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This discussion has been archived.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)