Windows on Intel Macs - Yes or No? 714
With the announcement of the Intel chip based MacBook, the door is now open for running the Windows OS on Macintosh hardware, right? jaypatrick writes "BetaNews reports that along with the announcement of the first Intel based Macs yesterday, many users have rejoiced in being able to dual-boot both Mac OS X and Windows. Unfortunately, this is not the case; due to Apple's use of the extensible firmware interface (EFI) rather than BIOS, current Windows releases will not run on the systems." I guess not. But, wait... Big Z writes "Phil Schiller, Apple's senior vice-president of worldwide product marketing, said in an interview Tuesday that the company won't sell or support Windows itself, but also hasn't done anything to preclude people from loading Windows onto the machines themselves." I think someone actually trying it out is the only way this is going to get straightened out.
Windows on Intel Mac? Answer: Yes (Score:5, Informative)
Windows XP would directly boot and install on the Developer Transition Kit platform because it was just a standard Intel motherboard and processor, and also used a standard Intel BIOS [appleintelfaq.com].
However, the shipping Intel-based Macs use EFI [intel.com] (Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org]), Intel's "next generation of BIOS". (more info [apple.com])
Windows XP 32-bit does not currently support EFI for booting. Windows XP 64-bit does, but Intel Core Duo is not a 64-bit chip. Now, there are a bunch of other variables, such as whether or not Apple's current EFI implementation offers BIOS backward-compatibility, and so on, but it's clear that regardless, EFI is the future, and it's only a matter of time before the PC world at large transitions to EFI. Further, Windows Vista does support EFI. See here [google.com] for Microsoft's presentations on EFI, particularly the first two links.
That said, dual booting is intensely annoying anyway, and the really interesting thing will be able to just run Windows (or some other x86 OS) and Mac OS X side-by-side.
What we will *definitely* see are "Virtual PC"-like programs that let you run Windows alongside OS X (in a Window, or taking over the screen, etc., with a hotkey to flip back and forth, for example).
It's important to note this will NOT be emulation: Windows (or other x86 OS) will run at essentially the native speed of the underlying hardware (with certain exceptions). There could even be direct access to video, with support for things like DirectX.
vmware already has a version for Mac OS X in development, and Microsoft has already announced [eweek.com] they will be developing a version of Virtual PC for Intel-based Macs that one can only presume will be a virtual machine. Then there are things like QEMU, Xen, etc. The Darwin/Mac OS X version of WINE, DarWINE, has even been working under betas of Mac OS X for Intel. Now that Intel Macs are shipping, it will only be a matter of weeks/months before we have several options for running Windows itself, and/or Windows applications at essentially the native speed of the underlying hardware.
And since Intel Core Duo [intel.com] also supports [wikipedia.org] Intel's VT hardware virtualization, the possibilities of future virtual machine technology are even more interesting. But the bottom line is that Apple is again leading the way with the adoption of technologies like EFI and ExpressCard [expresscard.org]. Naturally, it will take a little while for Windows to catch up.
Legacy Bios Support (Score:5, Informative)
However 64 bit windows and Longhorn both do / will support EFI so that is always a option (although the current intel chips in the macs are 32bit I believe).
Re:Probably not and here's why ... (Score:2, Informative)
Anyway, the code is already there for EFI support in Windows - but only on the 64-bit Itanium platform. Microsoft has said that they will support EFI on Vista, so while you're right for about the next eight months or so about needing an emulation layer for BIOS, by the end of the year Windows will run natively.
Yes, I know the average Slashbot doesn't care about Windows (even though I bet many of them use it), but some of us do Windows development but prefer OS X. In that case, being able to dual boot a MacBook/iMac with Windows would be a blessing.
Run slower?? (Score:5, Informative)
It's not like the BIOS is a processor architecture. I highly doubt that any work required to make Windows XP work with EFI will not drastically, or even noticably affect the speed of the machine.
GRUB already works with EFI, and GRUB can launch Windows... From my experience, WindowsXP has pretty much ignored anything about the hardware that the bios has told it (I've disabled HDs, but windows sees them, etc). Could it be possible that GRUB could be installed on a Mac and used to load Windows?
Otherwise both WinXP 64 and Vista support EFI... one could always wait for Vista or illegally grab a beta...
Re:Run slower?? (Score:2, Informative)
Oops, sorry.. that not shouldn't be there.
EFI has a BIOS-emulation layer (Score:5, Informative)
It's gonna happen. But I'm not interested in that--I'm interested in someone taking advantage of the hardware virtualization in the Core Duos and letting me run Windows in a window on an OS X desktop with no performance hit. Screw dual-booting.
Re:Probably not and here's why ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Windows on Intel Mac? Answer: Yes YOU JEST? (Score:5, Informative)
Intel Core Duo is not a 64-bit processor, and does not not support EM64T (x86-64).
The next generation [wikipedia.org] of all of Intel's processors [intel.com] will indeed be 64-bit.
It's a lot simpler than that. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Ummm... Virtual PC 8.0 anyone?? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:grub or lilo? (Score:2, Informative)
"Full Legacy Support
With size issues, memory issues, platform compatibility issues, and more, desktop system vendors know that the BIOS train is rapidly running out of track. However, these vendors need a solution that not only resolves BIOS issues, but also allows legacy support for today's operating systems.
Intel's goal in creating the Framework for EFI was to help BIOS vendors support the speed, power, and innovations of today's system architectures. This solution offers full legacy support through the use of a compatibility support module, or CSM. For systems that do not yet have EFI, the support module takes the place of EFI so that the Framework can communicate with the traditional operating system.
The benefit to developers is that there is no real change to the work process. Even developers buying boards that include the Framework with EFI will not have to learn new or exotic tools. Instead, the same test suites, similar processes for handling BIOS, and so on, that have been used for existing systems can be used."
It sounds like EFI is fully backwards compatible with older OS'es but it will take a new BOOTLOADER. And, the best part, a bootloader that will boot Windows/Linux is included in OSX86!
-flipsoft
I would do this, here's why... (Score:3, Informative)
Apple is still a hardware company, and if I can use the MacBook all the time instead of this POS Dell I've got, then I'm still happy regardless of what OS is on the screen.
Re:EFI has a BIOS-emulation layer (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Run slower?? (Score:5, Informative)
GRUB already works with EFI, and GRUB can launch Windows... From my experience, WindowsXP has pretty much ignored anything about the hardware that the bios has told it (I've disabled HDs, but windows sees them, etc). Could it be possible that GRUB could be installed on a Mac and used to load Windows?
I haven't seen Apple's EFI implementation, but the EFI spec says it takes over the duties of a bootloader and can be used by itself to boot from different partitions. There are defined codes for all the Windows filesystems. I don't even see why you'd need GRUB at all.
Oh, one more thing... (Score:5, Informative)
I also emailed Transgaming about Cedega, but so far they still have nothing useful [transgaming.com] to say.
Re:Probably not and here's why ... (Score:1, Informative)
because Intel Macs are cheaper than what I can piece together in PC x86 form
No way. For the price of an Intel Mac I can still build two very nice Intel x86 machines from scratch.
Ever heard of pricewatch.com [pricewatch.com]?
Re:Apple Tax? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Probably not and here's why ... (Score:3, Informative)
Search on "Windows cult following":
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en
Search on "Apple cult following":
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en
Notice that the Windows cult following has some of the Apple cult following hits.
Macs are nice machines but they're not exactly easy to upgrade
AFAIK, "normal" people don't upgrade their computers. Macs often don't need upgrades because they come with what you want and need already, and anything extra or a niche can be installed as an external device and then can be plugged into your new computer if you want. Also, people keep Macs longer than Windows boxes, and they have a higher resale value. I've heard of retail salesman that have said that they don't like selling Macs that much because the people buy them and disappear. Windows buyers keep coming back for more stuff.
I guess that aside from games (I am not a gamer), I'm not sure why many Mac owners would want to run Windows. If anything, I would imagine that an "emulator" or something like wine might be of interest, but I'm not sure if that is possible. Personally, I would not mind running WinAmp on my Mac, but I would never dual boot or buy a windows box for WinAmp, and even in emulation it would suck because it would not be a native app. Meaning I couldn't use the Finder to load a file in WinAmp.
Re:EFI vs OpenFirmware (Score:3, Informative)
The NetApp FAS900 filers [netapp.com], and most earlier NetApp x86 machines, use Open Firmware (the exceptions were the machines, mostly NetCache machines, using standard Intel boxes OEM'ed). Now, that was a port of the Firmworks [firmworks.com] OpenFirmware code to x86, rather than a version of Apple's independently-implemented Open Firmware implementation, but there's nothing technical that prevents Open Firmware from running on x86.
Re:The draw is simple (Score:3, Informative)
I think you're confusing virtualization with emulation (Virtual PC). If you feel VMware is too slow, then that's the lack of real virtualization technology in all x86 processors so far. Yonah is the first one to include VT. VMware has to work around those missing pieces with quite a bit of emulation, so that's slowing it down.
I don't remember where exactly I read the numbers, but I believe one of the Xen people said that with VT, the overhead for a virtual machine is less than 3 percent. If you can figure out a nice way to share the hardware (esp. video card), there should be no noticable lag in running Windows inside Mac OS X, or both under Xen.
XP, no. Vista, yes (Score:3, Informative)
A friend of mine inside Fruitco says that if you hold down "option" during boot, you'll be able to select among the available bootable partitions, so it does look like booting EFI compatible OSes should be easy.
It's clear that Linux or one of the BSDs or some other *nix will be first to boot on one of these machines before Windows. Of course, my question at that point would be, what's the point? [apple.com]
Re:Probably not and here's why ... (Score:3, Informative)
It's already being worked on. See the Darwine Project [opendarwin.org].
Re:WineOSX86 (Score:5, Informative)
The project:
http://darwine.opendarwin.org/ [opendarwin.org]
XP == No ... Vista == Maybe (Score:5, Informative)
EFI doesn't provide any of the BIOS interfaces natively. It also boots up in 32-bit protected mode, which the XP loader can't use.
Any EFI system that can also boot OS from current PCs (XP/DOS/Linux) carries an extra component called the "compatability support module" (CSM). This overlays the BIOS interface onto some EFI implementations, but this is only licensed from a few BIOS vendors.
Apple doesn't need the CSM code to boot OSX, so it's not on their platforms.
No CSM
Vista might work, because it has a native EFI install mode
So Vista would only be viable if (a) Apple makes a 64-bit MacIntelTosh, or (b) Microsoft makes a 32-bit EFI/UEFI version of Vista.
Re:That was never the issue. (Score:4, Informative)
SSE1/2/3-optimized math stuff maybe? Those 4x4-matrices fit nicely in SSE.
"You do realize there are full featured, portable, open source 3d engines out there right?"
Yes, and NO ONE of them is an AAA-production option. The _best_ engines are commercial ones. There is no Opensource engine able to keep up with Unreal3. Maybe in 3 years, but Epic will have realtime raytracing engines by then. Most opensource 3dengines lack decent toolchains. A toolchain means more than just some exporters. By toolchains I mean stuff like UnrealEd or the shader builder shown in some Unreal3 screenshots. A full-featured, state-of-the-art opensource GAME engine (i.e. not just graphics) just does not exist. Period. Many try to write one, no one succeeded yet.
"So anyone can go ahead and see that making a portable 3D engine isn't any harder than making a non-portable 3D engine."
Hahahaha. How funny. Once you get to the point of writing a GOOD engine you will see that you are wrong. I don't mean OpenGL initialization, you can get away with SDL for this one. (But, there are pbuffers, which are platform-dependent; they still need to be supported since FBOs are quite new and not supported everywhere yet.) Next: sound? OpenAL has some serious performance issues with Ogg playback (the UT2004 linux devs didn't like this), so you may be forced so switch to something else, again the best libraries are commercial ones (FMOD, BASS...). SDL input is very basic, you may be in need of more (libraries like OpenInput and OIS aren't very well documented). Also, platform issues like shared object handling, compiler handling, compiler quirks on each platform etc. won't make life easier. In Windows Visual C will be used almost certainly (sorry MinGW devs), so you cannot get away with a win32 gcc. Also, in Mac you still have the endianness problem (until they finish switching to Intel).
And, you forget that Direct3D has a VERY good documentation, tons of samples, both covering even state of the art stuff like PRT and HDR. Microsofts XNA program result in a D3D game be very easy to port to the XBox - another BIG plus. Sony is going for OpenGL ES + Cg, but this OpenGL is quite different from the one you use.
As the GP said, an OpenGL pendant to the Direct3D SDK is missing (yes, I know the D3D SDK is no standalone package). Also, Direct3DX is a wonderful Direct3D utility library, I miss something comparable in OpenGL. Last but not least, if OpenGL does not get superbuffers and geometry shaders/programs soon, Direct3D 10 will again lead.
Important Point! (Score:4, Informative)
However, keep in mind that these systems are Vanderpool enabled. The intel core duo processor has VT (vanderpool features).
What does this mean?
Side by side independant OS virtualization utilizing Xen. Including Windows.
http://www.xensource.com/news/pr030105.html [xensource.com]
At a minimum, you can have EFI Linux and EFI OS X running side by side.
Then you can run XP or Vista or DOS or Windows for Workgroups 3.11 in Qemu or VMware or whatever on Linux, or on Virtual PC on OS X.