Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Windows on Intel Macs - Yes or No?

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the will-they-or-won't-they dept.

Microsoft 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.

cancel ×

714 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Probably not and here's why ... (3, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455454)

When something like Linux is ported to anything, it's because there is a cult following in the community and this is what they specialize in. Window's has a cult following, it's just not specialized in this sort of development.

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.

Re:Probably not and here's why ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14455490)

I don't give a frack about when Windows runs on the new Intel Macs.

Does Linux, and/or its BSD kin boot yet?

Re:Probably not and here's why ... (1)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455573)

Does Linux, and/or its BSD kin boot yet?

I don't know about yet, but they absolutely will. As the different Linux/BSD/etc. distributions add support for EFI, the Intel-based Macs will merely be just another set of machines that can run these OSes.

And these distributions that don't yet have such support for EFI will have to add support anyway (and many probably already have support, or at least have begin work on it), as that's the future and what will be replacing BIOS in the PC world at large. The fact that Apple machines are using EFI will only be a catalyst for more mature EFI support in the Linux/BSD world.

Re:Probably not and here's why ... (4, Informative)

repruhsent (672799) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455552)

The only reason Windows won't run right now is because of the Intel Mac's usage of EFI over BIOS. Windows only supports EFI on Itanium, and we all know how popular that platform was.

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?? (5, Informative)

BobPaul (710574) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455558)

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.

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?? (2, Informative)

BobPaul (710574) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455600)

I highly doubt that any work required to make Windows XP work with EFI will not drastically,

Oops, sorry.. that not shouldn't be there.

Re:Probably not and here's why ... (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455577)

It's not that complicated. Most of the system is probably OK, and I think that some (all?) IA-64 machines used a variation of EFI. Except when entering standby and a few things like that, Windows won't talk to the firmware. What we need is a EFI HAL for 32-bit Windows -- or just an ugly translation hack loaded before Windows boots. It won't slow down much.

The "cheaper to build yourself" argument doesn't apply to laptops. I think Apple machines could attract some Windows professionals there, if Apples has kept the best parts of their engineering in those.

Re:Probably not and here's why ... (5, Informative)

sauron_of_mordor (931508) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455609)

Windows already runs on EFI on some architectures.

Re:Probably not and here's why ... (1)

thexgodfather (880849) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455625)

When did anyone ever upgrade a Laptop??? The only upgrade that is EVER practical on ANY laptop is upgrading memory.

Re:Probably not and here's why ... (1)

mpathetiq (726625) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455734)

That's right! No one ever upgrades the hard drive or optical drive!

Agree, this will not be not a common occurance (5, Insightful)

blueZ3 (744446) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455643)

Let's face it, one reason people "buy" Windows is that the cost is hidden in the cost of the machine. This is also generally true of OS X (the cost is hidden) but the hardware is "cooler." Your average consumer who buys an Apple does so because of design or ease of use.

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.

It's a lot simpler than that. (3, Informative)

MarcQuadra (129430) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455737)

I don't think it'll be that hard. All we have to do is get GRUB working on the thing and I bet Windows running the ACPI Uniprocessor HAL will pick up the devices. GRUB has an EFI port, IIRC.

Windows on Intel Mac? Answer: Yes (5, Informative)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455455)

Apple hasn't done anything to preclude Windows, or any other OS, from being installed on the Intel-based Macs. That is a perfectly accurate statement. Apple Vice President Phil Schiller's two direct quotes on the subject, the most recent which was made on January 10, 2006, can be seen here [appleintelfaq.com] . Intel has also specifically said [appleintelfaq.com] that Apple will not be using proprietary chipsets and/or processors, and they'll just represent standard Intel offerings.

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. ;-)

For VMs, avoid Virtual PC (1)

nweaver (113078) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455566)

I have VirtualPC on my mac here. It SUCKS. Apart from the glacially slow speed (to be expected, although they probably aren't doing a very good job of binary translation), the options and controllability are FAR less than VMWare Workstation. I've also used VMware (both Workstation and ESX server).

Wait for VMWare-MacTel, it will be far better than the Borg's entry: far more controllable and more powerful, with better features.

VMWare - the one true path (1)

Sad Loser (625938) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455758)

I have used VMWare on my PC laptops for a couple of years and it is great. I have an old powerbook as well, but virtual PC is just horrible, and have been holding off buying a mac until the intel ones came out so that VMWare would run on it.

I think they will shift a lot of VMware workstation software when they do this, as a lot of developers I know love the mac concept and stability, but have to run Windows stuff as well.

Re:Windows on Intel Mac? Answer: Yes (4, Interesting)

frankie (91710) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455592)

For those of you who are ppt-link-challenged [google.com] , here's the money quote:
What Does It Mean For Windows "Longhorn" To Support EFI-32?
  • Already support EFI for IA64 based systems
  • Enabling support for 32 bit EFI-based systems
    • Support will not be retrofitted to 32 bit versions of Windows XP, Server 2003, etc.

EFI has a BIOS-emulation layer (5, Informative)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455606)

EFI has BIOS emulation, so Windows XP should be able to run on a Mac. We'll see what steps are needed to get it installed. You don't even need a bootloader, since EFI replaces bootloaders.

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.

??s on VT Support (1)

nweaver (113078) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455607)

According to the Xen mailing list, the first Core Duos have VT disabled:

http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-users /2006-01/msg00448.html [xensource.com] .

So no Xen on the first MacTels (probably).

Re:??s on VT Support (1)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455652)

According to Intel [intel.com] (warning: pdf), all Intel Core Duo processors include VT, but there are qualifications to have it enabled. Some folks who have systems with Intel Core Duo and who have claimed no VT might simply have systems that don't have it enabled. It remains to be seen whether VT is enabled on Apple's shipping machines.

Re:??s on VT Support (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455754)

There is some question of if the MacPro will have VT or not. The big question I see is will Apple embrace ZEN or not? Yes Zen could be ported without Apples blessings. How cool would it be if Apple built it in and extended it like they did with khtml?
Or will Apple embrace Wine? OS/X could have the option of running some windows programs under Wine now that it is using WineLib
WineLib for OS/X?
It all could be very interesting.

Re:Windows on Intel Mac? Answer: Yes (1)

badriram (699489) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455615)

Sorry but Microsoft has been there supporting EFI since 2002 ish, when they released Windows 2000 on itanium. So they have been there, however there were no systems out then on IA32 with EFI, so XP 32 bit lacked support. Gateway was one of the first to actually start shipping an EFI based computer last year.

On the virtualization end, we could use xen, and probably have windows and os x as natively as possible at the same time, although i do not know how 3d acceleration and other stuff will be handled.

Re:Windows on Intel Mac? Answer: Yes YOU JEST? (1, Funny)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455630)

but Intel Core Duo is not a 64-bit chip.

Surely you jest. Apple wouldn't be putting out 32-bit systems still, nor would Intel be building them. Just because they don't mention it doesn't mean it isn't there, along with Execute Disable, which is mentioned and is part of the 64-bit specification.

Re:Windows on Intel Mac? Answer: Yes YOU JEST? (4, Informative)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455694)

I don't jest.

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.

Oh the possibilities.... (1, Funny)

losman (840619) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455457)

Great, now I can have an exploitable and virus infected operating system running on my Mac! The only place I want to see Windows running is on someone else's machine.

Re:Oh the possibilities.... (2, Funny)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455587)

Better yet, Windows running on over a million other peoples machines and becoming part of a botnet to DDOS my machine.

One box... (3, Interesting)

tradiuz (926664) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455462)

Well, the thing I really want to see is someone tri-boot, OSX, linux and WindowsXP. Obligitory: I wonder what a beowulf cluster of these could do.

Re:One box... (5, Funny)

RevDobbs (313888) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455521)

I wonder what a beowulf cluster of these could do.

Empty your wallet.

Re:One box... (1, Funny)

Biff Stu (654099) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455574)

One box to rule them all
One box to bind them
In Redmond, where the shadows lie

Mac users are loyal (2, Interesting)

mayesa (944673) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455471)

Mmmh.. I dont think Mac users will migrate. Why would they do that?

Re:Mac users are loyal (1)

rbarreira (836272) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455583)

To play games. And they don't need to migrate, they can use dual booting.

Re:Mac users are loyal (5, Interesting)

glaucopis (874967) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455677)

Mmmh.. I dont think Mac users will migrate. Why would they do that?

It's not about migration. I'm a Mac person, but my graduate program requires a couple of Windows-only programs. At least 75% of my time is spent on programs with Mac versions available (Photoshop, Illustrator, etc), but due that other 25% (for Rhino and AutoCAD), I can't use a Mac. So right now I'm on a Windows-only machine, and have to suffer through Windows 100% of the time. If I could get a Mac running Rhino and AutoCAD at full speed, and could use OS X for all other programs, do you understand how wonderful that would be? It's not about games, and I'm not looking to escape from OS X to Windows, I'm desperately trying to get back to Macs.

comments from OOP (1)

notsoanonymouscoward (102492) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455478)

One of the anonymous comments from the Original Original Post... claiming to have had access to the developer release said they were dual booting win and osx. I am however too lazy being that its still pre-coffee AM for me...

grub or lilo? (2, Interesting)

DarkClown (7673) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455494)

Could grub or lilo be built on the osx side to handle this?

Re:grub or lilo? (1)

bigredradio (631970) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455774)

EFI uses the elilo bootloader. EFI has to this point been associated with IA64 Itanium II.

i'll try it (1)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455501)

I'm up for it... if someone will give me the £1700 for the mac i want, it really is a good return for you, you'll get to know whether you can effectively downgrade a mac just by instaling software.

Apple should support this. (2, Insightful)

gasmonso (929871) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455508)

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]

Re:Apple should support this. (1)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455593)

That's a really good point, as someone who has been using windows since 3.1, I'm worried that the change will be a little too big for me, with something like this I could buy one and if I couldn't get on with mac then I would always have the option of putting windows on it.

Re:Apple should support this. (1)

moderators_are_w*nke (571920) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455604)

This is a little silly. For the money the MacBook costs, you could get an immensely powerful Windows laptop. With a mac you pay a premium for the hardware and software combination (MacOS X). The only reason to install Windows on one is to wind up the mac zealots (which is possibly why this whole article should be -1 Flamebait.

Re:Apple should support this. (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455681)

The only reason to install Windows on one is to wind up the mac zealots

Well, I'm a bit of a Mac zealot myself, and I don't see myself getting "wound up" by the idea of Windows running on a MacBook at all. On the (thankfully rare) occasions that I absolutely have to run a Windows-only app, I'll be very happy to be able to do so at native speed on my own machine, rather than having to find a Windows box I can use or deal with the slowness of VirtualPC on PowerPC. I agree that buying a MacBook, or any other Intel-based Mac, primarily to run Windows would be kind of silly, though.

Re:Apple should support this. (1)

tourvil (103765) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455756)

This is a little silly. For the money the MacBook costs, you could get an immensely powerful Windows laptop. With a mac you pay a premium for the hardware and software combination (MacOS X). The only reason to install Windows on one is to wind up the mac zealots (which is possibly why this whole article should be -1 Flamebait.

Just because you cannot see another reason for installing Windows on a Mac, doesn't mean no other reasons exist. I really like OS X, and would love to have a machine running it for my day-to-day desktop use. I also really love the Windows games that I already own. A Mac dual booting OS X and Windows would be really convenient for me, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

Re:Apple should support this. (5, Insightful)

LochNess (239443) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455795)

I was thinking the same thing, but something else also occurred to me. I can see the companies who currently publish games for the Mac saying, "Hell, since the Mac can run Windows now too, why bother with a Mac version at all?"

Re:Apple should support this. (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455627)

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.

Personally, I don't agree with your assumption that people could become comfortable over time if they were using both Windows and MacOS on the same machine. I myself have a Linux server, an XP machine, and a Mac Mini in my home. I use the Linux server via SSH (putty + screen) for most everything (mail, IRC, etc) especially when I'm at work. I use the XP machine for almost everything else. The Mac was just sitting there unused because, for me, the UI is so different and uncomfortable that I just don't find much use for it.

The XP machine, being several years old (1998), had a heatsink fan go on one of the two CPUs. I haven't had time to get around to ordering two new ones (and they aren't cheap IMHO) so I have been using the Mac more and more. I still don't like it much but because I have little choice if I'm going to use a GUI (I use console only on the Linux machine) I have to use the Mac.

IMHO, the best way to get used to an OS is to completely imerse yourself in it. Maybe my lazyness is a direct result of an inner Steve Jobs trying to get out ;)

Re:Apple should support this. (1)

Tibor the Hun (143056) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455655)

1. oh come on. who's gonna be using windows for 2 days and then say, hmm, let me try out this other OS on my machine? you can see how hard it is to switch people just from exploder to firefox. nobody would switch just because the OS is there.

2. which part of the hardware would appeal to windows users? the expensive part, or the part they paid premium on just because it came from apple. why would you buy an expensive box to run windows, when you can buy a cheap one?

Re:Apple should support this. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455712)

Considering that Apple is primarily a hardware company, ie that is where their profits come from mainly, I see no reason why they would care. Well, as long as windows booting on the hardware doesn't create pressure to allow poor quality drivers and such.

Additionally, if they are not promising to support windows on the hardware, they may even save money by having people running an OS that they don't support. Think of the amount of money spent by companies in supporting uncovered linux.

It's a standard, it's just somewhat new... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14455509)

Just because Windows XP doesn't have support for EFI doesn't mean that Apple is intentionally trying to prevent a Windows install. The EFI standard isn't that new, but Windows XP is just behind the times as far as hardware support. Vista should run fine.

These two statements are compatible (1)

logicnazi (169418) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455513)

They might just use a different BIOS and not do anything additional to make windows not work. So no trusted computing type stuff to prevent you from running windows but you might need to hack your bios or trick windows or something.

Just a guess.

OS X + Windows + Linux.... (2, Insightful)

Duncan3 (10537) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455514)

Not worried about Linux much, I'm sure that one is already ported.

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.

Re:OS X + Windows + Linux.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14455618)

PC's are too loud and power hungry because you chose to buy loud and power hungry PC hardware. Most off the shelf PCs you see these days are actually pretty quiet, but they also don't have the $800 3D video card with a couple of high RPM fans to keep it from melting or the overclocked CPU that many freakazoids seem to enjoy.

Re:OS X + Windows + Linux.... (1)

AeroIllini (726211) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455647)

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.

Absolutely.

It makes me wonder if there would be a market for a "development" machine, to be purchased by small software and web design firms. Someone could purchase Mac hardware, preload the machine to triboot with Windows, Mac OS, and Linux, and sell it to dev firms.

Thoughts?

Oscar and Felix and...? (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455663)

Just imagine all three trying to co-exist:

OS X: Quit crowding XP!

XP: But I need room for my Recycle Bin!

Linux (shaking head): Amateurs...

Re:OS X + Windows + Linux.... (2, Insightful)

B3ryllium (571199) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455727)

This is not acceptable, PC's are just too loud and power hungry.

How exactly do you suggest that the PC hardware found in the new Apple computers will remedy this situation?

Legacy Bios Support (4, Informative)

GoodOmens (904827) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455515)

They can include support for Legacy BIOS in EFI. If apple includes this option (or if there is a way to flash your bios with legacy bios support) then you WILL be able to boot windows on new mac hardware.

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:Legacy Bios Support (1)

salimma (115327) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455802)

Legacy BIOS support is not enough, since the new Macs use the new GUID partition table instead of MBR. Unless you install Windows on an external/second hard drive..

Ummm... Virtual PC 8.0 anyone?? (1, Redundant)

vertinox (846076) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455523)

You might not be able to boot into WinXp on an intel mac, but I'm pretty sure you will be able to use Virtual PC. Heck, you might even be able to do that now with Virtual PC 7.0 with Rosetta, but it would be kind of inefficient with a x86 emulator to PPC back to x86.

With that said it won't be too hard to get native x86 speeds with a newer version of Virtual PC in the shorterm future. I'd wager before the end of this year it will be out.

Re:Ummm... Virtual PC 8.0 anyone?? (2, Informative)

tonyquan (758115) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455741)

Asked Microsoft spokepeople at the show....they verified that they've tried Virtual PC 7.0 on the Intel Macs, and all it does is crash so far.

The more interesting question: VT Macs... (1)

nweaver (113078) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455525)

More interesting: When will Apple have IntelMac's with VT (virtualization) support enabled?

Once that happens, you could run Xen in the Mac to run windows in a VM.

It's unclear whether the first Core Duo parts support VT, and whether the firmware on the MacBooks/IMacs support it as well.

I eagerly await (5, Funny)

Snamh Da Ean (916391) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455532)

...the posts breathlessly announcing "Hackers manage to make Windows run on Apple", "Hackers manage to make Windows run on off the shelf Dell PC", "Hackers manage to make Windows run on X-Box", "Hackers manage make Windows run", complete with little pictures of the device in question displaying something characteristic of Windows....

Games (5, Interesting)

E-Sabbath (42104) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455535)

The real question is, how well will WINE/Cedega work on the new Macs? I know a lot of Mac people who want to play PC games, and this could well be their chance. Contrawise, I know a lot of people who'd love a Mac, but the games issue is what's stopping them from moving over.

Re:Games (1)

dwayner79 (880742) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455799)

If I had mod points... you would get 'em. I am such a person (want WINE to work with games and accounting software prior to switching.)

Who cares if you can put Windows on it? (1)

Mad Ogre (564694) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455537)

I'd put SUSE on that thing before I got the whole system unpacked.

Windows will not boot. (1)

someonehasmyname (465543) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455539)

Apple may not have done anything to break windows compatibility, but Windows won't work anyways.

The only version of Windows that can boot from an EFI bios is Windows XP 64-bit Edition, but the Intel Macs have 32-bit CPUs.

I still don't understand why you would want to. (3, Insightful)

Oz0ne (13272) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455549)

Dual booting is nice for a play thing, and in some very specific instances, but not as a general practice. There's a lot of hardware you could get that's nearly as nice, for cheaper.

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.

Re:I still don't understand why you would want to. (3, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455676)

Gaming.

Re:I still don't understand why you would want to. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14455782)

For work I develop in Windows, but I create all of my graphical content in OS X. Dual boot would be great for me.

I spend about 80% of my time in Visual Studio, but nothing beats my mac sw for graphical content creation.

Why? No, seriously? (2, Insightful)

Tibor the Hun (143056) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455555)

What is the purpose of dual booting? In my college days, sure I had 5 OSs booting off the same drive, but that had nothing to do with needing to get work done.
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.

Re:Why? No, seriously? (1)

The Amazing Fish Boy (863897) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455650)

You want me to use a KVM switch with my laptop(s?)

Re:Why? No, seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14455753)

I have a laptop, but not so much for portability as space concerns.

Why would I want a Mac laptop to save space, when I'm going to have another cheap box taking up way more space with a mouse, speakers, monitor, and keyboard, along with its own desk?

And for the times that I do want to travel, should I get another laptop and carry both just so I can play Silent Storm on the plane?

Sure, dual booting may be annoying for those that have to switch between their Mac apps and Outlook, and for you it's just for fun, but for many of us it is a very convenient feature for occasional use.

At The Very Worst... (1)

Jipster (894511) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455562)

Even if Apple does prevent Windows from running easily on a Mac, you can bet it won't take long for a reliable emulator to come out that will be able to run Windows at near-full-speed. It'll likely be more costly and is ultimately unnecessary, but it WOULD happen.

Take a U-Turn... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14455565)

Your synopsis is heading the wrong way. The motivation and thrust behind this move is to garnish OS X (and future derivates) more market share on Wintel machines...

EFI emulates BIOS (2, Interesting)

randomErr (172078) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455570)

Isn't there a shell in EFI that will let you emulate BIOS? You should just have to configure EFI to launch the BIOS shell.

Windows on a mac? (1)

stunt_penguin (906223) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455571)

May I ask what on earth for?

Vista will Boot on Intel Macs (1)

MCSEBear (907831) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455576)

Intel Macs will boot Windows Vista when it comes out. Windows Vista is the first version of 32 bit Windows that will support Intel's replacement for the old creaky BIOS that Apple uses in it's new machines. Why bother to support the old on-it's -way-out-the-door tech in your new hardware?

Well testing has shown... (1)

isa-kuruption (317695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455579)

Acording to this article [thinksecret.com] it seems Windows XP does indeed install on the Intel-based Macs. Apple has indicated they did not cripple the possibility. Why the discussion? I think this has more to do with people who dislike Apple than with actual facts.

Re:Well testing has shown... (1)

miller701 (525024) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455656)

That refers to the developer's systems, which did have a standard BIOS on them.

Re:Well testing has shown... (1)

FluffyWithTeeth (890188) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455689)

Those were the development kits, dude. They're just standard Pentium 4 systems, running BIOS. Apple's actual new machines use EFI instead of BIOS, which XP doesn't support. Now, could someone with one of the new machines please find a beta of Vista, and see if that works? :)

Re:Well testing has shown... (2, Insightful)

shippo (166521) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455725)

That's one of the transitional kits, provided to developers to test that they've ported the code to Intel processors correctly. They were a hack job, featuring a standard PC motherboard fitted into a G5 PowerMac case, and still featured the normal PC BIOS. Many standard operating system features were missing or incomplete.

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.

elilo? (1)

Necron69 (35644) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455581)

I'm pretty sure this hasn't been tested yet, but could one use elilo to boot Windows on a MacIntel machine?

http://sourceforge.net/projects/elilo [sourceforge.net]

- Necron69

Scam of the century! (2, Funny)

Oz0ne (13272) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455588)

I'm also upset that my nintendo DS won't run the PSP operating system, I mean come on, they're both hand held gaming consoles, I should be able to dual boot, right?! /snark.

Foolish Move (-1, Troll)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455589)

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."

If true, would be a foolish move on Apple's part, diminishing the appeal of their systems for some. After all, many people would consider it a desirable feature that for approximately $300-$400 more in h/w costs they can run two different operating systems on the same hardware. Three if Linux becomes installable. And Apple does make a good piece of their money on hardware sales.

Does Apple really think no one wants to run any operating systems except their own?

Re:Foolish Move (1)

LordEvan (830939) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455687)

People complain that Apple's hardware is expensive NOW and you want to add $300-$400 to the price tag for a target market of a couple hundred people?

As for he use of EFI, have you ever used some of the "BIOS" features of a Mac? Firewire Target Mode is pretty damned neat. Look it up. Now do that in a PC BIOS. Sometimes people have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future...

Right. Why would apple want to replace BIOS? (1)

porkchop_d_clown (39923) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455788)

I mean it's, what, been with us for 25 or 30 years. Obviously it's tried and true, tested and ready.

We wouldn't want to use some other firmware that's only ever been used in machines that don't have emulate a CPM box.

Apple Tax? (1)

tshak (173364) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455610)

So what if I buy an Apple machine but use Windows exclusively on it? Do I have to pay for the OSX license?

Re:Apple Tax? (2, Insightful)

John Nowak (872479) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455670)

Yes, the Apple tax is part of buying hardware from Apple. Makes sense to me. Of course if you actually bought a Mac just to run Windows on it exclusively, that would be horribly sad... I can't imagine you actually doing it once you got used to OS X.

Why downgrade? (1, Troll)

filesiteguy (695431) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455611)

One question I have yet to see answered here is - why downgrade from Mac OS X to Wintendo?

I mean, you'd be paying a premium for the OS + hardware then downgrading the OS from Munix (?) to WinOS. That would seem like a complete waste of money. If you want Wintendo, then go buy a cheap $500 PC and load it up. I could see people possibly running other *nix OS's and even possibly running VMWare to get at some Windows features (even I run CX Office on my Dell laptop) that aren't available - yet.

Wine (1)

thegnu (557446) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455619)

The quickest solution to getting Windows apps running will be Wine, I'm sure. But it doesn't seem like it would be hard to create a fake BIOS for Windows to talk to.

There are obviously plenty of people who want it done. I give it about 2 months from the release date. Maybe less?

EFI vs OpenFirmware (1, Interesting)

leandrod (17766) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455624)

Why oh why use EFI instead of OpenFirmware?

I have only one use for this (1)

carlivar (119811) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455634)

I'm about to drive from Illinois to California. I've got a nice new Powerbook G4 I'd love to bring. But I probably won't bring it because the GPS options for Mac are HORRIBLE. If only I could run Windows for that one reason. Now I have to bring my stupid old Dell laptop instead.

Garmin just announced mac support. (1)

porkchop_d_clown (39923) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455714)

Probably to late for you right now, though.

I'm still waiting (0)

Mad Ogre (564694) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455636)

Actually I'm still waiting for OS-X that I can install on my Pentium 4 machine. +1 for the comment about the KVM switch. I run two machines at home. One for work... Linux. And the other is for games... XP. The two keyboards and mice is getting annoying. I need to order myself a switch.

Ironic Flash Ad (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455641)

Ironically, on the 'Microsoft [canoe.ca] , Apple sign five-year pact story,' there is a flash ad at the top that reads:

"Microsoft Office has evolved.
Have you?"

Of course! (0)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455653)

You can do it now, all you gotta do is get the PPC version of virtual PC. I mean sure you are emulating PPC hardware on x86 hardware which is in turn emulating x86 hardware, but come on, how bad could it be :P

So does this mean OS X on anything? (0)

Tamsco (672082) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455665)

If you recall back when Apple announced the Intel move that they were saying that OS X would not be able to run on any old Intel PC. Rumors flew and many people thought that it would require a certain chip on the motherboard to load. The asusmption I had was that it would have to be somewhat crucial to the opertaion of the computer so that people wouldn't just find ways of bypassing or faking it, I may have been wrong though.

Here's the question: if the Intel Mac Machines do not in any way shape or form prevent Windows from being loaded, what became of this chip? Will Vista have special patches to deal with it, will it just appear in Device Manager as an unkown system resource or is not there in the first place?

If it's not there then I don't see what stops me from installing OS X on any computer. The only problem might be drivers but then again there is always OpenDarwin.

frist Pso7.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14455673)

Outs2triwps

To answer your question... (1)

Tony (765) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455698)

Windows on Intel Macs - Yes or No?

Not only no, but hell no. What on God's green earth for?

Re:To answer your question... (1)

Tankko (911999) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455801)

Because, for my job I need to run windows when I'm on the road (demos), but I love my Mac. This way I could take my Mac with me when I travel and not my PC laptop.

Duh.

File systems playing nice (1)

Prion86 (463800) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455735)

I am sure that eventually we will be able to multi-boot the intel Macs. Hell, I tri-boot my Dell notebook with WinXP, OS X x86 10.4.1, and Fedora Core 4 (you just chainload GRUB into Darwin's bootloader). The problem I have is with the file systems seeing one another. HFS+ can see NTFS, but not EXT3. NTFS can't see HFS+, and so on. Maybe I am just lazy, but it can be annoying with the different file systems not seeing eachother, especially with NTFS's mutant (read:non-*nix) file permissions.

Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14455736)

Finally I dont have to wait for them to port DOS wolf3d to MAC!

Motherboard resources? (1)

shippo (166521) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455770)

So these new Macs have Intel processors. But do the have all of the other motherboard resources that Windows expects to see when booting up, and are these devices exactly the same as on a PC? In other words, can the timer interrupt, real-time clock and various other doo-dahs be accessed in the same way. I presume that there are some non-trivial differences between the two, and that some PC legacy hardware is missing altogether as it's simply not needed.

Apple has to offer it. (1)

Morky (577776) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455776)

Apple must offer dual boot or Windows-only machines, or resellers will eat their lunch from a margin perspective. Say I'm a reseller of Apple computers and I'm looking for a way to differentiate myself, so sell I dual boot Macs. I get OEM pricing on Windows, as I'm selling new machines. The very limited number of Mac models allows for better testing of drivers for the various configurations than a Dell or HP can deliver, so potentially I can offer the most stable Windows machines on the market. I think advertising to the masses a machine that can boot as either a PC or a Mac would strike a chord. If Apple offered this themselves, they would cut out the middle man and take the marging increase themselves. Dell would have some real competition.

Games? (1)

mvnicosia (937268) | more than 8 years ago | (#14455781)

The only thing I would use a Windows machine (at home) for is to play games...oh, wait, I don't even use one to do that! Maybe that's because I can buy an XBOX or PS and hook it up to a giant HDTV, play hundreds of games, and not have to worry about whether it will work or not (just like the apps I use on my Mac). Tinker all you guys want, I'm happy running OS X and playing games on a console.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?