Windows XP on Intel Mac Confirmed
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Mar 16, 2006 08:57 AM
from the what-do-you-want-to-do-tonight-pinky dept.
from the what-do-you-want-to-do-tonight-pinky dept.
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.
Related Stories
[+]
WinXP on a Mac, Hoax? 390 comments
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?
[+]
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.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Windows XP on Intel Mac Confirmed
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 627 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.
Cool. (Score:4, Funny)
Very possible (Score:4, Informative)
Wow (Score:5, Funny)
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The Good, the Bad, the Ugly, and the In Denial (Score:5, Funny)
The good, the bad, the ugly, and the OH GOD MAKE IT STOP!?
(And yes, I too leave matching the categories to the OS as an exercise to the reader...)
Re:The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.kompas-media.nl/)
Re:The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Score:5, Funny)
1984 (Score:4, Funny)
state. And today, that great body has purged itself of parasites.
We have triumphed over the unprincipled dissemination of facts.
The thugs and wreckers have been cast out and the poisonous
weeds of disinformation have been cosigned to the dustbin of
history. Let each and every cell rejoice! For today we
celebrate the first, glorious anniversary of the Information
Purification Directive.
We have created, for the first time in all history, a garden of
pure ideology, where each worker may bloom secure from the pests
of contradictory and confusing truths. Our unification of thought
is a more powerful weapon than any fleet or army on earth! We are
one people. With one will. One resolve. One cause. Our enemies
shall talk themselves to death, and we will bury them with their
own confusion. We shall prevail!
-- Big Brother, Apple's "1984" commercial
A lot more useful! Excellent! (Score:3, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Tuesday January 17 2006, @08:06PM)
Now all we need is for someone to make a hypervisor, or allow booting XP from within mac os without emulation, and we'll have a great system!
Does this version dual boot fully with Mac OS?
I'm sooo tempted to buy a Mac Book Pro now - my poor wallet.
Re:A lot more useful! Excellent! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.chriscanfield.net/)
I, for one, am desperately trying to restrain myself from running out and picking up a Mac Book.
Re:A lot more useful! Excellent! (Score:4, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/)
LPAR? LPAR?????
You, sir, have obviously used a real machine before. Which means your posts may be filled with actual facts. You must stop posting immediately.
So where's the meat? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:So where's the meat? (Score:5, Funny)
As this is for a Mac, there will be no free download. It will instead be provided as a $25 shareware package - just like every other useful little utility.
MacBook Pro (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Lawsuit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft is happy. They didn't have to spend any of their own money to get compatibility, and if they're lucky, maybe more than 30% of the dual booters will actually pay for a Windows license.
Re:Lawsuit? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.xmob.co.uk/)
A percent (%) character seems to have slipped in there.
Re:Lawsuite? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Lawsuite? (Score:4, Insightful)
As to Apple, I doubt they would care either. They primarily sell hardware. OS X is just something to set their hardware apart from other computer makers. Nobody is gonna NOT buy a Mac because it can run Windows, but somepeople might now buy a Mac (who otherwise wouldn't) because now it can.
It benefits both companies.
I hope ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I hope ... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.zieg.com/)
Re:Dude, Speak for your self. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.getmp.com/ | Last Journal: Monday November 18 2002, @12:11PM)
Let's hear it for peer review (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you really read the original (yesterday's) commentary on this? It looked like a basic peer-review process to me, albeit in true /. style. A person steps up, makes an extraordinary claim, and the community of peers does its best to suggest every possibility for falsification.
It took a while, but the truly hare-brained ideas (like a photoshopped image of a MacBook) were discredited leaving only a couple of reasonable possibilities (like a full-screen display of an XP screengrab image).
So honestly, would you really prefer that a peer-review process work from the premise that the proposal is true, as opposed to false? While the former is certainly much "nicer", the latter is more in keeping with scientific modes of thought. I'd have expected nothing less, had I presented the same claims + shaky evidence.
Re:Let's hear it for peer review (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a big difference between saying "What an obvious fake! What a lousy photoshop job! What an idiot to think that we would believe this!" and something like "While there's no reason that this couldn't be faked, there's no evidence that it has been. Let's wait and evaluate the proof when it becomes available before passing judgement."
Where I come from, the scientific process of peer-review doesn't include name-calling and obviously premature pronouncements of fakery by armchair image analysts with a copy of the GIMP and no knowledge of things like light bleed in cheap CCDs.
Of course, this is slashdot, where making instant pronouncements about things you don't understand is practically the official sport.
M-
an end to speculation (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Saturday January 20 2007, @07:25PM)
Re:an end to speculation (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Saturday January 20 2007, @07:25PM)
Obligatory Pink and the Brain Follow Up (Score:5, Funny)
I'd prefer a VPC-like solution (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.crapfilter.net/ | Last Journal: Tuesday August 16 2005, @06:52AM)
soo..... (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Monday March 20 2006, @08:33PM)
Re:soo..... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.chriscanfield.net/)
Mirror of the movie (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.madshrimps.be/ | Last Journal: Monday March 27 2006, @07:31AM)
Re:Mirror of the movie (Score:4, Funny)
(http://francis.uy.googlepages.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday August 29, @09:40AM)
Re:Mirror of the movie (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.gregsmith.com/)
Re:Mirror of the movie (Score:4, Insightful)
Or it could just be the coffee, as another poster has already metioned.
be kind to their server (Score:4, Informative)
(Last Journal: Saturday January 20 2007, @07:25PM)
forum
http://forum.osx86project.org.nyud.net:8080/index
Video:
http://www.projectosx86.org.nyud.net:8080/winonma
In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://port80ware.com/)
I find this kind of funny and ironic...
Apple announces that they are moving to intel. OSX is DRM'd and bound to Macs so that it cannot be run on commodity hardware. Senior execs at Apple also state that they will not do anything to prevent Windows from running on their hardware.
Intel Macs come out.
Hackers get OSX86 up and running on Dells with relative ease, despite Apple's best efforts to prevent them from doing so. However, they have such a hard time getting Windows to run on a Mac that a contest is started and 13,000 dollars worth of prize money is offered.
Oh the irony. :-)
Re:Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.zieg.com/)
In contrast, consider Windows, which has been successfully ported to...Alpha? Once, many years ago? Windows is far more intransigent about porting to new hardware platforms, because they've never needed to, never wanted to, and never put any friendly handles in to smooth the transition.
Re:Irony (Score:5, Informative)
Some points to bear in mind: (Score:5, Informative)
Windows NT was built from the beginning to run on multiple processors, it had a very advanced hardware abstraction layer built in. The other versions never sold very well and there were problems with application support (e.g. people targetting multiple processor arch's). Apple has clevery overcome this obstacle by including "Rosetta" from the start, something similar existed for NT Alpha called FX!32 but I suspect by the time it was released it was too little too late to save the OS.
I'm sure that the HAL is in place in NT derived operating systems to this day and if MS were so inclined they could do another port. However, there's no real business need (as there is for Apple with their transition) so it's never been done. They target the largest installed hardware base.
The issue with getting Windows on Macintel to work is that EFI is so fundamentally different to the traditional BIOS XP expects that you require either the source code of the OS kernel to make it work or have to, as has been done here, provide essentially a bios emulator. This is nothing to do with portability or HAL's, it's about having access to the fundamentally low-level parts of the operating system, something people outside MS don't have.
Phew! (Score:3, Funny)
(http://web.mac.com/gentlemen_loser)
Can't play the video (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Can't play the video (Score:5, Funny)
An Intel Mac, obviously.
Re:Can't play the video (Score:4, Informative)
Big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.keirstead.org/)