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.
Probably not and here's why ... (Score:3, Insightful)
The benefits of a port might be because of cheaper or easier to find hardware capable of running something that it wasn't meant to but is very useful to users. I don't think this is the case in putting Windows on an Intel Mac because Intel Macs are cheaper than what I can piece together in PC x86 form. Don't get me wrong, Macs are nice machines but they're not exactly easy to upgrade or fix on your own.
I'm sure someone will port the extended firmware interface to run Windows through a virtual layer (if it needs it) but this can only introduce Windows running as fast or slower than the speed it could run at without EFI.
For this reason, I doubt people are going to find much use using the port since it's a) cheaper to piece their own machine together and leave the specs up to themselves and b) Windows will probably run slower.
Yeah, there might be someone out there bragging about running Windows on an Intel Mac but he's probably the rare Window's equivalent to the guy with a penguin displayed on his microwave's LCD.
Apple should support this. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's in Apples best interest to allow Windows on their hardware for two reasons. 1st, people who are apprehensive about switching to Mac could do so slowly with a dual boot setup. 2nd, Apple could sell more hardware this way as it would appeal to Windows users.
http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]OS X + Windows + Linux.... (Score:3, Insightful)
But unless I can tri-boot the big-3 (or more to the point, VM them), we're all gonna have to keep the Windows XP boxen around for Development (read: games). This is not acceptable, PC's are just too loud and power hungry.
Apple knows this, so does everyone else. By the time they ship, the "problem" will be solved.
I still don't understand why you would want to. (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly, what's the draw to this? Back in the mid 90's I understood it completely with windows/linux. Linux didn't provide what most people needed to be productive back then, and costs were prohibitive to have dual machines for most of the people that were interested in linux at the time.
Now we have a high end (and high priced) peice of hardware, that runs an operating system that provides everything you need to be productive, and it's polished as heck. So why would you want to dual boot to anything? You can get the performance out of many other peices of hardware for cheaper if you want to run windows.
Why? No, seriously? (Score:3, Insightful)
OS X is superior for Web surfing, Document creation, Multimedia and personal file and web serving.
Now I know that there are legitimate uses for Windows (CAD, games, etc) but why would you want to dual boot? A cheap windows machine can be made by your local shop for 400 bucks.
Get a KVM switch and you've got two dedicated machines you can use at the same time.
Agree, this will not be not a common occurance (Score:5, Insightful)
In order to run Windows on Mac hardware, it would first be necessary to buy Mac hardware, which isn't cheap. (The value proposition of Macs is a separate issue). Then, you have to look at the OSX interface goodness and decide that you want Windows instead. After that, you have to do whatever porting is necessary and install Windows. All this to get cool hardware running a not-so-cool OS. I mean, Apple is the BMW of computers and Wintel is the Ford. Are you really going to buy a 3 series and stick an Escort engine in it?
If and when Windows supports booting without a BIOS, I can see some folks having dual-boot Apple hardware. Especially folks who want Apple's nicely designed hardware but still want to run Windows games.
But an out-and-out port seems unlikely.
Re:Apple Tax? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I still don't understand why you would want to. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well testing has shown... (Score:3, Insightful)
They were only designed for testing that software compiled for the Intel processors would run successfully without any endian or data-type related errors, and nothing else. They were NOT intended to show off the finally released platform.
Apple are now recalling these machines from developers, and replacing them with proper machines.
Re:OS X + Windows + Linux.... (Score:3, Insightful)
How exactly do you suggest that the PC hardware found in the new Apple computers will remedy this situation?
Re:I still don't understand why you would want to. (Score:1, Insightful)
I spend about 80% of my time in Visual Studio, but nothing beats my mac sw for graphical content creation.
Re:Apple should support this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Probably eventually (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:For VMs, avoid Virtual PC (Score:3, Insightful)
It's obvious why someone would want to do this. (Score:1, Insightful)
Remember, Apple is a hardware company. The more boxes they sell, the more profitable they'll be. They don't really care which OS the user is on. Hopefully this move will allow them to have iPod-like success with the desktop systems.
KVM is a symptom (Score:2, Insightful)
The draw is simple (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue with dual booting is that I have some software that simply does not exist for OSX and likely never will. The software is rather performance intensive and so virtualization is not a viable solution. Thus the need to dual boot. Eventually I hope to move completely away from using Windows at all, but for now, sometimes I have to use it.
Re:Probably not and here's why ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Looking at the problem from your angle, you're right. As a Mac user who needs to occasionally run Windows, I think you miss the point. It's not about cost as much as convenience and quality of experience. Many Mac users are in the same boat. We need to run some Windows program but would love the opportunity to get in and out of Windows as quickly as possible without extra computers or the molasses speed of emulation.
When I get my new Macbook, I will still need to run Windows and certainly won't want to drag around a second notebook. I run VirtualPC now and am very much looking forward to being able to run Windows natively. Remember that over half of all Mac sold are laptops.
You are also forgetting that many Mac owners don't want to run some pieced together kludge box any more than most people who are proud of their cars want to drive some pieced together junk pile, faster, cheaper or not. Performance and cost aren't the issues as much as the elegance of the solution.
MacOS on PC's - that is going to be tectonic (Score:2, Insightful)
The more important question is... (Score:3, Insightful)
That was never the issue. (Score:5, Insightful)
For space (Score:5, Insightful)
And I'm not even in the majority of computer users who use portables.
Re:Probably not and here's why ... (Score:1, Insightful)
[The RupertZone] [blogspot.com]
Re:Apple Tax? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why should you pay for something you will not use? Good question. I don't really want all those channels I get with my cable subscription, but the cable company won't let me pay a la carte. When I bought a new car, I had to buy a whole package of options rather than just the options I wanted. And, damn it, when I buy a package of jelly beans, they won't let me return just the black ones.
It's the market. If you don't want the company offers you, don't buy it.
Re:Probably not and here's why ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or then again, I can buy 3 Mac Minis for the price of the new iMac too....if you're using lesser hardware you can use ANYTHING you want to make it seem cheaper. Now that it's all Intel, let's compare apples to apples now!
Come on...two systems with 20" widescreen screens that are cheaper than one iMac.
We'll wait...
Re:Probably not and here's why ... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not the Windows users who are interested in running it on Macs, it's the Mac users. You say:
Don't get me wrong, Macs are nice machines but they're not exactly easy to upgrade or fix on your own.
You obviously are not a Mac user. :-j
The vast majority of Mac users don't care much about cheap hardware; otherwise they wouldn't buy Macs in the first place. What they are extremely interested in is running Windows only software on their Macs without buying a Wintel machine. What you should be looking at is the number of users who run Windows on the Macs using Virtual PC plus the number of people who would use Virtual PC if it wasn't just too slow.
That said, Windows running native Intel code on the new Macs under Virtual PC may preclude any need to port Windows to boot on Macs directly. But I doubt it; why pay Microsoft for Virtual PC and a copy of Windows?
In brief, your skepticism is based on a mistaken belief that enthusiasts who want to port Windows to Intel Macs have the same motivation as those who are willing to port Linux to a pair of scissors. A better comparison is the group of Windows and Linux enthusiasts who are drooling at the prospect of finally being able to run Mac OS X on their Intel PC hardware because they don't want to buy Macs.
I'm curious to see if Microsoft figures it would be to their own benefit to directly support Windows on Macs. The implications are huge: why will developers bother to create Mac version of their software if a Windows version will suffice? Would this encourage or discourage Apple and Mac developers encroaching on Microsoft's lucrative productivity application (e.g., Office) market?
The deal to support MS Office on the Mac for five more years seems to be a clear indication that Microsoft is at least keeping their options open. The fact that Apple isn't preventing Windows from running on Intel Macs (yet) clearly indicates that Apple has some confidence another mass exodus of developers from Mac to Windows platform will occur.
Interesting times lie ahead.
Re:Probably not and here's why ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why would microsoft port XP? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:That was never the issue. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you actually want to write a 3D engine along the lines of Doom or Unreal, this won't work. Differences in pipeline architechture mean writing a whole lot of redundant code. Otherwise, get ready for some ugly benchmark numbers. In the academic world, 50 fps or 20 fps makes no difference. Commercial game developers don't have that luxury.
Now imagine what that code would look like if instead of just compensating for minor differences in the OpenGL pathway, you were running on a whole different CPU. By the way, some of the important parts of a 3D engine are still hand-coded in assembly. Will x86 assembly work on PPC?
Bottom line, the idea that game companies should write for OpenGL and then just recompile for MacOS is completely ludicrous.
Re:Agree, this will not be not a common occurance (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why???? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you are a Mac user, this will seem stupid or worse to you. It seems stupid in the days of OSX, and it would have seemed stupid in the days of OS9. But it is not people like you who want to run Windows on that nice shiny hardware.
Its other people, not at all stupid, who just, believe it or not, feel differently. Not think differently, feel differently. Just like there are people who want to drink, I don't know, Coors, out of those shiny Budweiser glasses.
You all need to be more tolerant, and realise there is nothing wrong with this, and that there is no reason they should feel like you.
Or you like them, for that matter.
Re:Probably not and here's why ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Building the machine yourself to -save money- is not worth it at this point, imho. However, there are still a number of advantages to building you own:
1) Its valuable in terms of learning (or keeping up to date) how to spec and build PCs.
2) As you said, by controlling the selection of parts you can extend the useful life of the machine, and the re-usability of those components. Note that any decent small systems builder will do the actual assembly of the PC to your specs so that you can still benefit by taking control of the spec without having to actually turn a screwdriver.
3) Additionally controlling the selection of parts will ensure you avoid some of the utter garbage parts that the brand names put into their PCs --especially at the entry level price point. I still have nightmares about the combination PCI network and video card I found in a compaq once. And I recently replaced a fried AGP vid card out of a Dell. Nevermind a fan, this geforce series card didn't even merit a heat sink -- it fried to shave what? 25 cents off manufacturing? Dell's excuse? Its a home computer... it shouldn't be on very long at a time!
4) If you are dealing with windows you get an actual honest to god installation CD for the OS with a custom built unit.
5) If you aren't dealing with windows you can avoid the microsoft tax applied to brand name units.
Re:Probably not and here's why ... (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes I could do this in the evening or on weekends, but I would rather spend that with friends, wife or kids. What good is all this money if you live in the basement piecing together PCs.
I don't want my headstone inscription to be "We never realy knew him, but boy could he get one hell of a deal on PCs".