×

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!

WinXP on a Mac, Hoax?

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the could-be dept.

390

Brill writes "Ars Technica is reporting that a member of the 'WinXP on Mac' forums called narf2006 may have succeeded at the impossible. He's submitted his solution to get XP on an Intel Mac, for the $12,000 prize, but for now the only proof available is a blurry Flickr collection of photos that could be faked with virtual PC. His reputation on the forums however is strong, and he's already calling for testers." We've had people write in to say this has been announced a hoax on the contest page. The contest page is, of course, down due to bandwidth reasons. Engadget's conversation about this announcement has several theories on how this may have been faked. What's the verdict? Real or Fake?

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

390 comments

Explain how? (5, Insightful)

srw (38421) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915733)

Doesn't he have to explain how he did it to collect the prize? Am I missing something?

Re:Explain how? (5, Funny)

Kjuib (584451) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915770)

You are missing out on a GREAT OS running on some AWESOME HARDWARE... get with the program... everyone runs Windows XP on their Mac... come on!

Re:Explain how? (5, Informative)

SonicBV (644848) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915772)

It works like any scientific discovery (which it essentially is). It has to be confirmed by a group of his peers, then he gets the money.

Or such is my understanding, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Re:Explain how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14915802)

I think anyone with a good understanding of how EFI works can do this. There are instructions on how to do this on the net. Peice of cake!

Explain the fricken 12,000 bucks for this... (1, Interesting)

sgant (178166) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915887)

Who would put up 12,000 bucks for something that's not really needed? I mean, sure, hacking the hardware to get it to run is kinda cool and all...but 12 grand?!?! Is it THAT important to buy Mac hardware to put Windows on?

As people have said many many times before, why buy a Porsche and put a Yugo engine in it? Yeah yeah....you use XP at work and blah blah blah and when you get home you might want to run blah blah blah so it would be nice if you could reboot into XP blah blah blah.

But fricken $12,000?

Re:Explain the fricken 12,000 bucks for this... (4, Informative)

NetJunkie (56134) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915932)

No single person or organization put up $12K. A lot of people chipped in a few bucks at a time to get to that level.

Re:Explain the fricken 12,000 bucks for this... (1)

sgant (178166) | more than 8 years ago | (#14916014)

ah, ok...that would make more sense then. So it was more of a big pot that people threw money into and the winner takes all? Ok, actually that's kinda cool.

Re:Explain the fricken 12,000 bucks for this... (3, Funny)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915986)

Is it THAT important to buy Mac hardware to put Windows on?

But of course... As soon as the number of Macs running Windows to do real work outnumbers the number of Macs running Mac OS, can you imagine the reaction of the die hard Mac fanboys? Just that alone is worth $12,000 x 100. ;P (JOKE ALERT!!! JOKE ALERT!!! JOKE ALERT!!!)

Re:Explain the fricken 12,000 bucks for this... (0, Troll)

CuriousGeorge113 (47122) | more than 8 years ago | (#14916136)

Who would put up 12,000 bucks for something that's not really needed? I mean, sure, hacking the hardware to get it to run is kinda cool and all...but 12 grand?!?! Is it THAT important to buy Mac hardware to put Windows on?


One obvious answer might be Apple. They have stated over and over again that it would be impossible for someone to boot XP on a Intel Mac. Now we have claims by someone that it can be done.


I can see two obvious reasons they would pay the bounty.

1. Hush money - they pay the $12k and insist that the user sign an agreement not to realse it to anyone, ever.

2. Apple engineers have no idea how in the world this guy did it, and they need to know in order to engineer a 'fix' to prevent anyone else from doing it.


Maybe this is more of a ransom or a threat to Apple than a legitimate offer to share iformation with the community.

Re:Explain the fricken 12,000 bucks for this... (1)

rm69990 (885744) | more than 8 years ago | (#14916182)

Name one reason why Apple would not want WinXP booting on a Mac?

Re:Explain the fricken 12,000 bucks for this... (1)

plumby (179557) | more than 8 years ago | (#14916237)

1. Hush money - they pay the $12k and insist that the user sign an agreement not to realse it to anyone, ever.

But a competition like this with a $12K prize will attract more than one competitor and even if the first person were paid off, there would almost certainly be others not far behind. So unless Apple were prepared to pay off every single person that did it, I can't imagine this would be a sensible plan for them.

Re:Explain the fricken 12,000 bucks for this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14916248)

That's not quite true. Apple never said that it would be impossible. They said they wouldn't stop people from doing it, but they wouldn't help either.

Apple has little interest in worry about whether or not Windows is going to run on a Mac. They're spending their money and time on better projects.

Re:Explain the fricken 12,000 bucks for this... (5, Informative)

tdemark (512406) | more than 8 years ago | (#14916252)

They have stated over and over again that it would be impossible for someone to boot XP on a Intel Mac. Now we have claims by someone that it can be done.

I think you have that backwards.

Apple has said they don't care if you want to by their hardware and boot XP on it, feel free. They're not doing anything to stop it, but they are also not doing anything to enable it.

What they are against is Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware.

- Tony

obivous! (0, Redundant)

ehmdjii (622451) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915736)

tell me it was not obvious that something like this would happen.

Re:obivous! (0, Flamebait)

Manara18 (522647) | more than 8 years ago | (#14916058)

guys-

it's pretty obvious it's a fake.

take a look at the screenshots: you'll notice the resolution is set to the correctly with the dimensions of the screen. that implies narfu got the drivers for the monitor somehow installed - which would be totally impossible as apple hasnt released windows drivers for their hardware.

it's more likely he's using virtual pc or some emulator like that, or even some fancy photoshop work to produce those images...

Even if this one isn't real... (5, Interesting)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915738)

...Amit Singh from IBM and kernelthread.com (slashdotted 16 times for excellent technical articles on various bits of internals of Apple hardware and Mac OS X) has his own legacy boot solution as well. From a rejected submission:

It appears that Amit Singh of IBM Almaden Research Center [ibm.com], of kernelthread.com [kernelthread.com] and author of Mac OS X Internals [osxbook.com], has devised a method to allow legacy, or BIOS-based, booting on Intel-based Macs [osxbook.com], which they're calling "BAMBIOS". This means operating systems that currently only support legacy booting, such as many Linux distributions that don't yet support EFI, or things like Windows XP and the forthcoming Windows Vista (the 32-bit version of which will lack EFI support [apcmag.com]), will now be able to run on Intel-based Macs without modification (and completely legally). There is also another solution from "narf2006", described here [arstechnica.com] and shown in this flickr set of photos [flickr.com]. narf2006's solution is awaiting verification by Colin for the $12,000 pot [onmac.net]. Time to get that MacBook Pro [apple.com] you've been waiting on for the best of both worlds, everyone...

So even if narf2006's solution isn't real, Amit's solution most certainly is, since he has a great deal of credibility. One way or another, we'll all be able to boot Windows directly on our Intel-based Macs.

This will be great news for people interested in Windows gaming on an Intel-based Mac (who really need the direct video access) and/or people who just want to do it NOW; however, a virtualization solution running under Mac OS X, such as VMware [vmware.com] or Parallels [parallels.com], will be the real holy grail for most users. Most people don't want/need/care about the highest graphics and I/O performance; just the ability to run Windows side-by-side with Mac OS X at a speed that is more than usable, and to also have some capability to seamlessly share things like clipboards and files between the environments (as a nice VM environment would most certainly do). Not to mention not having to reboot.

In any case, even dual booting will be a welcome capability. It remains to be seen how convoluted the process is...

Also, I just spoke with Colin Nederkoorn (the guy running the contest) moments ago, and narf2006's solution has NOT been submitted to him yet. He said that narf2006 said he's "cleaning it up" and will be submitting it "later this week". So, no one, including Colin, has actually seen this solution working yet. Also, he apparently hasn't been in communication with Amit on the BAMBIOS solution as yet...

it doesn't have to be real (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14916039)

You can always install Guest PC for $700 on the Mac, and WinXP will run just as fast as native. And GPC works tons betta than VirtualPC. My last apps on Win were RandMcNally TripMaker and and a streets proggie. Now I don't need Dell hardware anymore.


It's an interesting academic exercise to go native, but who cares?

Re:Even if this one isn't real... (1, Redundant)

harryk (17509) | more than 8 years ago | (#14916172)

As a question, and as someone who does not currently own any 'Apple' hardware, I have but a single question. Why would you want to run WindowsXP on an Intel based Mac? Seriously... I thought the whole point of running a mac based system was to get better hardware (generally speaking) and a very refined OS. I can understand Apple's move to Intel as a technical one (although I'm not sure I'm sold) ... but why would you ultimately want to go backwards to get XP running? I guess I'm specifically concerned with driver support and performance under XP. Am I wrong in thinking that the Mac components are going to be specific, and they aren't going to have adequate XP support? Please don't give me the canned 'becuase I want to' response. Thats only answers the geekfactor question. I want to know if you (or anyone, not be accusational) think that you will get a better performing machine with a Intel-Mac / XP combo... harryk

Re:Even if this one isn't real... (1)

urmensch (314385) | more than 8 years ago | (#14916223)

For work... For games... So you don't have to run through an virtual machine...

Re:Even if this one isn't real... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14916236)

the hardware inside macs has been the same as that in pcs for years now, regardless of the intel switch closing the circle. why run XP on a mac? well, directx isn't available for OS X and that means most games aren't available. a lot of people are also tied to windows-specific applications for their work, and while they'd like to go home to a mac, they'd also like to be able to work from home from time to time or bring a laptop to and from work.

i sincerely doubt there will be any performance down or upgrade from running XP on an intel mac. it will be exactly the same as running it on a commodity pc running a core duo intel chip. the only thing separating the two is EFI vs BIOS.

Re:Even if this one isn't real... (2, Informative)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 8 years ago | (#14916254)

The real benefit to most people will come from running Windows alongside Mac OS X in a "virtual machine" environment, in a window or even full screen, with, for example, a hotkey to switch back and forth between Mac OS X and Windows. To many users who prefer Mac OS X, particularly in enterprise, academic, and research environments, but who also have the occasional applications (usually administrative) that require Windows, this configuration would be a holy grail of sorts. And in this configuration, Windows wouldn't be running in emulation, but it would be running at essentially the native speed of the underlying hardware (with the exception of graphics and disk I/O performance). It will be *much* faster than any emulation ever has been, and there will no doubt be several open source (qemu, xen, wine) and commercial (vmware, Virtual PC) that will allow running Windows (or Windows software) in various capacities. Intel's Virtualization Technology (VT), allowing multiple operating systems to run in separate hardware "partitions" on one processor, make these prospects even more efficient and exciting from a technical standpoint. That scenario *will* happen; it's only a matter of time of the software coming to the platform now that the Intel Macs are shipping.

As to the question, however, of why someone would want to install Windows directly, or "dual boot", here are some answers:

- Gaming. This is probably the primary reason. Since even virtual machine solutions typically still emulate some aspects of video, to get the full performance Windows still has to be running natively directly on the hardware.

- Best possible performance. For those who want Windows and their Windows applications to run as best as they possibly can, again, running Windows directly is required.

- A desire to run Windows (for whatever reason, whether it be preference, desire, necessity, etc.) on quality Apple hardware, while also having the option to run Mac OS X.

- Other applications for which direct hardware access is required.

- Becuase you can. No reason at all other than to "do it".

There are many other arguments for Apple's x86 transition being a potential trojan horse into environments that otherwise avoided Apple hardware because of requirements for Windows. Being able to run Windows in supported vm environments, such as VMware, could be a huge boon to Mac OS X/Apple adoption in certain sectors. The ability to directly boot Windows, even if officially unsupported by Apple, is also very attractive to some.

Hopefully this answers your questions.

This looks to be...... (-1, Redundant)

8127972 (73495) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915744)

..... One of the better Photoshop jobs I've seen lately.

Re:This looks to be...... (1)

LeonGeeste (917243) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915922)

You're joking, but I have to wonder why Brill (submitter), who probably saw the photos himself, didn't pass them on to Slashdot or some other site to host, rather than gripe about how they're not available anymore. Seems it would have been the courteous thing to do.

Re:This looks to be...... (4, Interesting)

catwh0re (540371) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915928)

Here is the thing: you don't need to photoshop anything to get images of windows on an "Intel" iMac

The iMac G5 with built-in iSight camera is visually identical to the new Intel based iMacs.

Virtual PC 7 runs on the iMac G5 without a hitch (and allows full screen mode.)

You then need only take photos of your iMac G5 running windows-xp under virtual PC in full screen mode.

Better proof is images of this method on a MacBook Pro, because intel-based macs are unable to run virtual PC.

Additionally, faking images of a MacBook Pro running XP is also trivial, as you can simply get screen shots (from virtual pc on a G4 or G5 system.. or even off the web.) and display them full screen on your new Intel Mac.

In fact I can fake pictures of my powerbook running vista via a similar method, I can fake images of my powerbook running nintendo DS games with the same method.

The truth of this will come out once the method is tested to work or not work. Only then will the prize money be rewarded.

Re:This looks to be...... (1)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915992)

There are emulation solutions, at least, that run on intel-based macs. Throw a copy of QEMU onto a MacBook and run it in fullscreen mode, and the photos would look real. It would even allow you to make a fake video easier than recording a video of a WinXP desktop and playing it back.

Re:This looks to be...... (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915998)

Better proof is images of this method on a MacBook Pro, because intel-based macs are unable to run virtual PC.
You mean you can't even run it with Rosetta, doing an x86 -> PPC -> x86 conversion?

Re:This looks to be...... (1)

eboot (697478) | more than 8 years ago | (#14916225)

Yes you can, in fact im doing it right now. But i did hear a rumour that it may cause the universe to implode or something but i mean thats just ridic!?@! (Actually a quick google answered this, pretty much straight from microsoft's mouth: no)

Re:This looks to be...... (1)

Ford Prefect (8777) | more than 8 years ago | (#14916195)

I've been using Windows 98SE on my MacBook Pro since I got it.

If I took a photo of it, you'd notice it has no problems running full-screen, and video would prove it's most definitely not a static screenshot - and better still, Windows XP is no obstacle, and I could even have MacOS X for PowerPC, Linux, FreeBSD, RISC OS appearing in a similar manner with no problems whatsoever.

How?

VNC [sourceforge.net]. Easy!

Wow (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14915746)

First post.

If I sorted the bits (5, Insightful)

(H)elix1 (231155) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915747)

If I sorted out the bits of magic to get WinXP up and running on a Mac, I don't think I would post how to the outside world until *after* I collected my bounty. No shock at the lack of details here.

Re:If I sorted the bits (4, Informative)

powerg3 (22943) | more than 8 years ago | (#14916115)

Actually, part of the contest rules was that you had to be the first to post the instructions to the onmac.net forums. For the sake of transparency, it's a good idea.

I'd vote fake... (0, Redundant)

those.numbers (960432) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915748)

Yeah, the man's reputation is strong. But those are pretty bad shots. Until he releases more details about how he's actually doing this. I'd have to say fake.

Re:I'd vote fake... (1)

pheco (957437) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915761)

I guess it's possible but better proof is needed before I'm convinced. Fake.

Re:I'd vote fake... (1)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915851)

Yeah, you'd think someone who is technically saavy enough to hack this would have the skills to take some decent digital photos or video. This smacks of 12-year-old-lamer-with-cellfone-camera-and-Virtual PC fakery...

Re:I'd vote fake... (4, Interesting)

mobiux (118006) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915853)

I am interested in what the device manager says, if he shows a shot of that, it would go a long way.

Verification? (5, Insightful)

JUSTONEMORELATTE (584508) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915752)

For US$12,000, I'd take a day off and fly out to the contest judge's place to show them in person.

Why is this so difficult?

Re:Verification? (5, Informative)

Durandal64 (658649) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915918)

Even if this is real, he hasn't won the contest yet. The rules require not only that XP boot, but it must also dual-boot with Mac OS X. The user must be presented with the option of which OS to run at boot-time, and narf2006 hasn't done that yet.

Maybe interesting as an exercise... (5, Interesting)

Noer (85363) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915782)

but I'd much rather see darWINE working well, or VMWare/VirtualPC running Windows at nearly native speed, or even some significant speedups that make QEMU nearly native speed. A Virtual Windows without the slowdown of emulation would be really nice; on the other hand, I have no desire whatsoever to actually boot Windows on a Mac. That's like putting 87 octane gas in a formula 1 car! ;-)

Re:Maybe interesting as an exercise... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14915854)

but I'd much rather see darWINE working well, or VMWare/VirtualPC running Windows at nearly native speed

That's great, but neither of those things are going to happen soon. darWINE needs a lot of work. VMWare/VirtualPC have made no announcement of OS X products. Unless someone has been secretly working on an OS X virtual machine product and is ready to release (it IS possible), we won't see that soon.

Re:Maybe interesting as an exercise... (4, Funny)

Madjeurtam (101190) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915942)

Not so secretely.

Q [kberg.ch], an emulator based on QEMU [qemu.org] is already working on MacIntels. From their News [kberg.ch] page :
This is just a very first test on universal binaries for Q. Expect flaws! No virtualization yet, but it's way faster than on PPC never the less.
As I understand it, virtualization IS planned in Q, and is already a reality in QEMU, albeit it is a closed-source add-on.

Re:Maybe interesting as an exercise... (2, Interesting)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915990)

Yes, but if we could get WinXP loaded on the Mac hardware we could do some sweet benchmarked comparisons. It would really settle the debate about which OS is faster. Wouldn't it?

Re:Maybe interesting as an exercise... (1)

tpgp (48001) | more than 8 years ago | (#14916231)

actually boot Windows on a Mac. That's like putting 87 octane gas in a formula 1 car!

Its kinda like the people who dual boot windows & linux. They can already run wine, they can already use vmware / bochs, but for some applications that just doesn't really cut it.

It will soon be trivial to tri-boot os x, windows & linux on a single machine - that will extremely useful to a significant amount of people even if you can't see the point of it.

In Soviet Russia... (-1, Troll)

davecrusoe (861547) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915789)

... the software tells YOU how to operate!

Why is related to my thought:: I guess the question in my mind is, why? I didn't purchase my wonderful Mac just to load it with some malware called Windows (3.1, 98, ME, XP, 2K, Vista, and whatever else I'm missing). I thought the whole existance of a Mac was fluid simply because of how well the GUI meshed with the hardware... so to introduce Windows... is... *shudder*... to operate in the klunky Windows way?

Well, other thoughts? What's the point here, anyhow? Besides games, and maybe some MS development stuff, why run Windows on a PC??

Re:In Soviet Russia... (4, Informative)

GekkePrutser (548776) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915862)

Wel... Games, for one, like you already said :) This is something that REALLY requires dual-booting. I mean, you're not going to run a game in VMWare or Virtual PC even if it did support OpenGL or DirectX. Just too slow.

I know a Mac is not for hardcore gamers but someone like me who wants to play the occasional game and not be tied into the pathetically small line-up for Mac games, dual-booting into Windows is a perfect solution.

But there's lots of other uses (most of which would work fine within a virtual machine), like company-supported apps that are not available for Windows.

Re:In Soviet Russia... (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#14916133)

It'd be fine for (non-Source) Half-Life mods though, which are the only games I'm interested in that aren't native Mac OS already anyway.

Re:In Soviet Russia... (4, Insightful)

tpgp (48001) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915866)

What's the point here, anyhow? Besides games, and maybe some MS development stuff, why run Windows on a PC??

You do realise you answered your own question don't you?

Anyway, whilst I don't like or run windows at home, I keep a spare 1GB partition with my old legal copy of win2k on it.

Why? Because I think two operating systems are better then one - and its not exactly like its hard work (or much overhead) to set up a dual boot these days.

Re:In Soviet Russia... (3, Insightful)

tool462 (677306) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915869)

Besides games, and maybe some MS development stuff

For many people, those two things are reason enough to dual boot. It allows you to keep using your existing software, which makes the switch to Mac that much easier for people who have large libraries of Windows-only software.

Let's ruin a mac (0, Redundant)

waif69 (322360) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915792)

Let's put an insecure OS on a beautiful machine and see if we can break it. Of course, this is only a lead in to making software that will be put on a CD to destroy a system if left in the CD drive and the user is told it will do something positive to their machine. OK, it will require social engineering and a upset worker in a software company to put this on a CD. OK, there are no IT people that get upset at company they work for. What was I thinking...

Re:Let's ruin a mac (2, Interesting)

ZiakII (829432) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915823)

Let's put an insecure OS on a beautiful machine and see if we can break it. Of course, this is only a lead in to making software that will be put on a CD to destroy a system if left in the CD drive and the user is told it will do something positive to their machine. OK, it will require social engineering and a upset worker in a software company to put this on a CD. OK, there are no IT people that get upset at company they work for. What was I thinking...

You Sir, are why I don't hate Macs just Mac Users....

Re:Let's ruin a mac (1)

waif69 (322360) | more than 8 years ago | (#14916149)

You Sir, are why I don't hate Macs just Mac Users....
I am hated for many reasons, many are good reasons, the least of which is the Mac.

Astroturfing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14915813)

It amazes me that the named personed has not even submitted a public release on how to run WinXP on Mac and everyone has already jumped onto the "zOMG its a photochop" bandwagon. At some point he has send his instructions to the person holding the pot and if it works then he wins the money while everyone else gets the instructions. In this day and age I find it rather disappointing that the first knee jerk reaction is always one of negativity. Slandering this guy's reputation in every forum won't get XP to run any sooner on a mac. I certainly hope that if this guy really did find the solution that Slashdot, Engadget, Digg and every other site dragging this guy's rep through the mud will run an apology.

I thought Apple didn't care ? (1)

alexhs (877055) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915828)

IIRC Apple doesn't care if you're running some Microsoft OS on Mac. After all, they're selling hardware...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not dismissing the performance but the "succeeded at the impossible" from the blurb just doesn't sound "accurate" to me. It should be more difficult to run Intel MacOS X on a PC box than the opposite.

Re:I thought Apple didn't care ? (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915907)

it actually isnt thats the thing. the EFI bootup on the Mactels make it surprisingly hard to boot windows on it, which is why its been a problem. On the otherhand OS X has little problems booting off a standard PC.

Re:I thought Apple didn't care ? (1)

MustardMan (52102) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915919)

What rock have you been hiding under? Intel macs have no BIOS, they use EFI. Windows XP doesn't support EFI. Therefore, the technical challenge has been getting windows XP to boot on a machine with EFI. Even Vista is supposedly going to lack EFI support.

Re:I thought Apple didn't care ? (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915934)

They don't care if you run another operating system, but they're also not going to spend extra effort and compromise their hardware design (by implementing legacy BIOS) to help you do it.

Re:I thought Apple didn't care ? (2, Funny)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915945)

It's pretty much inevitable that someone will call them wanting support for the Apple machine they screwed up by trying to install Windows. Just answering the phone probably costs them $20-$30, so even if the users are forthcoming that they tried to install Windows and Apple tells them they can't be helped until they reinstall OSX off the restore DVDs, those calls will eat into Apple's profit margin. If a lot of people start doing that, Apple might have to hire another support person. That would double the cost of their support center and Steve will never get to finish his game of solitaire (Or whatever the Apple equivalent is.) All that engineering up front to discourage installing Windows on their hardware was probably just an attempt to avoid those support calls.

Re:I thought Apple didn't care ? (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#14916179)

and Steve will never get to finish his game of solitaire (Or whatever the Apple equivalent is.)
The only game all Macs (except maybe the Xserve) come with is GNU Chess. Behold Mac users' intellectual superiority! ; )

Virtual PC!! (1, Redundant)

drrck (959788) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915832)

The main problem I see with this one is Virtual PC. I can do the exact same thing with my iMac G5 at home by simply starting up VPC and booting XP.
While I'm on a rant... Is there some unwritten rule that says all pictures of things somewhat exciting must be taken at VGA quality on a cell phone?

Re:Virtual PC!! (1)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 8 years ago | (#14916060)

and for those who don't want/need linux on the mac? As soon as vmware comes out with a os x version, then that will be an option.

Vice Versa (2, Insightful)

szembek (948327) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915848)

I'm probably stating the obvious here, but in my opinion the opposite of this would be much more useful. Being able to put Mac OSX on non-proprietary PC hardware would be much more useful than installing windows on a pricey Mac. I would like the ability to poke around in OSX, but I'm certainly not going to throw down the cash for a Mac.

Re:Vice Versa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14915936)

OS X already runs on generic PC hardware. You have to wait for Apple to release a standalone box of the OS though (if you want it legal). Should happen at the next update.

Re:Vice Versa (2, Insightful)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915943)

You can install OSX on your PC already. I've got it on my laptop. No wireless (yet) but it's fun to play with. It's also why I'm getting a Macbook Pro (when the Rev B comes out). I love OSX from my limited use of it. And if I could put Windows on there too? That would be great.

Re:Vice Versa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14915951)

HI,

>but I'm certainly not going to throw down the cash for a Mac.

Seems to me that if you're going to throw down cash you might as well spend it on hardware that can run any operating system you want rather that just windows and linux (the latter provided you can find drivers for your hardware)

But I've seen people waste money before, so what you're saying doesn't surprise me.

Re:Vice Versa (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915967)

This can be done already, assuming you have the right hardware (a CPU that supports SSE3 and possibly an Intel chipset, IIRC) and you don't care that it is possibly illegal (depending on jurisdiction, whether you have a legal copy of the OS, etc.).

In fact, I'm considering doing it when I replace my iBook because Apple refuses to make a tablet (Grrr...).

Re:Vice Versa (2, Insightful)

shadexiii (723888) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915973)

Windows works on lots of hardware. OS X *could* but isn't really suited for it (by design.) So if you need both, isn't Windows the more logical choice for transplanting?

Of course it's a fake (-1, Redundant)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915875)

We all know Windows won't run on a Mac! Totally incompatible architecture... I mean Apple would have to be stupid enough to use Intel chipsets... oh wait...

get a life people..... (0, Flamebait)

cjpenguin (154194) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915883)

i've loved slashdot for a long time. yes the self-conscious righteous OSS rants and all. ...but this is just ridiculous. windows xp on a mac....seriously...

WHO CARES!?!

Re:get a life people..... (2, Interesting)

Sesticulus (544932) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915953)

Apparently quite a lot of people, this is what the latest of perhaps a dozen articles since the mac->intel announcement?

As a small developer that with about a 50/50 split in customers that run OSX and customers running Windows, having a single machine for support is a very attractive thing.

I have a life (2, Funny)

kcurtis (311610) | more than 8 years ago | (#14915956)

I'm a level 60 Warrior on WoW. I battle those nasty night elves and live the high life in Orgrimmar.

Oh, you mean real life?

But seriously, and related to the first part of my post...

I would love to have a Mac for browsing, mail and multimedia editing, and to also dual-boot into XP for gaming. (Yes, I know WoW comes on Mac, but many games do not).

Virtual PC? Bah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14915994)

the only proof available is a blurry Flickr collection of photos that could be faked with virtual PC

Virtual PC?! Screw that - he could have faked those with a full-screen iPhoto view of a screenshot taken from a regular PC.

I'm not trying to say he wasn't successful, I'm just trying to say that the story submitter is looking for far too complicated of an explanation.

It's not hard to hoax (3, Insightful)

earthbound kid (859282) | more than 8 years ago | (#14916032)

It's not as though it's a hard hoax to do.

1. Go to a Windows box. Take a screen shot.

2. Open the screenshot on your iMac. Display it full screen.

3. Take a picture.

I mean, he hasn't posted a video of him using the computer and his mousing syncing up with the screen, right? Just a blurry photo. So, that proves basically nothing. I'm not saying he absolutely didn't do it, just that a photo doesn't count for much.

Re:It's not hard to hoax (1)

jekewa (751500) | more than 8 years ago | (#14916144)

Even easier, two words: full-screen VNC. Hyphenated is it two or three? I'm sure I'll be corrected.

I do this all the time between LINUX, Solaris, Mac, Windows. I'm at one machine and need to do something screwy and GUI on another; VNC to the rescue. Takes about two minutes to set up, and in full-screen mode, easy to do with no photo alterations. And the mouse and keyboards work.

640x480 (3, Informative)

ikejam (821818) | more than 8 years ago | (#14916042)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32436196@N00/11097774 4/in/photostream/ [flickr.com]

Interesting thought there - VGA drivers arent installed now if it was a fresh install right?

"
PowerMacChris says:

oh-oh-owned!

Windows XP has a 640x480 resoulition on GUI install :P
Posted 3 days ago.

Paul Stamatiou Pro User says:

^ No. I've installed XP with 1280x1024.
Posted 2 days ago.

digitalpiracy says:

No he's right - you can set an option in the unattend.sif file so the resolution jumps to whatever you like once its installed the VGA drivers, but this section always runs at 640x480
Posted 2 days ago. "

Another Case of Poor Slashdot Journalism (2, Insightful)

plaidhacker (950067) | more than 8 years ago | (#14916096)

Turn of events: 1) someone posts some (blurry) pictures (4) of a WinXP install screen on an iMac to flickr 2) forums world-wide respond with "d00d! its a total fake! look at those pixels!" and "why can't a guy who knows how to do this use a camera? fake!" and "OMFG hwd u do that? cant be done - fake!" which results in this fine slashdot news story, based entirely on blurry photos and forum jockeys. seriously guys, we'll know someone's done it when the pot is claimed - until then, it just isn't news... daveschroeder posted a better written, more informative piece than the article he was replying to. Luke got the same uninformed forum jockey BS when he bootstrapped linux on the Treo 650.

OK, I just don't get it.. (1)

Dutchmaan (442553) | more than 8 years ago | (#14916101)

I know Apple wants to maintain it's image and all, but I always felt that if they marketed their machines as the "run anything" computer, they would grab a nice chunk of the market. Instead of the pure Apple machine they might go the other direction with their hardware and call it a "blank slate" fit for whatever OS you want to put on it... go where YOU want to go kind of computer.

It seems pretty damn apparent that people want a dual boot Windows/Mac... There's demand there, but no company wants to risk it because it might affect other portions of their business. Oh well, baby steps I guess.

What I don't get... (-1, Redundant)

twofidyKidd (615722) | more than 8 years ago | (#14916111)

...is why anyone would want to run Windows on an Apple machine anyhow. I mean, don't the majority of the Slashdot users hate Windows, and wouldn't running windows on such a nice piece of hardware that comes pre-installed with some pretty damn good OS software totally defeat the purpose of spending somewhere in the neighborhood of $2000 for a computer in the first place?

Am I the only one who thinks installing Windows on a Mac is like putting an 8-Track player in a BMW?

Re:What I don't get... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14916193)

Have you completely ignored every Apple article that has ever been posted to Slashdot? I swear, somebody always asks this question. Hell, sometimes several people do. The answer is still the same: the software! There are many, many applications and games available for Windows that are not available for OS X. People want to use them. Period. It doesn't matter if there isn't any Windows-based software you want to use. Get it through your head already.

Re:What I don't get... (1)

Pope (17780) | more than 8 years ago | (#14916274)

It's more handy than you think: web apps of all sorts need bug testing on as many major browsers as possible. IE for Mac is not the same as IE on Windows, heck, MS didn't even produce a version 6. If I can do all that on ONE machine, it's less cost than buying a PC just to run that software, since my main platform at home is Mac OS.

Sure, I have Virtual PC, but it's dog slow even on a Dual G5. Even getting Windows or just IE to operate at 1/3 of the true processor speed would be welcome.

XP on Mac works in apples favour? (2, Insightful)

joshsnow (551754) | more than 8 years ago | (#14916134)

there's a lot of noise, over on the ars forums, about why Apple may want to prevent XP and foghorn (vista) from running on Mac hardware. I think it's the opposite. Apple won't try to hard to prevent windows operating systems from running on Mac hardware, because Apple are, primarily, a hardware company - they want to sell macs. In fact, if people are buying macs intending to install windows, Apple may hope to use that as a bate and switch tactic. I think they're more likely to attempt to prevent people from running OS X on bog standard beige PCs (or Dells or whatever) because that could hurt Mac sales.

Windows on mac WHAT?? (1, Interesting)

BillGod (639198) | more than 8 years ago | (#14916184)

Ok let me get this right. 99% of all /. talk trash about M$ all day. Windows is hell and Bill Gates is the devil..... Now there is a big geek contest to see who can get winXP to run on a mac? Am I missing something? Is this just for bragging rights to see who can do it first or is everyone actually wanting to install and run XP on mac?

A real fix, emulate BIOS to run XP an non-EFI unix (4, Insightful)

Masq666 (861213) | more than 8 years ago | (#14916186)

This article [bitsofnews.com] talks about a project called BAMBIOS, BAMBIOS emulates a bios on the intel-based Mac's. This enables non-EFI OS's to run.

macosx on non-apple hardware (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14916224)

I'd rather run MacOSX on a non-apple computer than run windows on an apple based intel personally. Those things cost to much compared to regular PCs I can build.

No, what we really want is... (2, Insightful)

wandazulu (265281) | more than 8 years ago | (#14916228)

...VMWare to come out with their VMWare Workstation (or even the player) for the Mac. Even VirtualPC, if/when it ever comes to the Intel Mac, should run Windows "well enough" for everything I would do with a PC (short of gaming, which wouldn't be very useful on a portable or a mini anyway).

I'm becoming more and more a fan of virtualization; why deal with dual booting and configuring the disk when you can just run the client OS as a task in the main operating system. Also, if you trash your copy of Windows, just restore it from a snapshot or recreate it from a "good" image.

But, OTOH, kudos to him if he has in fact gotten it to work.

Simple Question... Why? (0, Redundant)

maddmike (131437) | more than 8 years ago | (#14916260)

Why do you want to put a crappy OS on MAC hardware? If you want an intel machine just go buy one.....

Why would you bother anyway? (-1, Redundant)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 8 years ago | (#14916278)

Why would you want to run Windows XP on an Apple computer? You might just as well watch a scratchy old worn copy-of-a-copy VHS cassette on a brand spanking new high-definition digital-ready TV set; or go to a posh restaurant, all done up in a tux and bow tie, and order sausage, egg and chips with brown sauce.

You could probably do it by using elilo to bootstrap ntldr.exe, but this is a gross oversimplification and I have not thought it through fully.

Windows XP on a mac? (2, Funny)

Bitwaba (807272) | more than 8 years ago | (#14916296)

I'm still having trouble getting winXP to install on my pc sata drive... maybe narf2006 can give me a hand.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...