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This discussion has been archived.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.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Just wait a couple of days! (Score:5, Insightful)
Place your bets please! Linux or Windows? (Score:3, Interesting)
- Will Windows or Linux be ported to these new MacTel boxes first?
- Which OS will support 90% of the hardware on one of these boxes first?
Linux is more modifiable, but Windows has a far larger userbase then Linux on the desktop. Porting "Linux to Mac" doesn't seem to have the same coolness factor of porting Windows to Mac.
Re:Place your bets please! Linux or Windows? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Place your bets please! Linux or Windows? (Score:5, Funny)
Wake me up when I can run BSD on one of these new macs.
Parent
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. :-)
Parent
Re:Place your bets please! Linux or Windows? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Place your bets please! Linux or Windows? (Score:5, Funny)
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!
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:Just wait a couple of days! (Score:5, Informative)
Supposedly that was already done ten years ago for some Macs, when there was a PPC port of Windows NT.
Parent
Re:Just wait a couple of days! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:I hereby award you... (Score:4, Funny)
LK
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:Just wait a couple of days! (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Mine came this morning . . . (Score:5, Interesting)
. . . 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.
Parent
Re:Mine came this morning . . . (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Some clarification (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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.
Parent
Re:Some clarification (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Parent
Does anyone think these articles are nuts? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Where is this cheaper Intel hardware? (Score:5, Informative)
No they aren't. They switched processors but are keeping the same prices.
"New Intel iMac: Same models 17 and 20, same prices"
Parent
Re:Where is this cheaper Intel hardware? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:Does anyone think these articles are nuts? (Score:5, Funny)
So that we can play CounterStrike.
Parent
Re:Does anyone think these articles are nuts? (Score:3, Interesting)
Not nuts -- hackers (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Does anyone think these articles are nuts? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
....aaaaand? (Score:4, Funny)
sure xp probably won't (Score:4, Funny)
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)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
You've bought the hardware from Apple, and part of your purchase price included the OS. So long as your check clears they don't care if you ever turn the damn thing on.
You've purchased XP from Microsoft (and likely paid more for it than if it came OEM) so they don't care if you try and install it on your toaster.
Dell would be the big loser in this scenario as they failed to sell you a PC.
Now if someone should get WINE running under OS X, or get OS X to easily install on a generic PC then you will see an unholy alliance of MS and Apple attempt to destroy the persons responsible.
Re:Dell is the only one who should be concerned (Score:3, Insightful)
Half right. MS would care about WINE, but they'd care only slightly more than they care about it on Linux. Apple wouldn't mind WINE (for the reasons you described), and would prolly be just as happy if you used it, as it is less money going to MS. But you're right in that a OS X on a generic box would mean such a
Re:Dell is the only one who should be concerned (Score:3, Interesting)
Article says nothing new. (Score:4, Insightful)
I can think of reasons why Apple would have left this out. Why would they want to support this legacy support code for OSX as it gives them nothing? It makes supporting the boot ROM cleaner, and I'm sure the code is smaller by leaving it out. The only reason they might leave it in is if they get the example code from Intel, and it'd be more trouble than it's worth to take it out.
As to Apple saying they wouldn't do anything to prevent Windows from booting on a Mac, well that sounds more like they won't actively prevent Windows from booting like by putting in code to detect Windows, and then booting it. If they take out the legacy BIOS compatibility code for other reasons I just don't see that as preventing Windows from booting, since Vista is supposed to support EFI.
So, I think the question is still very open. Until I see someone with an x86 Mac running Windows natively, the jury is still out.
Will somebody please just *try* it? (Score:5, Funny)
Ok, so, the interesting question is... (Score:3, Funny)
(or linux on a mac but with pc hardware.. but you could do that before, only now it's on x86 hardware.. so it'd be a x86 linux distro but running on a mac... er.. aghh.. my head hurts..)
Dumb assumption (Score:4, Insightful)
They have said they won't actively take any measures to prevent Windows from booting on an Intel-based Mac, but they've also made it clear they have no intention of actively supporting Windows on a Mac.
It's not like removing the CSM would require any additional work, considering that unless it's written for the platform in question, the CSM doesn't exist in the first place! From the documentation I've seen, the compatibility module is not a generic off-the-shelf component that you can just compile in - It has to be custom-built for the platform, just like legacy BIOS is always specific to a particular platform (usually specific to only one single motherboard design.) Adding legacy compatibility to their Intel products would require a LOT of development work on Apple's part.
In short, Apple will take the easiest and cheapest route. If it were harder to release an EFI system without legacy compatibility, Apple would just leave the compatibility module in. Unfortunately, it's almost guaranteed that it will be the other way around - putting in the optional compatibility module will require significant effort.
One word: laptop (Score:3, Interesting)
Since I write Windows software during the day and play Windows-based games at night, OSX has zero appeal to me; but Apple's packaging is reasonably good, and the price is in the ballpark of high-end Dell and HP laptops. So, what's wrong with running the OS I want on the box I want?
Re:One word: laptop (Score:4, Insightful)
You are right of course, running the OS of your choice on the box of your choice is the way the industry is going. But a lot of the mac people are stuck in the past. The reason they ask the question, why would anyone want to run Windows on a Mac, is that they do not realise what has happened with this move. You won't be, in the old sense, running Windows on a Mac. You'll be running it on an Intel machine branded Apple. Its perfectly reasonable thing to do, as reasonable as running it on any other Intel machine with any other brand. As reasonable as running it on one branded Dell. Probably came out of the same factory in fact.
Parent
Re:One word: laptop (Score:4, Insightful)
To me, the software is the most important part of the system.
Parent
Partitioning: GPT vs. APT vs. MBR (Score:5, Informative)
Old Macs use a clean, simple, nice and flexible partitioning-system called Apple Partition Table. PPC-Mac OS can read those disks and boot from them. Intel-Mac OS can read them, but not boot from them (EFI does not like APT). Windows XP can neither read not do anything else with it.
New Intel-style Macs use Intel/Microsofts new GPT, GUID Partition Table. It is a clean, simple and flexible way of partitioning the disks. Intel-Mac OS can read and boot from drives partitioned with GPT. PPC-Mac OS can not boot from them (but it might be able to read them with an update, although Apple says to use APT on all external drives to avoid such issues). Windows XP can read and boot them, but only the 64-bit version of Windows XP.
Intel-PCs of today use MBR-partitioning. The MBR-way of booting and partitioning is a general pain in the butt, but it is what Windows XP (32bit) can understand and boot from.
Of course, there might be a way to make Mac OS boot from MBR-disks, since it did in the developer-intel-version, and so it would be possible to runt Windows XP and Mac OS from the same MBR-partitioned disk, but I would not really feel at ease running my Mac-partition as one of the four primary partitions on the weird old legacy MBR-disk-system.
Anyway. The iMacs with Intel CPUs have been out a couple of days now. Kodawarisan has even posted images of the insides of it, so if it was all that easy to run Windows, why have no one posted any pictures yet?
Of course, there may be a way to get 32-bit windows to boot from GPT-drives. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Is cooling controlled by hardware or software? (Score:5, Interesting)
no Windows Server 2003 Enterprise (Score:3, Funny)
It would be a a shame to lose such an important connectivity link on an Laptop...
Re:This just in!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:So f*cking what? (Score:3, Informative)
Someome please, for the love of all that is holy explain to me why you would spend that kind of money to get intel hardware and then boot Windows XP?
I'll buy one for consolidating functionality onto fewer machines. Not all applications will run well in a virtual machine. VMware has no OS X client. It is still being developed. VirtualPC would be Intel emulating PPC emulating Intel. That is to say, slow as a dead monkey. No word yet on a timetable for a new version. So for today, Dual booting is the only o
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
But besides that, what would be the practical reason for XP on a Mac? It's not like the PC hardware is too expensive or anything.
I carry a laptop with me every day. You don't see any value in that laptop being able to run applications for Windows, OS X, and Linux as opposed to just two of those three? Well, we probably use our machines for very different things then.
I'd much rather see Apple port OSX to the PC, if that happened software makers would do more things for the OS, and then M$ would finally have some strong competition. (Yea, don't flame, but Linux is not going to compete against M$ for the home market anytime soon). Apple would make a killing, but would risk being known as M$ v. 2.0 since Apple's advantage is they own the hardware and can write the OS around one type of hardware.
This is not really an option. The computer OS market is 99% the pre-installed computer OS market. If it does not come on the machine, most users will never buy it. No major OEM will pre-install OS X, since they rely upon MS's differential pricing goodwill. MS can raise the OEM price for Dell from $25 to $100 and suddenly they are dying on price comparisons. If you ran Dell would you risk your successful business on the gamble that OS X would suddenly take off? Only a new hardware maker with a bundled OS has any hope of competing, like Apple. Maybe a new company would be created, but then they would be beholden to Apple, just as the existing companies are to MS, except also directly competing. At the same time as all of this, many Apple users, who are among the tech savvy minority, would purchase the OS and run it on x86, thus greatly hurting their main source of income, hardware sales. So Apple loses half it's incoming profit in an attempt to gain market share for the tiny percentage of users who will use a non-preinstalled OS. And what can they hope to achieve here? Dell hold abut 20% of the market right now (they are number 1) and they are valued as less than Apple already. You are proposing huge risks and changing a successful business model with very little potential return.
Yes, people on Slashdot and other technical sites would like Apple to release OS X for generic x86. That does not mean it makes business sense to do so.
Parent
Re:Why would you want to run Windows on a Mac? (Score:4, Insightful)
I have no doubt that someone will manage to get OSX intel running on a beige PC. But Apple will never allow it to become easy or widespread. Every update (and OSX is updated frequently) will break the compatability. For most people it will be far too great a hassle to maintain. Those determined enough to press on were likely never going to buy OSX or a mac anyway.
For those who would claim Apple could make up for lost hardware sales in software sales, you are wrong. The DIRECT ancestor (to the point that they are nearly the same thing) was available for intel PC's in the mid 90's. It had a niche market, much smaller than MacOSX's and never went much beyond that, despite having nearly every technical advance available in OSX and some that arent. Steve Jobs remembers that because he was also the CEO of NeXT.
Parent