit.wisc.edu/)
It appears that Amit Singh of IBM Almaden Research Center [ibm.com], of kernelthread.com [kernelthread.com] and author of Mac OS X Internals [osxbook.com], has devised a method to allow legacy, or BIOS-based, booting on Intel-based Macs [osxbook.com], 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 [apcmag.com]), will now be able to run on Intel-based Macs without modification (and completely legally). There is also another solution from "narf2006", described here [arstechnica.com] and shown in this flickr set of photos [flickr.com]. narf2006's solution is awaiting verification by Colin for the $12,000 pot [onmac.net]. Time to get that MacBook Pro [apple.com] 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 [vmware.com] or Parallels [parallels.com], 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...
Re:Even if this one isn't real... (Score:4, Insightful)
Running Windows in a VM would be perfect for checking out websites during development.
Re:Even if this one isn't real... (Score:4, Informative)
(Last Journal: Tuesday June 06 2006, @01:50PM)
Re:Even if this one isn't real... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm an example of somebody who would want precisely that capability. I have a Mac and various Wintel PCs, and use the Mac for everything except my work (which currently revolves around Windows programming) and some occasional gaming. Being a programming contractor means that I need to travel a fair bit, and my old Windows laptop is showing signs of age, so I'll be in the market for a new one during the next few months. Practicality would appear to dictate another Windows-based machine, but I'd prefer an Apple with OS X otherwise, and could actually justify buying one if I could do my Windows development work on it.
Re:Even if this one isn't real... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.xmilk.com/)
Is it Real or fake?? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.digiraticonsulting.com/)
Re:Is it Real or fake?? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Is it Real or fake?? (Score:5, Funny)
If I sorted the bits (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://heelix.multiply.com/journal | Last Journal: Wednesday October 03, @04:41PM)
Re:If I sorted the bits (Score:4, Informative)
(http://limulus.net/)
Actually, part of the contest rules was that you had to be the first to post the instructions to the onmac.net forums. For the sake of transparency, it's a good idea.
Verification? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.laskjdfghlfkajgneruykvjniour.com/)
Why is this so difficult?
Re:Verification? (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe interesting as an exercise... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Maybe interesting as an exercise... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.rieppi.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday December 13 2006, @07:16PM)
Q [kberg.ch], an emulator based on QEMU [qemu.org] is already working on MacIntels. From their News [kberg.ch] page : As I understand it, virtualization IS planned in Q, and is already a reality in QEMU, albeit it is a closed-source add-on.
Re:Maybe interesting as an exercise... (Score:4, Insightful)
The best way of comparing has always been to benchmark the particular job you have in mind, an then to remember that generalizations are not really valid.
Anyone who tells you different is trying to sell you a bridge.
Re:Maybe interesting as an exercise... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Benchmarking isn't rocket science (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.whiteboxlinux.org/)
> 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.
I thought Apple didn't care ? (Score:2)
(http://dr-tools.sourceforge.net/ | Last Journal: Tuesday January 23 2007, @10:27AM)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not dismissing the performance but the "succeeded at the impossible" from the blurb just doesn't sound "accurate" to me. It should be more difficult to run Intel MacOS X on a PC box than the opposite.
Virtual PC!! (Score:1, Redundant)
While I'm on a rant... Is there some unwritten rule that says all pictures of things somewhat exciting must be taken at VGA quality on a cell phone?
Vice Versa (Score:2, Insightful)
(http://www.zembek.net/)
Old news (Score:1, Funny)
(http://karlsbakk.net/)
It's not hard to hoax (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://deadhobosociety.com/)
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.
640x480 (Score:3, Informative)
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. "
People who are far more likely to succeed... (Score:2, Informative)
What next? (Score:1)
(http://www.shoutcentral.com/)
And here's the picture confirming ... (Score:5, Funny)
SCNR
Another Case of Poor Slashdot Journalism (Score:2, Insightful)
OK, I just don't get it.. (Score:2)
(http://slashdot.org/)
It seems pretty damn apparent that people want a dual boot Windows/Mac... There's demand there, but no company wants to risk it because it might affect other portions of their business. Oh well, baby steps I guess.
Re:OK, I just don't get it.. (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://forkforge.org/)
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.
XP on Mac works in apples favour? (Score:3, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Thursday November 13 2003, @08:39PM)
Windows on mac WHAT?? (Score:1, Interesting)
A real fix, emulate BIOS to run XP an non-EFI unix (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://bitsofnews.com/)
No, what we really want is... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Windows XP on a mac? (Score:2, Funny)
Fake... Next question (Score:3, Interesting)
What about Solaris x86 (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Wednesday October 19 2005, @10:05AM)
Is this really a first? (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://www.markdnet.demon.co.uk/ | Last Journal: Saturday April 01 2006, @05:13AM)
You guys are lame (Score:1, Informative)
All of you leachers calling this a hoax are super lame. Instead of wasting Internet bandwidth with stupid comments on Slashdot, try downloading Intel's EFI starter kit, and implement yourself. You don't even need a Mac, except to polish off the EFI boot environment; you can develop the entire BIOS emulation without a Mac.
I've been implementing a BIOS compatibility layer, and those photos are definitely legitimate; they show BIOS call traces.
I hope that he sells his solution. People making comments like this don't deserve the gracious effort of others.
Photoshopped!.... (Score:1, Interesting)
(http://www.epithna.com/)
Hypothesis (Score:3, Funny)
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."
This is all well and good... (Score:4, Insightful)
I installed XP on my mac... (Score:4, Funny)
"His reputation on the forums" (Score:3, Funny)
(http://thesoftworld.com/cory/)
A simple question (Score:1, Redundant)
3D Screenshot (Score:2, Interesting)
(http://www.nuclearelephant.com/)
Prize revoked? (Score:2)
(http://www.readingfordummies.com/blog/ | Last Journal: Thursday November 21 2002, @05:10PM)
What a sad state of affairs (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Can't wait! (Score:2, Interesting)
Yup, can't wait!
Someone explain this (Score:1)
Why? (Score:1)
(http://longship.net/)
Just Curious... (Score:1, Offtopic)
(http://www.coyotegulch.com/)
Once again, the veracity of digital images is in question under the term "Photoshopping."
Notice how no one says "GIMPing" or "GIMPed pictures"? Has Adobe's product become so ubiquitous that it is in danger of loosing its trademark status?
That's like... (Score:3, Funny)
(http://portal2portal.com/ | Last Journal: Monday June 04, @08:46PM)
like buying a BMW and filling up at ARCO.
like renting out a Mansion for your cats.
Who cares about dual-booting? (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://frobnosticate.com/ | Last Journal: Friday October 26 2001, @10:05AM)
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.
See how easy it is to fake it? (Score:1)
He hasn't taken a screen shot of the Device Manager to show us how the hardware components appear.
Not to be dismissive, but it would be nice to see more proof. I know there are screen shots with the installation appearing to occur with some feedback in an EFI shell, but that doesn't mean it actually finished. He could have had the installation appear, but used Virtual PC on a PowerPC iMac G5 to make it appear as if it finished.
Without posting or responding to messages about how he has done this or when he will give more details about the CSM that he programmed, it makes people more skeptical.
I mean, I could just do something similar like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/superrcat/sets/72057
Video of Windows install on imac (Score:2, Informative)
(http://www.midwinter.org.uk/)
Screenshot here [imageshack.us]
Video available here [nyud.net]
Video for the masses (Score:1)
Looks legit now... (Score:1)
update from colin and narf2006 (Score:3, Informative)
(http://umich.edu/~jamec | Last Journal: Monday November 12, @06:28PM)
According to Intel documentation [intel.com], 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.
Re:I'd vote fake... (Score:1)
Re:obivous! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Let's ruin a mac (Score:2, Interesting)
You Sir, are why I don't hate Macs just Mac Users....
Re:I'd vote fake... (Score:1)
Re:I'd vote fake... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:In Soviet Russia... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:In Soviet Russia... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/~tpgp)
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.
Re:In Soviet Russia... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:This looks to be...... (Score:1)
(Last Journal: Tuesday October 04 2005, @09:13PM)
Re:This looks to be...... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
This shot in particular (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://takeyourofficeanywhere.com/)
Re:This shot in particular (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.swaxhog.com/)
Re:get a life people..... (Score:2, Interesting)
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 have a life (Score:3, Funny)
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).
Re:obivous! (Score:1)
(http://www.embege.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday December 08 2005, @03:50PM)
Re:What I don't get... (Score:2)
(http://www.kabong.ca/)
Sure, I have Virtual PC, but it's dog slow even on a Dual G5. Even getting Windows or just IE to operate at 1/3 of the true processor speed would be welcome.
Re:get a life people..... (Score:2)
Re:obivous! (Score:2)
It's an iMac! (Score:2)
(http://www.dreamhost.com/r.cgi?objekt)
Re:What I don't get... (Score:2)
How about, coming up with a better argument? That's the question I'm asking. I would like to hear a different argument to why dual-booting on an Intel Mac is a worthwhile effort for me to engage in on a rather expensive piece of hardware. I own an Intel Mac. I bought it because Windows sucks, and frankly, so does Linux for my needs. If someone told me that, by running Windows on Apple Intel-based hardware, my OS environment would be secure, run faster, and instantly provide me with features that Mac OSX already does (Spotlight search, for instance) then yeah, maybe I'd be interested in fuddling around with my $2000+ computer. But considering how unlikely that is, I'll continue to tinker with one of my other 4 Windows boxes that cost far less.
My final question is: why on god's green earth is someone willing to pay $12,000 to get someone to make it work? Is it like some sort of bet that was wagered? "I'll bet you $12,000 you can't do it." Why is the dual-booting of Windows and Mac OSX so important to someone that they'd be willing to pay that much? You can't even use them both at the same time. Dual-boot does not mean "boot and run simultaneously." Again, I'm taken back to: why not use two separate machines at the same time? Mac OS on an Apple machine, and Windows OS on some other box. I do it just fine with my machines.
Hopefully someone with sense will read this because obviously I'm wasting my time speaking to an AC. This is my question(s) to Slashdot.
Re:obivous! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.werizit.com/)
OSX boots on PC. Win boots on PC. OSX boots on Mac. Should not Win boot on Mac?
Re:obivous! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Of course it's a fake (Score:3, Funny)
Re:In Soviet Russia... (Score:1)
FlashFXP.
Re:What I don't get... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:What I don't get... (Score:1)
Re:What I don't get... (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.sdonag.plus.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday June 07 2006, @04:05AM)
Re:What I don't get... (Score:1)
(http://12.183.160.165/~ccfreak2k/index.html | Last Journal: Tuesday October 03 2006, @12:11PM)
Re:What I don't get... (Score:1)