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!

No EFI Support for Vista

CowboyNeal posted more than 8 years ago | from the apples-and-oranges dept.

688

DietFluffy writes "Microsoft revealed today that it will not support EFI booting for Windows Vista on its launch. The news will be a shock for owners of Intel Macs who had hoped they would be able to dual-boot between Windows Vista and OS X. Intel Macs only support booting via EFI."

cancel ×

688 comments

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

No. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14889336)

No.

Re:No. (2)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889361)

Who cares about this stupid story? Nobody wants to lose time rebooting. Just run these at once. The real question is "will VMWARE support Vista"? Why Running Vista in a virtual machine? Because it's what DRM desserves.

WTF? Daypass? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14889337)

What's with this daypass thing? You might as well make it mandatory (ie. gamespy) for entering the site. It's not any less annoying the way it's done now..

Re:WTF? Daypass? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14889507)

Haha, I must have gotten mine right before the time period for them expired. Got it at 1:03 my time, browsed for a couple minutes with my "day pass", came back 10 or 15 minutes later and I didn't have it any more. "Day" pass. Right.

Wrath of the Windows Users! (5, Funny)

Aokubidaikon (942336) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889338)

"If you won't let us boot yours, we're not gonna let you boot ours either! Hehehe!"

Re:Wrath of the Windows Users! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14889412)

So what you're saying is that Microsoft wants Apple to let all those PC owners running Windows to buy and use OS X instead? Somebody mod this idiot down. That's not funny, it's stupid.

Re:Wrath of the Windows Users! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14889432)

Please take off your four-colored-waving glasses and see the humor in this post. He says nothing of what you are implying...

Re:Wrath of the Windows Users! (0)

Hum1992 (959733) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889492)

By the time vista comes out, no Mac user will have to run it ....

Wintel applications will simply get emulated on the Mactel platform.

As simple as it is. Os X is all about layers and I trust Apple's background to help ppl develop it.
They've made classic apps run in OsX, Virtual PC run on all versions, even if with some small gaps, and now non universal binaries run like charm.
What will prevent an emulator to run windows x86 binaries ?

And if you've seen the DirectX10 reviews you know that this will allow to run 99% of the game titles on the market.

So ty for the FUD but it's a non-event. It just proves how slow MS is at embracing new techs.
We should report the OP to hoaxbuster.

Re:Wrath of the Windows Users! (2, Informative)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889526)

I remember in the 680x0 days on my Amiga some bright spark came out with a program called ShapeShifter.

It did as you said and translated the 680x0 Mac code into 680x0 Amiga code with barely any slowdown.

It was a breath of fresh air, especially considering how poorly emulation ran on the Amiga platform up until this point.

What goes around comes around, the Amiga once again proving it was well before its time :)

Re:Wrath of the Windows Users! (4, Funny)

stunt_penguin (906223) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889531)

Yea but what I don' get it what booting has to do with Electronic Fuel Injection.. WAIT A MINUTE....!

Leader of the pack, not (5, Funny)

liangzai (837960) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889340)

Well, Microsoft has always been a slow adapter of everything. USB was late, even a GUI came late. There is still support for floppy disks... no surprise here.

This is good. I don't want to see Macs contaminated with 10 GB of installed rubbish.

Re:Leader of the pack, not (1, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889401)

There is still support for floppy disks... no surprise here.

I once thought I could get away without 3.5 floppies anymore. I was wrong. Something always drags you back in the end. Flashing BIOS for instance.

Re:Leader of the pack, not (1)

BJH (11355) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889431)

Drivers for the NVidia integrated SATA-RAID controller on my mobo got me.
I had to dig in my spare parts box for a floppy drive - luckily I had one still working (and the colour even matched my case ;)

Re:Leader of the pack, not (3, Informative)

moonbender (547943) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889470)

I used to leave a 150 MB FAT16 partition on my HD to store data for flashing the BIOS etc. I'm not sure if I could have booted from it, though I probably could have. Instead I just put the new BIOS image there and booted from a standard DOS boot CD and accessed the FAT16 partition within DOS. Worked fine. Alternatively you can just write a new CD with the right image, obviously, with the downside that you can't easily backup the current image. Finally, these days I'd just boot from a USB memory stick, which is the spiritual heir of the floppy in any event. Oh and you can flash the BIOS from within Windows, although that gives me the creeps, too.

Re:Leader of the pack, not (3, Informative)

tpgp (48001) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889488)

I once thought I could get away without 3.5 floppies anymore. I was wrong. Something always drags you back in the end. Flashing BIOS for instance.

You can flash your bios using a bootable cdrom without a problem.

I've been living quite happily without a floppy for 2+ years.

Re:Leader of the pack, not (3, Informative)

darkain (749283) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889411)

The parent may have been moderated as "troll", but its TRUE, and annoying. I have signed up for the Vista beta testing program, and was quite pissed off to find out that they STILL arent supporting my SATA controller (SiI-3112 non-RAID configuration). We where hoping for support of the more common controllers back with Windows XP SP2. Here it is a few YEARS later, and I cant even install the latest Vista beta.

frost p155 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14889343)

frost p155

Bios Work. (3, Interesting)

mysterious_w (905180) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889344)

Would it be possible to create some kind of bios level switcher so that dual-botting would be possible?

Re:Bios Work. (3, Interesting)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889377)

Exactly. One could do something like emulate a "classic" BIOS. EFI starts something that adversises to be a Operating System, but in reality it just starts a "classic" BIOS. That BIOS is then used to load a BIOS-dependent Operating System like Windows.

Sounds feasible to me...

Re:Bios Work. (2, Interesting)

Trejkaz (615352) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889512)

Good idea. Now implement it and claim the bounty [onmac.net] .

Re:Bios Work. (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889517)

I'm a lousy coder. I didn't say it was easy, not that I could do it. I only said it should be feasible.

Re:Bios Work. (5, Informative)

hattig (47930) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889523)

What you describe is an optional module for EFI already.

Apple just chose not to include it, for the obvious reason that they don't need it.

I expect standard bootloaders in the free software world will all support EFI by the end of this year, if they don't already. I don't know if you'd need an EFI-specific live-CD / install CD too for CD installs.

Re:Bios Work. (2, Interesting)

DrXym (126579) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889539)

Would it be possible to create some kind of bios level switcher so that dual-botting would be possible?

My thoughts too. There is a Linux BIOS project. Could something be written that makes EFI boot into a Linux BIOS which then allows Vista to be booted?

Looks like... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14889346)

Its up to the hackers of the world to glue these things together then. Isn't it great when they put up these artificial obsticales we have to go over to get something usefull done? The funny part being we pay them to do so?

This is me trying really hard to care (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14889352)

I don't care. Really. BIOS isn't the best option, but EFI has it's own problems. Nothing will ever be perfect, just get used to it.

Re:This is me trying really hard to care (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14889392)

OpenFirmware which is what the PPC Macs use is still far superior to that EFI junk Intel is trying to push. Because the BIOS is such a piece of shit anything that Intel releases will look like a godsend.

Re:This is me trying really hard to care (1)

grahamlee (522375) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889421)

Could you provide the argument which explains, in your opinion, the flaws of EFI? I still wish everyone had gone with IEEE1275, but I'd like to know what's up with EFI.

Re:This is me trying really hard to care (1)

Dogun (7502) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889450)

Reading the wikipedia article, it looks like there is very, very bright future for EFI.

However, we're talking about an EFI boot manager, not truly unified device drivers/interfaces and uncorruptable code. Does anybody honestly care that this means you will have to use two bootloaders to get your desired result for a few months, assuming you actually make use of EFI booting at all?

[drunk, replied to wrong post, ignore previous.] (1)

Dogun (7502) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889458)

EOM

But (0)

smvp6459 (896580) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889354)

But can it run Windows Vista?

Oh wait...

Dual-Booting Can Go Take A Freaking Hike (5, Interesting)

John_Booty (149925) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889356)

I'm not at all excited by the idea of shutting down my computer just to use another operating system.

Anybody who's used a virtualization product like VMWare knows what I'm talking about. That is where it's at.

You can run another operating system in a window without leaving your current OS. It's not an emulator in any traditional sense of the word; things run at (or a few percent shy of) native speed. The only downside is that you need enough RAM to run both operating systems simultaneously in a comfortable fashion, but 2GB of RAM is under $200 these days.

I'm going to buy an Intel Mac as soon as VMWare releases an OSX version of VMWare or an open-source implementation reaches that level of quality (there are some strong contenders). I'm willing to put down the cash to run Windows on an Intel Mac, but dual-booting isn't even part of the equation.

Re:Dual-Booting Can Go Take A Freaking Hike (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14889481)

Wooo!! let me know how fast you can use 3dsmax or f.e.a.r. or any other 3d application or games.
And if you don't use them, tell me why you need Windows on your Mac...

Re:Dual-Booting Can Go Take A Freaking Hike (1)

Trejkaz (615352) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889532)

Here's a good reason: developing Windows software for work.

Re:Dual-Booting Can Go Take A Freaking Hike (5, Informative)

earthbound kid (859282) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889484)

Amit Singh and his friends at IBM got XP running under VMWare in Linux on an Intel iMac [osxbook.com] . As he says, "To anybody who has used Windows XP under Virtual PC on the PowerPC version of Mac OS X: you will simply be blown away by how fast Windows XP runs under VMware on the new hardware." So that's good news. Now someone just has to make it work under OS X directly.

Re:Dual-Booting Can Go Take A Freaking Hike (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14889506)

VPC on PPC is dog slow, of course you'll be blown away if your expectations are low enough. Unfortunately, if you compare it to the same hardware running Windows natively you will notice a severe performance penalty. And now that Apple is using completely stock hardware, that will be the relevant comparison.

Re:Dual-Booting Can Go Take A Freaking Hike (1)

moonbender (547943) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889490)

VMWare is good, but I'm waiting for Wine to be ported to OS X86...

Re:Dual-Booting Can Go Take A Freaking Hike (4, Insightful)

dan the person (93490) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889499)

I'm not at all excited by the idea of shutting down my computer just to use another operating system.

Anybody who's used a virtualization product like VMWare knows what I'm talking about. That is where it's at.


One word: Games.

Unless things have changed recently, opengl, directx etc don't work.

Re:Dual-Booting Can Go Take A Freaking Hike (5, Interesting)

jcr (53032) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889516)

VMWare is a very fine product, and I too look forward to seeing it on a Mac. A friend of mine solved a rather hairy Windows problem by running multiple virtual NT machines under VMWare, since he wasn't allowed to ditch NT altogether (decisions made many, many levels above his customer).

In the application in question, they had 21 NT hosts running their web apps. In production, these machines stayed up about five hours. The band-aid solution was to make one machine reboot all the others every four hours. The permanent fix was to run NT under VMWare: the NT instances still failed, but restarting one from a pristine state became a five-second operation.

For a bonus, they picked up enough performance from Linux's paging versus NT's utterly brain-dead paging, that they were able to free all but three of the 21 machines that had been using to other tasks.

The answer to a broken OS is to run it in a penalty box under a working OS.

-jcr

MS Removing features, again... (4, Funny)

laptop006 (37721) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889359)

"Although Microsoft has previously said EFI booting would be supported by Vista, Ritz admitted that EFI support won't be seen in any version of Windows until the release of Longhorn Server."

Great, yet another vista feature removed before released.

Re:MS Removing features, again... (5, Funny)

Zadaz (950521) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889368)

Great, yet another vista feature removed before released.

Better than being removed after release.

Chicken and the Egg? (5, Insightful)

ssj-xordyh (613424) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889362)

Quote from the article: "It said its decision to 'reprioritise'[sic] EFI development to the server version of Windows was based on a lack of available desktop PCs with EFI support on the market."

Maybe the reason that there are no desktop PCs with EFI support is because everyone knows that Windows still only boots on BIOS. If Microsoft was serious about jump-starting a move to EFI (or any other alternative) they would support it now, and watch the hardware follow.

I wonder if this is due to laziness, maliciousness, or a combination of both?

Re:Chicken and the Egg? (2, Insightful)

MrMickS (568778) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889533)

MS has no need for EFI. Windows works fine with the BIOS. Device drivers stored in EFI flash memory removes a degree of control from MS over what's on users PCs.

Users have no need for EFI. They take whatever Windows gives them. If they've no experience of what EFI might offer then they are in no position to judge.

MS is after making money out of every aspect of Vista. This includes their programme for signing device drivers and delivering them to customers. If there is an alternate mechanism MS no longer gets its buck. This is bad from a bean counter point of view.

In short: MS makes no extra money by supporting EFI so has no reason to put the work in to make it work.

Re:Chicken and the Egg? (1)

patio11 (857072) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889543)

[quote] I wonder if this is due to laziness, maliciousness, or a combination of both?[/quote]

How about "lack of a business case in support of EFI"? Why spend a couple million in development resources and ongoing support costs for something which the gigantic majority of your customers will not find any value in and which will not sell marginal boxes? Whats the rationale for EFI anyhow, aside from "a bright and shiny new way to do the most basic, boring thing your computer is capable of"? Its not like Microsoft shies from devoting resources to hardware when there is an actual gain in customer value (and sales) from doing so: c.f. Plug & Play, USB, signed drivers, DirectX, wireless networking wizards, yadda yadda. There are obvious advantages to those. Why use EFI?

Get your product out there TODAY! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14889366)

http://mossmailer.tk/ [mossmailer.tk]

I can help!

Mozasaur.

elilo? (4, Interesting)

Ledsock (926049) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889367)

I guess this means that someone is going to have to hack a Linux bootloader to boot Windows. Maybe something with elilo. It's be kinda cool for these [mactel-linux.org] guys to say, "Sure. You can run Windows on an Intel Mac. You just gotta install Linux first!"

Re:elilo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14889475)

Hacking Windows to run on Mac hardware is like hacking OS X to run on PC hardware. I hope MS writes in the EULA it's verboten. Give steve jobs some of his own cancer.

Re:elilo? (0, Offtopic)

jb.hl.com (782137) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889515)

Give steve jobs some of his own cancer

I'm fairly sure that if Steve Jobs had cancer, it would already be his own. Bill wouldn't need to do anything.

Stupid Question But... (1, Insightful)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889369)

...since we're constantly hearing from Mac owners how wonderful OS X is, then why would they give a damn about this?

This isn't a sarcastic comment - I've never personally used a Mac or OS X (just never had the need to) so I just don't understand why this issue has even made it to a Slashdot article.

Besides, it should come as no great shock that Microsoft do not tolerate dual booting systems anyway - look at how easily Windows wipes over the boot block when you reinstall it on a PC where you're booting Linux also.

It took the developers of Lilo and GRUB to make dual-booting possible with Windows & Linux, not Microsoft.

Re:Stupid Question But... (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889379)

...since we're constantly hearing from Mac owners how wonderful OS X is, then why would they give a damn about this?

The answer is very simple and can be put in one word: Games.

Re:Stupid Question But... (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889525)

The answer is very simple and can be put in one word: Games.

Games, and also legacy apps. Most companies have at least one...

-jcr

Re:Stupid Question But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14889382)

Short answer: Potential.

Re:Stupid Question But... (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889394)

since we're constantly hearing from Mac owners how wonderful OS X is, then why would they give a damn about this?

Because those same Mac owners, that are so proud of the operating system are big whiners when it comes to games. They want it all, you know: a pretty operating system and all the games you can get on that ugly thing called Windows XP.

They are proud to be "the minority", but don't accept the fact that them being a minority it doesn't add up for game publishers to develop for them.

And, yes, I am a former Apple user... I however left for entirely different reasons.

Re:Stupid Question But... (4, Funny)

AntiDragon (930097) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889404)

Simple really - because OS X is still lacking in certain software.
The OS is great. Really. The hardware is a bit overpriced, yes but let's face it, it *is* oh so desirable!

But there is still a ton of software out there that doesn't come in OS X flavour. Notably games.

And to get the absolute maximum performance for Windows games, you'd want to dual-boot, not use some VMware system. ...Hang on...Did I just use the words "performance" and "windows" in the same sentence? I need more sleep....

Re:Stupid Question But... (1)

Digital Pizza (855175) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889464)

Games; they won't run well or at all in a virtual machine environment (VMWare, for example, doesn't support Direct 3D or DirectDraw even in software-only mode), so they have to run natively.

Also, I'd love to have a MacBook that could boot up Windows, not only for games but for testing and development, which chew up a lot more memory than I'd likely have available in a virtual machine environment. I prefer OS X, but do use Windows quite a bit as well and sometimes I need the machine's full resources available to it.

Dual boot (1)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889491)

Besides, it should come as no great shock that Microsoft do not tolerate dual booting systems anyway - look at how easily Windows wipes over the boot block when you reinstall it on a PC where you're booting Linux also.

Does Windows still do that? I certainly remember much annoyance when Win98 wiped out lilo, but when I upgraded that to Win2K it didn't touch anything. No damage. Up comes the bootloader, pick 'windows', up it comes no problem...

Do the NT versions behave better in dual-boot configurations, or was I just incredibly weirdly lucky?

Re:Stupid Question But... (1)

Detritus (11846) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889495)

I don't give a damn about it. Keep that crap off my Mac. If I have to run a Windows program, which isn't that often, I have a separate computer. For games, there are game consoles.

Why would they be shocked? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14889370)

"The news will be a shock for owners of Intel Macs who had hoped they would be able to dual-boot between Windows Vista and OS X"

What? Why would Mac owners want to boot into Windows? If anything they will be happy that no-one will commit sacrilege on a Mac system.

Big whoopdie freakin'-doo. (1)

Dogun (7502) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889373)

We've got an existing boot standard. What's so great about EFI? Inability swap a hard drive and be able to boot it?

Re:Big whoopdie freakin'-doo. (2, Insightful)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889405)

I suppose you mean OpenFirmware and not the BIOS that is in your PC. I agree that OpenFirmware is very nice, but alas, Intel suffers from the Not Invented Here syndrome. Everyone *could* use OpenFirmware, but Intel prefers its own stuff. That's why... No other reason, really.

Re:Big whoopdie freakin'-doo. (4, Informative)

OzRoy (602691) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889425)

How about you read up about it before just dismissing it out of hand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Firmware_I nterface [wikipedia.org]

OS independant device drivers sounds like a big plus to me. No more complaints about how your ATI card runs like crap under linux.

Re:Big whoopdie freakin'-doo. (1)

Dogun (7502) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889465)

Reading the wikipedia article, it looks like there is very, very bright future for EFI.

However, we're talking about an EFI boot manager, not truly unified device drivers/interfaces and uncorruptable code. Does anybody honestly care that this means you will have to use two bootloaders to get your desired result for a few months, assuming you actually make use of EFI booting at all?

Re:Big whoopdie freakin'-doo. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14889541)

EFI is one of the pieces of the framework necessary to implement Trusted Computing.

says Joseph Heller (2, Insightful)

dartarrow (930250) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889378)

FTA : It said its decision to 'reprioritise' EFI development to the server version of Windows was based on a lack of available desktop PCs with EFI support on the market.

This could create a cath-22, chicken and egg situation. Less EFI in market causes no EFI support causes Less EFI in market, causes no EFI suport.......

Re:says Joseph Heller (1)

Trejkaz (615352) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889546)

But let's face it, there can't really be any less EFI in the market, can there? The only way that will happen would be if Apple dropped it, and then thousands of existing Intel-based Mac machines spontaneously combusted.

If a tree falls in a forest... (4, Interesting)

Cadallin (863437) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889386)

Does anybody give a damn? I mean seriously, did anyone out there actually BUY a new Intel mac counting on the rumors that it MIGHT be able to run windows sometime soon? If so, why?

And does this really come as a suprise to anyone anyway? "Oh my God! Someone tries to update the x86 architecture in a meaningful way and Microsoft arrives late to the Party: Drunk, kicking, and screaming! Who knew that might happen?"

Who cares? (1)

Alioth (221270) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889397)

Who cares? This is about as significant as Microsoft not releasing a PowerPC version of Vista.

Re:Who cares? (2, Informative)

gormanly (134067) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889540)

This is about as significant as Microsoft not releasing a PowerPC version of Vista.

Nope, this is much less significant.

Such announcement would be a huge boost for IBM and Motorola (the PowerPC makers), especially given the kick they have just taken from Apple (who for 15 years were 1/3 of the PowerPC trio of backers [wikipedia.org] ).

A revival of Microsoft OS support for the PPC processor family in Vista (NT 6.0) would be a huge deal, given that they dropped it from NT 5.0 (Windows 2000) and NT 5.1 (Windows XP and 2003), after it was supported in NT 3.51 and NT 4.0 (up to SP3, at least).

FYI, here's a snippet from Microsoft's NT 4.0 docs [microsoft.com] :

Portability means that Windows NT runs on both CISC and RISC processors. CISC includes computers running with Intel 486 or higher processors. RISC includes computers with MIPS R4000or Digital Alpha AXP, or PowerPC processors.

Vista is only going to run on x86, x86_64 and Itanium processors, but the odd thing is that it will need EFI support to boot on the latter anyway. Maybe MS have some toe-stepping avoidance deal with Apple?

Waste of money for me (1)

Fjan11 (649654) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889398)

I see this primarily as a huge waste of money for me. I want to use Mac OS for my work, but I want to have Windows so I can play games. So I own both platforms, which are now almost identical inside except for the boot rom. If I could dual boot I would spend less money on 1 really nice machine.

I can't help thinking that Microsoft does this just to make life harder for potential switchers.

Re:Waste of money for me (1)

Fengpost (907072) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889415)

I agree. This way, MS can be seen protecting its OEM clients. It is also possible that if MS include EFI feature, the launch date could be delayed. Which ever way you look at it. We, the consumers, get the shaft again. Thanks Bill

WTF is EFI? (5, Informative)

Big Nothing (229456) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889403)

For those of us who DON'T have a BN acronyms in a LUT in our heads, EFI means "Extensible Firmware Interface". Read up on Wiki [wikipedia.org] .

Re:WTF is EFI? (3, Funny)

RipTides9x (804495) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889418)

Yeah I actually had to read half the article to find that out. There goes my slashdot credibility.

A shock, you say... (5, Interesting)

mederjo (899667) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889409)

I know it's the fashionable thing to do, but the whole article summary is a troll. I can't imagine all that many people are buying Intel Macs because there's a chance they might boot Windows, or rather any one who is going to be shocked-SHOCKED! if they can't. Not out in the real - not /. - world anyway. Some might be a bit miffed perhaps. I would hope that those who do want to dual boot Windows and OS X are savvy enough to wait to see if it's actually going to be possible before making a purchase. If not, well, sad for them but they have a pretty good OS and machine. I'm sure there'll be some sort of virtualisation environment available which will probably make for a more useful experience than dual booting anyway - much easier to share stuff between OSes when you can run both at the same time. Using Windows on my PC via RDC on one of my Macs is often more convenient than flipping between machines using my KVM.

Many of the people I'm aware of who are buying Intel Macs are people who have been hanging out for a pepped up PowerBook. There are a few who seem to be getting them because they're the "new Mac", more money than sense :-). I only know one or two first time Mac buyers who have been waiting for a spread of Intel Macs ( i.e. mini, iMac and MacBook ) to choose from. None of them seem to be particularly interested in running Windows on their new machines.

I have a 17" Intel iMac, which I got as a replacement machine from Apple for my DTK prototype Intel Mac. It's a great little machine. I have no intention at all of booting Windows on it - that's what my PC is for ;-).

BTW, does anyone know where the "shocked-SHOCKED!" thing ( not necessarily with my capitalisation ) came from? I've seen quite a few people saying/writing it, and the only place in the popular media, if you will, that I've seen it is in the movie "High Fidelity" where Joan Cusack says it when having lunch with the Laura character. Is that where it came from? It's been buggin' me :-).

Regards,

Jo Meder

Re:A shock, you say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14889433)

It's from "Casablanca".

What's the advantage of EFI anyway? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14889413)

I've read countless comments about the superiority of EFI (and Open Firmware) and how much the BIOS sucks, but I still haven't found anyone explaining how exactly they are superior, and why exactly the BIOS sucks, except that EFI is newer and better. And that OF has a Forth interpreter. (How many people have ever used that, honestly?)

Incidently, for all the superiority of Open Firmware, most Macs of the past few years can't even boot from USB. While a coworker showed me a 4 year old Compaq D510 desktop with a bog standard BIOS booting and flawlessly running a pirated OS X 10.4.3 from an USB hard disk.

As far as I'm concerned, the only thing the BIOS has to do is to be able to find the boot sector of a boot device for the real OS. Anything else is handled better by the OS. What exactly is the advantage of moving to EFI?

Re:What's the advantage of EFI anyway? (3, Informative)

Vo0k (760020) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889500)

If you read an article about the PC boot process (been on /. long time ago), you'd see the drudgery of climbing up the ladder of legacies to bootstrap a PC with BIOS.
Even if you have two dual-core Athlons 64, you start with a single CPU in 286-compatiblity mode. You need to climb all the way up, starting with ancient 8-bit instructions to enable 16-bit, get out of the 640K memory limitations, floating math co-processor, pull all the hardware from legacy compatiblity modes (all gfx cards by default start in CGA mode, year 1981) enable all extras that were not supported by 486 and similar, and slowly, slowly crawl your way up to a level where a dual 64-bit CPU is a dual 64-bit CPU, not a hyper-overclocked 386.

Re:What's the advantage of EFI anyway? (2, Insightful)

hattig (47930) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889511)

With OpenFirmware, any addin card with a ROM would have the initialisation, etc, code written in Forth. The OpenFirmware would then execute the Forth, and setup the card, regardless of the processor architecture.

The BIOS is 25 years old. It's 'proven' vs. 'ancient cruft'. It's hardly used as a Basic Input Output System now, just as a system configuration pre-boot interface. Possibly it doesn't even matter about what the pre-boot software is, as long as it boots afterwards!

Apple somehow managed to get their OS booting on EFI without much trouble, during a transition to a new architecture. Microsoft have had twice the time to get it booting on EFI, without that transition, and it still doesn't work. It makes me wonder how tied in to the BIOS current Windows actually is.

Re:What's the advantage of EFI anyway? (1)

lintux (125434) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889530)

> Incidently, for all the superiority of Open Firmware, most Macs of the past few years can't even boot from USB.

However, they boot from FireWire very well (which PCs don't do *AFAIK*). This is more a matter of Apple caring more about FireWire than about USB.

Will there be mouse support in Vista? (4, Funny)

erroneus (253617) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889416)

I'm really worried now! It seems like almost every feature boasted in Vista has been pulled. Database filesystem and all that? What will be left that isn't essentially Windows XP with a much larger greed for memory and other hardware requirements?

Re:Will there be mouse support in Vista? (2, Funny)

cortana (588495) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889452)

The ability to run Halo 2?

Re:Will there be mouse support in Vista? (1)

Vo0k (760020) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889471)

That would run on XBox2 controller.

Re:Will there be mouse support in Vista? (3, Funny)

Vo0k (760020) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889461)

Basic mouse support will be added in Service Pack 1. Mouse buttons will be supported in SP2 scheduled for 2012. For now you can use the beta version of keyboard interface or stable punchcard input.

For now the problems to be solved is authenticating the mice with the system as a part of increased security, so that no mice from unreliable vendors would be installable. In case of a 3rd party non-approved mouse your system and house will be remotely locked down and the whole block napalmed under the rules of DMCA and Patriot act. So far the system is being beta-tested to remove all false positives, the bugs hindered progress but opened career positions in Microsoft for many new brave beta-testers.

Re:Will there be mouse support in Vista? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14889522)

Don't say that Vista will have no features -- it *will* have through-and-through DRM. That's one feature that Microsoft will not drop.

Re:Will there be mouse support in Vista? (1)

lintux (125434) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889534)

It will have all the security that they promised us for Win2K, WinXP, etc. ;-)

But seriously, I hope they'll indeed get rid of this stupid Administrator-by-default thing, and let's hope the Windows users will understand (and use) it. I have my doubts about that last thing, unfortunately. :-(

Seems logical. (4, Interesting)

Vo0k (760020) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889423)

Supporting EFI would be supporting competition. Incentive to abandon Microsoft.
"I want a computer that's good for gaming and graphics. Either PC or the new Intel Mac, which I'd dual boot, OS X for gfx, Vista for games."

EFI supported:
"So, supposedly Mac is better for gfx than PC, let's try it... Wow, this OS X rocks and Vista sucks. I'm gonna get a PS3 for games and drop Vista altogether, staying with OS X."
EFI not supported:
"Well, there is Photoshop for Vista and no games for OS X, so I'd better buy a PC so I have both games and photoshop. Well, it sucks, but I bet OS X would suck just the same if I ever tried it."

Re:Seems logical. (1)

SpinJaunt (847897) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889513)

hmmm, shame MS doesn't quite see it that way. Once you've bought a PC with Vista, you've still paid the MS tax.

Anyway, I see MS' name on the list of companies "supporting" EFI/GPT: http://www.uefi.org/index.php?pg=2 [uefi.org] :)
With support and innovation from all UEFI Forum member companies, work is being done continually to evolve the UEFI specification to meet industry needs.

Who would have thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14889444)

Who would have thought we would see people complaining about not being able to run Windows on a Mac!

doesn't matter (1)

penguin-collective (932038) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889447)

For mainstream adoption, Windows basically requires support from the PC vendor. That's particulary true on Macs, which are going to have some non-standard hardware.

And why would you want to boot Windows anyway? It will run fine on a virtual machine under OS X.

If it hasn't already happened.. (1)

jjeffrey (558890) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889453)

...I'm sure someone will very quickly produce a hacked version of lilo or grub or something that boots from EFI and installes the necessary interrupt handlers etc to emulate a BIOS enough to boot Vista. Hacking the real BIOS is probably too dangerous for most people to want to do with their new macs.

EFI and Trusted Computing (4, Interesting)

bananaendian (928499) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889457)

As I understand it, one of central features of EFI was the hardware level encryption and digital signing happening between core motherboard components, an intergral part of the Trusted Computing Platform implementation - which Windows Vista was supposed to fully support? If Vista has to use the old BIOS architecture is there hope still for freedom or is there another way to tie us onto the TC-shackles?

And does this mean Apple's products will be the only ones that fully implement the TC platform idea both in hardware and operating system level. I seem to remember the Macintosh launch involved an ad related to the year 1984, can't seem to remember exactly what it was about (mind blanked out)...

BIOS can only boot from disks less than 4TB (1)

keean (824435) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889460)

The PC needs to get past BIOS booting soon... I cannot boot my 4TB RAID array because the BIOS is limited to 32bit partition-tables. EFI would allow 64-bit partition tables and the ability to boot from a disk larger than 4TB... (Note: because this is a partition table problem you cannot just set up a small partition to boot from at the beginning of the disk - and if you want the OS on RAID, the only way round it is to set up a small RAID array for booting as well as the main array...)

Effing Vista (5, Insightful)

FishandChips (695645) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889480)

So Vista is coming to seem more and more like an XP service pack with a massive price tag and unwelcome restrictions. I don't know why Gates doesn't throw in the towel and announce that from now on the chair of Microsoft will be held on a rotating basis by the chairs of the major Hollywood studios. All Microsoft seem to be doing these days in the consumer market is kowtowing to the content providers while trying to grab a slice of the action for themselves. Microsoft offer no vision, no inspiration or feel-good factor. It's a pathetic end to the dream of a computer on every desk. What we have instead is a glorified credit card processor.

Re:Effing Vista (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889545)

So Vista is coming to seem more and more like an XP service pack with a massive price tag and unwelcome restrictions.

That's been the plan, pretty much since they had to throw away their work in progress and roll back to the Windows Server 2003 code base to find a salvagable state of the product.

What I find surprising is that "vista" hasn't been widely reported in the business press as perhaps the single most costly failed development project that has ever taken place outside of the federal government. It may even top the government record, although I'm sure their biggest fuck-ups would be classified.

Before Vista, the biggest software project failure in history was probably IBM's Office Vision: $900 million spent, diddly-squat delivered.

-jcr

Just wait for the 64-bit Intel Macs (1)

Digital Pizza (855175) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889487)

The 64-bit Pentium M's (or whatever you kids are calling them these days) are just around the corner, and Apple's certain to use them; they may be able to boot 64-bit Windows (which does support EFI).

I guess the lack of a VGA BIOS is still a bit of a problem.

Why is everyone bitching? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14889489)

EFI may have some advantages but *REMEMBER* EFI is part of the Trusted Computing design. Interestingly, I had to dig through to an old January 11 version of the EFI [wikipedia.org] page at wikipedia that details this. It seems like someone has edited out this information:

The Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI) is an updated BIOS specification developed by Intel. Designed for use with trusted computing, it allows vendors to create drivers which cannot be reverse engineered. It also allows operating systems to run in a sandbox, delegating networking and memory management to the firmware. Hardware access is converted to calls to the EFI drivers. The EFI BIOS is used to select the operating system, replacing boot loaders.

I'm not for conspiracy theories but reading the Intel EFI 1.1 spec and looking at how Apple has resorted to locking out XP and requires a separate HFS+ partition to get dualboot Linux on a MacTel [mactel-linux.org] . Luckily Linux can be booted from HFS+ but do you think this will always be the case? EFI could be used in the future to prevent untrusted file systems, operating systems, kernel-level (not just EFI) drivers or apps from making use of a computer. So where are we on this /.? I find it stupid that people are chiding Microsoft for failing to include a feature like this. Yet when a real threat [writersblocklive.com] is shown [hishamrana.com] that *IS* going to be included, there is very little coverage of the boycott [hdboycott.com] . As much as I hate Microsoft, I'm not giving them crap for not including another device that will take the keys away from MY hardware.

Tin Foil Hat (3, Interesting)

Mr_Silver (213637) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889496)

<tinfoil hat>

Adding EFI support would allow people to run dual boot Windows and OSX on Apple hardware the next time they purchase a computer.

Worse case for Microsoft would be that they try OSX, like it and then gradually migrate across to it.

If they don't support EFI, then there is no good and legal way of running both on one machine. You could use software based solutions, but none of them are as good as a dual boot machine.

As such, if you want to jump from Windows to OSX, it requires significant cash investment - something which a lot of people (myself included) aren't prepared to do.

</tinfoil hat>

Is this just more ... (1)

Bombula (670389) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889497)

UFIA booting?

Happy to hear it (1)

Kunt (755109) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889518)

I don't want no stinkin' Windows on my Mac. Otoh it would perhaps be nice on occasion to be able to use Windows software directly, via a runtime engine, and avoid Windows completely.

Where's the Earth-shattering kaboom?! (1)

davmoo (63521) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889524)

I don't see why everyone acts so surprised here. Expecting Microsoft to make it easy to use Apple products or Apple to make it easy to use Microsoft products would be like Ford announcing it will release a kit to allow Mustang owners to replace their current engine with products from Toyota.

Windows XP boots on MacBook Pro (1)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889536)

This link has the proof

Shocked? (3, Insightful)

wlvdc (842653) | more than 8 years ago | (#14889549)

"The news will be a shock for owners of Intel Macs who had hoped they would be able to dual-boot between Windows Vista and OS X"

As most owners will be 'traditional' mac users, I don't think this is a real issue.

The article also reads: Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI) is the modern and flexible successor to the 20-year-old PC BIOS. It just shows that Microsoft doesn't understand true concepts of usability, innovation and excellence. As most Windows users enjoy crippled systems, using Mac OS X will come as relief to those who dare to swap. Unless you're gaming all day...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?