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 XP on Intel Mac Confirmed

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the what-do-you-want-to-do-tonight-pinky dept.

627

niemassacre writes "According to winxponmac.com, the contest has been won - nearly $14k to narf2006 for submitting a working solution to dual-booting Windows XP and Mac OS X on an Intel-Powered mac. A thread on osx86project.org has confirmations from several testers that the procedure works on the 17" iMac, the Mac mini, and the MacBook Pro. Many sets of pictures and videos (such as this installation video) are floating around (and mentioned in the thread). The solution itself should be posted soon." Poit! Congratulations to narf.

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

Why? (0, Troll)

BWJones (18351) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932309)

Sure, from a geek perspective, this is mildly interesting, but not cool as we have known all along that there are no real fundamental architecture differences that would preclude this from happening..... so, I have a hard time understanding exactly why everybody seems so obsessed about this. I switched from Windows to the MacOS not because of the hardware, but because of the OS, so why would I want to run Windows on my Mac? And no, I don't care about all the games that are available on Windows.... no time these days.

The one place where I could see an advantage would be to run the occasional software package available on Windows, because under a dual boot environment, I am still prevented from sharing data between the OS's in a facile manner. So what would be impressive, is a transparent translation shell for OS X (like Virtual PC), supported natively in the OS that would allow me run apps, to cut and paste between environments and read/write to/from shared space without having to resort to separately booting or partitioning.

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932326)

Because it's there!

Re:Why? (3, Funny)

moro_666 (414422) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932565)

Well shit is there too, but you don't step into it just because of the fact that it's possible to do it, or do you ?

May i be damned if i let m$ anywhere near a mac.

Aaaargh (5, Insightful)

BeardsmoreA (951706) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932334)

Every time there's anything on this the first comments are along these lines. Fine! You don't want to play games or do any Windows devlopment - other people do! And this lets them. The end.

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932338)

Remember that you gotta start somewhere. Being able to successfully natively boot the OS you want to run in a VM is the first step here...

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

Heian-794 (834234) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932458)

Why? Because of the huge number of applications that are only produced for Windows -- these are small enough that the makers can't be bothered to, or don't have the expertise to, make a Mac version, yet aren't essential enough to make me go out and buy a Windows machine just to run them.

One example would be the PC interface software for my cell phone. Nice to have, but I only use it every few months to back stuff up and am not about to go buy a PC just to run it. Same story for game hacking utilities.

Congratulations to Narf. I'm anxiously awaiting booting WinXP on my Intel iMac.

One Word... (0)

Life2Short (593815) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932339)

Games

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14932358)

Three words to describe why.
Really cool cases. (Can't remember password at the moment, sorry for the anonymous Coward).

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

Ford Prefect (8777) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932375)

Why?

Games.

Stuff like VMWare will do a great job of running applications, but for stuff that requires access to modern hardware, dual-booting is probably the only real answer.

I've been doing it for years on my PC, after all - serious stuff gets done in Linux, but when I want to mess around with modding Half-Life 2 then I quickly reboot into Windows XP, and instantly get 100% software compatibility. If something gave me the ability to dual-boot my new MacBook in a similar manner, then that would be great - I'd essentially have both a Mac and a PC in one shiny laptop case.

This latest news makes me happy - it's like I bought a very fast Mac, then just over two weeks later I received a very fast PC of equivalent specs for free. What is there to complain about?

Re:Why? (1)

stunt_penguin (906223) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932537)

Are you by any chance the dude who created the Minerva mod? I see the link in your tag...... is that you?

Re:Why? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14932560)

This latest news makes me happy - it's like I bought a very fast Mac, then just over two weeks later I received a very fast PC of equivalent specs for free. What is there to complain about?

The only thing to complain about is the high price of non-OEM Windows. If you want to run Windows games on your Mac, you still have to pay a few hundred dollars for Windows XP to run them on.

Re:Why? (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932671)

The only thing to complain about is the high price of non-OEM Windows. If you want to run Windows games on your Mac, you still have to pay a few hundred dollars for Windows XP to run them on.

Surely you can dig up an old license somewhere? Or does that not work on XP? I honestly don't know, I haven't used Windows XP at home. Still prefer 2K for my occasional windows needs.

Re:Why? (1)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932381)

so, I have a hard time understanding exactly why everybody seems so obsessed about this.

Because it'd let you play games (Windows) and when you're done reboot into MacOS to do your web browsing and real work. Now that they have this working I have no reason other than money not to go buy a new iMac to replace my current desktop Wintel system that I just use for gaming and light Visual Studio programming.

Re:Why? (4, Interesting)

slantyyz (196624) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932402)

Because you're not a Mac user who lives in the Windows world. Some of us who make our money in the Windows world need to run applications that don't run on Mac... yet. I do Cognos development, and I have to provide my own notebook at work. Outside of work, I'm all Mac. Why have two notebooks when I can have my cake and eat it too? Yes, I could get a whitebox x86 notebook and run a hacked version of OSX, as the PC zealots would have it, but seeing how my PC is used for business, I'd like to stay above board. Which I can't do with an illegal version of Mac OSX running on a whitebox notebook.

Re:Why? (5, Funny)

AnonymousPrick (956548) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932631)

Because you're not a Mac user who lives in the Windows world.

I'm thinking of writing a book about a Windows guy who disguises himself as a Mac user to see what it's like.

I call it: "Mac Like Me".

Sounds cool, huh?

Why not? Not enought screaming customers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14932420)

So what would be impressive, is a transparent translation shell for OS X (like Virtual PC), supported natively in the OS that would allow me run apps, to cut and paste between environments and read/write to/from shared space without having to resort to separately booting or partitioning.

How you MIGHT get away with such, if any of the sides 'had some give'

Using Xen, Microsoft Windows or Apple's MAC OS X could be the host or guest OS
(Microsoft is doing their own hypervisor, and Apple has not said they are or are not going to support Xen)

IF Xen worked, you could use any of the VNC's and run the 'display the other OS' as your option, as most Apple software isn't X window compatible thus the Cygwin on Windows is not a useful option.

Giving a bit on Xen from Microsoft and X window-ing from Apple would make dual-OSing on the boxes a reality.

Re:Why? (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932453)

"transparent translation shell for OS X (like Virtual PC), supported naively in the OS"
It's called WINE. If there isn't one already I would bet good money that you will see a MacOSx version RSN.

Re:Why? (5, Informative)

slantyyz (196624) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932539)

It's actually called DarWINE and it's not quite at the level of maturity you see in the Linux world. Codeweavers says they're working on a version of Crossover Office for the Mac, but they haven't posted any news about it recently.

Crossover Office is pretty good on Linux. I'd rather use something like Wine (provided it worked on 100% of the stuff I need -- wishful thinking) than VMWare. Having said that, I'd rather use VMWare than dual boot.

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

torpor (458) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932496)

me, i switched to Apple because their hardware/Darwin[linux-ppc] was interesting .. for a while .. and i felt that the fact of their survival as a 'different computing platform' company in the face of the intel x86 tyranny was a worthwhile hedge towards new hardware of interest. x86 doesn't really 'interest me', though it certainly has an equally infinite # of uses as, say, ARM or MIPS still do..

but of course, i used to think it was cool to have gone from a stack of Indy's to a single powerbook, and still be able to take all the 'good' software (unix) with me .. now i'm far more interested in just getting as many cheap, little, ecologically sound computers, than i am in having my own halon setup, and consequently: Apple is dead to me now.

why put XP on Apple?

because it proves the point: software is mobile, a liquid substance of little bounds.

and thus: hardware always comes first. all thought starts first with lines in the sand.

point 1 is maybe poignant, and geeks like poignancy perhaps, in this case, because it is proven by crossing the hijinx of one exploiter-of-the-mob computer manufacture, guilty of all its own culting, with another equally cult'ed mass-control monster, and produces a seething snake pit of sexiness. XP on bochs, and thus PPC .. and now XP on x86, where it already was living just fine, anyway.. on Apple hardware.

point 2, hardware, is what you need to tame all beasts of nefariously infinite nature.

with XP on Apple, the reason to switch is dead. XP is the wrong end of the computerized commodity curve for my liking, so.. neither of these points i'm trying to make may, indeed, have weight ..

Re:Why? (0, Flamebait)

pebs (654334) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932515)

Sure, from a geek perspective, this is mildly interesting, but not cool as we have known all along that there are no real fundamental architecture differences that would preclude this from happening..... so, I have a hard time understanding exactly why everybody seems so obsessed about this.

SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY. No one is obsessed with it, it's just something that people are expecting to be able to do when they buy an Intel Mac, but it hadn't been made possible. If you don't understand why someone would want to boot Windows on a Mac, visit the older threads and read all the replies to the all the idiots asking the same thing you are.

Re:Why? (1)

slantyyz (196624) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932607)

Haha, I couldn't have said it any better. There seem to be a lot of Mac zealots who are so out of touch that they don't understand that there are people who actually need to run Windows between 9 and 5. Not everyone has enough desk space or cash for two computers.

That's not even factoring the mac users who want to play the latest games at full speed.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14932592)

I have a hard time understanding exactly why everybody seems so obsessed about this. I switched from Windows to the MacOS not because of the hardware, but because of the OS, so why would I want to run Windows on my Mac? And no, I don't care about all the games that are available on Windows.... no time these days.

The one place where I could see an advantage would be to run the occasional software package available on Windows, because under a dual boot environment, I am still prevented from sharing data between the OS's in a facile manner.

Paraphrase:

Why would anyone want to do this?

[insert valid reason why someone might want to do this]

But I don't need this, so I don't care.

[insert another reason why someone might want to do this]

But

[some other solution that is not equivalent and has a big performance hit, and isn't available on short notice anyway]

would work much better, so why would anybody want do this?

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14932597)

Sure, from a geek perspective, this is mildly interesting, but not cool ...

Ah, the envy...

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14932622)

Because most people, given the choice would choose Windows over OS X. Heck, I'm a Linux user and I choose Windows over OS X.

Re:Why? (1)

shredthrashgrind (960700) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932627)

... so why would I want to run Windows on my Mac? And no, I don't care about all the games that are available on Windows.... no time these days.
You just answered your own question. Did you ever think that even though you don't have time for games, there may be other people out there that have time for games and for that reason don't run Mac OS? Don't be silly. I for one, besides just enjoying games, like the idea that I can always find software that runs in windows. I think it's a pain in the ass to wait, for example, for skype w/video to come out for Mac OS. It's out there, and it's on windows. As long as it's that way I don't think I'll ever single-boot a non-windows OS. Don't get me wrong, I wish it weren't that way. I'm very glad for these kinds of advancements. I'll be keeping my eye on those new mac laptops now..

Cool. (4, Funny)

bazmail (764941) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932316)

But does it run Linux?

Wow (5, Funny)

2.7182 (819680) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932322)

Now I can dual boot a good and bad OS. (I am not saying which is which!)

Re:Wow (1)

Joseph Vigneau (514) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932434)

You could always dual boot a good OS and a bad OS on both Mac and non-Mac machines for many years now...

Re:Wow (1)

funkdancer (582069) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932465)

And you'll be able to play WoW on both - WOW! :D
Actually, it'd be interesting to see which OS the game works best under.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (5, Funny)

ocp (598857) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932503)

If now somebody figures out how to triple boot and add Linux then I will be able to boot a good, a bad and an ugly OS (and I'm not saying either which is which!).

Re:Wow (-1, Troll)

norman619 (947520) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932587)

LOL..... You do know the only thing that has kept the Mac OS safe is it's lack of market share. This will be changing soon with people doing the whole dual boot thing. Apple will have to start releasing patches/updates to the OS that fix one problem but cause another much like Microsoft has to do today. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Re:Wow (1)

Blisshead (959178) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932666)

true with anything and not a comment on the inherent value of the OS. It will be interesting to see the zealots on both sides of the fence react though. Until it gets boring that is. I for one and happy about it, not surprised at all, but happy anyway.

frist post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14932328)

frist post

1984 (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14932332)

My friends, each of you is a single cell in the great body of the
state. And today, that great body has purged itself of parasites.
We have triumphed over the unprincipled dissemination of facts.
The thugs and wreckers have been cast out and the poisonous
weeds of disinformation have been cosigned to the dustbin of
history. Let each and every cell rejoice! For today we
celebrate the first, glorious anniversary of the Information
Purification Directive.

We have created, for the first time in all history, a garden of
pure ideology, where each worker may bloom secure from the pests
of contradictory and confusing truths. Our unification of thought
is a more powerful weapon than any fleet or army on earth! We are
one people. With one will. One resolve. One cause. Our enemies
shall talk themselves to death, and we will bury them with their
own confusion. We shall prevail!
                                -- Big Brother, Apple's "1984" commercial

Re:1984 (0, Troll)

Getzen (549982) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932385)

Wow, almost sounds like Muslim extremism manifesto, doesn't it?

Getzen

Re:1984 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14932435)

considering the current climate, i wouldn't criticize islam non anonymously if i were you. All you need is one nut job who wants to kill you and you are in Salman Rushidie land.

Re:1984 (0)

Getzen (549982) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932660)

I understand your point, but I'm not about to cower, since that would mean they've won.

Getzen

Re:1984 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14932623)

Its amazing how much this sounds like Hitler...

A lot more useful! Excellent! (3, Interesting)

original_nickname (930551) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932333)

Yeah this is great news! I'm a mac freak, but this makes an intel mac a great proposition as all my work stuff is Windows based!

Now all we need is for someone to make a hypervisor, or allow booting XP from within mac os without emulation, and we'll have a great system!

Does this version dual boot fully with Mac OS?

I'm sooo tempted to buy a Mac Book Pro now - my poor wallet.

Re:A lot more useful! Excellent! (4, Insightful)

cgenman (325138) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932608)

A hack must have been expected, even desired, by Apple. Being able to run both OSX and Win XP (and Linux) on a single notebook would be massive. If you need Wintel, you can buy anything, but if you want OSXP, you have to buy from Apple.

I, for one, am desperately trying to restrain myself from running out and picking up a Mac Book.

So where's the meat? (4, Interesting)

GekkePrutser (548776) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932361)

Where can I get this? I haven't found any details or downloads yet...

Great... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14932365)

A crap OS on an overpriced machine - surely OSX on a commodity PC is what we're all waiting for??!

Re:Great... (2, Informative)

nichrome (556185) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932649)

OS X on commodity hardware has already been done.

But trust me, this is something a lot of people have been looking forward to, as well.

MacBook Pro (3, Interesting)

sirmalloc (648119) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932366)

I'd almost be tempted to buy a MacBook Pro if this works without any issues. It'd be nice to boot into Windows for my day job and OSX for home usage. The only thing really stopping me is the lack of a right-click button under the trackpad. I'm sure somebody can/has come up with a software hack to use two fingers to right-click, but I don't know how annoying that would actually be without using it.

Re:MacBook Pro (1)

Yahweh Doesn't Exist (906833) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932441)

just use sidetrack. you can make all corners clickable and all edges scrollable, with user-set sizes of zones.

Re:MacBook Pro (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932506)

I don't think sidetrack runs under XP, which is really where the lack-of-a-right-click problem lies.

Re:MacBook Pro (2, Informative)

charlie_vernacular (710651) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932443)

You could try SideTrack by Raging Menace - that allows for extensive modification of the trackpad including horizontal scrolling, and hot corners. At the moment, they say that they're still working on a MacBook Pro version. It has decent try before you buy period as well.

I don't work for them, just a satisfied customer.

Here's a link http://www.ragingmenace.com/software/sidetrack/ [ragingmenace.com]

Regards

Charlie

Re:MacBook Pro (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14932488)

Oh Gawd. Ctrl-click and be done with it. It even works with your fingers on the home row keys (clicking the pad with the thumb), so you can left-click and right-click while touch-typing. Seriously, the single large mouse button on Mac notebooks is a blessing not a curse.

Re:MacBook Pro (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14932491)

Um, control-click?


It's been built in since at least OS9, maybe even OS8 or OS7 but I don't remember. And really, it's not that annoying since the right mouse button isn't used as a catch-all in Mac OS as it is in Windows. I surf the web and do email with my powerbook G4 12" at home all the time and don't even think twice about control-clicking.

Re:MacBook Pro (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14932674)

But that still doesn't help right-clicking in XP issue. Got an answer for that?

Lawsuite? (1)

matr0x_x (919985) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932367)

The real question is, how does Microsoft & Apple feel about this?

Re:Lawsuit? (4, Insightful)

slantyyz (196624) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932440)

Apple is happy. Now all those Windows users who want a Mac (more market share, yippee!) will buy a Mac and dual boot, yet they can still "try" to protect their OS from running a white box.

Microsoft is happy. They didn't have to spend any of their own money to get compatibility, and if they're lucky, maybe more than 30% of the dual booters will actually pay for a Windows license.

Re:Lawsuite? (1)

Joseph Vigneau (514) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932457)

Apple probably doesn't really care: they're making a lot of money on their hardware, and since they sell a software license with each of those, they already have your money. Assuming people pay for the WinXP licenses (and that's a pretty big assumption), Microsoft probably doesn't care, either.

Re:Lawsuite? (1)

GekkePrutser (548776) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932463)

No lawsuit... Apple has already said many times that they won't do anything to stop people from running Windows. And Microsoft will be happy with the extra sales.

Re:Lawsuite? (3, Insightful)

matr0x_x (919985) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932591)

I disagree. I think Microsoft is not at all happy about this. Knowing that a mac can run Windows eliminates a major reason a lot of people (including myself) don't use a Mac - I need Windows for certain tasks that I cannot otherwise do. This will increase the Mac marketshare and ultimate, Microsoft will lose out!

Re:Lawsuite? (4, Insightful)

gurutc (613652) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932476)

I'd think Apple would love it. They played no part in working out the solution, but now their hardware is the most versatile around for running the two desktop OSes I've wanted to have on one machine. Done deal, buying a mac.

Re:Lawsuite? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14932495)

If you have a valid licensed copy of both OSs and you own the hardware, how in the world can you get sued for this. As far as Apple or Microsoft filing a lawsuit against the guys who won the competition, I don't see how it could hold water. Besides once the solution gets posted to the public, suing won't do any good. The damage will already be done (kinda). I would think the people upset would be Intel and AMD. Microsoft gets more business from selling to Mac users, Apple gets more business from the people like me who work in a Windows world and dont have the money for 2 machines. The only losers are the hardware vendors selling PCs. And even Intel isnt losing out much since they are supplying Mac with the hardware. If nothing else this might give Intel a little more advantage over AMD since I would imagine that the contract between Mac and Intel has Intel listed as the sole CPU provided until the contract is up.

I hope ... (4, Insightful)

Luscious868 (679143) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932368)

I hope everybody who dragged this guy's reputation through the mud offers him a huge apology! Maybe it's just because I'm growing older, but the older I get the more cynical I feel like people are becoming. Maybe it's always been this way and when I was a kid I either didn't notice or just shrugged it off....

Re:I hope ... (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932393)

Maybe it's always been this way and when I was a kid I either didn't notice or just shrugged it off....

I'm sure that when it was pointed out to you as a kid, you responded with a simple, "Yeah, right."

Re:I hope ... (0, Troll)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932417)

Maybe it's just because I'm growing older, but the older I get the more cynical I feel like people are becoming.

That tends to happen when you're continually lied to on a daily basis, like from your executive branch of government for instance, or big corporations that claim to be looking out for your best interests and not their profits.

Re:I hope ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14932480)

3rd least credible sentence in the English language: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

Re:I hope ... (1)

x2A (858210) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932549)

or big corporations that claim to be looking out for your best interests and not their profits

WHAT corporation claims that?!! And what corporation have you believed who's said that?!!

Re:I hope ... (4, Insightful)

mzieg (317686) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932418)

I'm thinking $14 grand would stand-in for an outpouring of apologies. It would for me :-)

Let's hear it for peer review (4, Insightful)

murderlegendre (776042) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932636)

Did you really read the original (yesterday's) commentary on this? It looked like a basic peer-review process to me, albeit in true /. style. A person steps up, makes an extraordinary claim, and the community of peers does its best to suggest every possibility for falsification.

It took a while, but the truly hare-brained ideas (like a photoshopped image of a MacBook) were discredited leaving only a couple of reasonable possibilities (like a full-screen display of an XP screengrab image).

So honestly, would you really prefer that a peer-review process work from the premise that the proposal is true, as opposed to false? While the former is certainly much "nicer", the latter is more in keeping with scientific modes of thought. I'd have expected nothing less, had I presented the same claims + shaky evidence.

an end to speculation (5, Interesting)

thelost (808451) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932373)

and a amssive congratulation to Narf. This was an exciting contest to watch develop and definately brought out a lot of talent. Now the question in my mind is will this have any affect on the new intel-mac sales; Will people be keen to buy them because they can dual boot windows/mac os x on the same machine? Recently I bought a mac-mini (before the intel ones went live sadly) and I have to say, having used winxp for years after two weeks of my mac-mini on a KVM I'm just about ready to move over. I can't actually imagine many reasons for me wanting a PC any more. I'm not into gaming like I used to be, and mac os x is such a lovely user experience. I admit it, i'm a born again apple fan-boi! What exactly is the situation on driver support for someone booting winxp on a mac? That's what I am interested in, anyone got a clue?

Re:an end to speculation (1)

devjj (956776) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932525)

The only way it will affect Mactel sales is if the solution is A: easy to install, and B: widely publicized (and accessible) to users outside the slashdot regulars. If it isn't easy to use (or appears like a hack), your average Mac buyer will steer clear. For me, I'm more than happy dual-booting Linux on my MBP.

Re:an end to speculation (3, Insightful)

thelost (808451) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932618)

well to compare, how many people do you think have bought an xbox because they could mod it, stick an emulator or backed up games onto it and play away (to back up my point I can say I know at least 5 people who have, it's pretty popular). Hacks start of as hacks, and then someone puts in the hard work simplifying them, making them more accessible to everyone and then we no longer need to play around with bootloaders etc. This is already big news and will be appearing on all the apple news sites, it's certainly gonna get the apple fanboi zealots riled. It will also get a lot of interest from people who don't just want to play games on their macs, but do a few of the things they still can't do on their macs - admittedly very little now - in windows. On another note, I feel that the mac populaces face has changed since OS X came along. Mac users have become much more homebrew, hacker friendly and do frequently get down and dirty with their darwin innards. People with that kind of attitude - which seems widespread in the community now - might well relish getting their machine to dual boot xp, just because.

this is all well and good but... (1, Insightful)

turlingdrome (857230) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932374)

what we really need is for vmware for to produce an intel mac version of their product. Imagine being able to vm any linux distro or windows under osx...

Obligatory Pink and the Brain Follow Up (5, Funny)

Philosinfinity (726949) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932378)

Brain: Pinky, are you thinking what I'm thinking? Pinky: I think so Brain but where are we going to find rubber pants and sod at this time of night?

YOU FAIL IT?! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14932380)

the real question is (0)

dario_moreno (263767) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932386)

running Mac OS X on an elcheapo generic PC ! That would be useful !

Re:the real question is (3, Interesting)

slantyyz (196624) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932471)

What's stopping you? There are tons of people who are already booting OS X 10.5.5 on cheap commodity hardware. There's even a wiki that tells you what cheapo hardware to buy to get the best Mac experience.

Re:the real question is (1)

chipset (639011) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932492)

I guess you've never heard of OSX Project [osxproject.org] ?

I'd prefer a VPC-like solution (4, Insightful)

illtron (722358) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932390)

It seems to me that native hardware will mean that we're not far from seeing a lot of really great "not-emulation VPC-like products." This is nice, but it seems that being able to have the two up side-by side would be more useful. Wouldn't native hardware also mean that a VPC could run at nearly full speed, only taking a hit due to whatever resources were already being used by the Mac OS and applications? Still, this is a nice achievement.

God sent gift for mac users (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14932430)

Not only they can show off their well designed hardware, now they are also able to work productively in a clean and nice looking environment.

If OSes had feelings... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14932432)

If operating systems had feelings, WinXP on a Mac would feel like a sperm cell in the anus.

soo..... (5, Interesting)

Trelane (16124) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932445)

if you can run Windows on a Mac now, will game developers stop porting games to Mac, since Mac users can run Windows?

Re:soo..... (4, Funny)

cgenman (325138) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932544)

To stop doing something, first you must have started doing it.

How do you figure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14932557)

if you can run Windows on a Mac now, will game developers stop porting games to Mac, since Mac users can run Windows?

Someone figures out how to hack Windoze to run on a Mac and now game developers are going to stop writing Mac games? How do you figure? When and if Apple decides to make this formal, then maybe developers will start thinking twice. Until that happens, there is nothing new under the sun here for the vast majority of Mac users (including the ones that game developers care about).

Re:soo..... (1)

wvitXpert (769356) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932625)

No. They are going to say that you have to buy Windows and install it on your Mac? Why wouldn't they just say you have to buy a PC in the first place?

So when are we going to see... (1, Redundant)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932446)

...a Mac that can boot OS X, XP, and Linux? Now that would be impressive.

Re:So when are we going to see... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14932489)

It booted Linux long before it booted Windows XP...

Re:So when are we going to see... (1)

mzieg (317686) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932531)

I confess, I don't see the interest in booting Linux on a Mac. I mean, I use Linux every day, yet I can't see what it would add to my Mac. I can _already_ run shell, X11, Apache, MySQL, g++, etc.

I fervently support the advantages of Linux over Windows (particularly for development and network applications), but I don't see nearly the same advantage of Linux over OS-X. While Linux has some niceties (being free helps), OS-X counterbalances many of those (better GUI & easier sysadmin, for starters).

Seriously: earlier threads are already debating why one would install Windows on a Mac (which to me is a no-brainer). So fill me in; why would you install Linux?

Re:So when are we going to see... (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932548)

That can't be too far away now, given that there was already solutions to boot Linux. It's just that with a closed source OS like Windows things got a lot trickier.

Mirror of the movie (5, Informative)

jmke (776334) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932475)

Here's link to the XP on MAC video from a site which can handle a /. http://youtube.com/watch?v=nzH6OFpXgzI [youtube.com]

In other news... (4, Funny)

Half a dent (952274) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932517)

ipods adapted so all audio output is in mono. Graphics on imacs converted to 16 color. Mac mouse to only have one button... oops.

Irony (5, Insightful)

Fahrvergnuugen (700293) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932519)

I find this kind of funny and ironic...

Apple announces that they are moving to intel. OSX is DRM'd and bound to Macs so that it cannot be run on commodity hardware. Senior execs at Apple also state that they will not do anything to prevent Windows from running on their hardware.

Intel Macs come out.

Hackers get OSX86 up and running on Dells with relative ease, despite Apple's best efforts to prevent them from doing so. However, they have such a hard time getting Windows to run on a Mac that a contest is started and 13,000 dollars worth of prize money is offered.

Oh the irony. :-)

Re:Irony (4, Insightful)

mzieg (317686) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932585)

In Apple's defense (and I do appreciate the irony you point out), OS-X was, from the start, a far more "portable" operating system, vastly more suitable to loading on strange hardware. From it's NeXTSTEP heritage, OS-X could build on Motorola 68K systems. From it's OpenSTEP heritage, OX-X could already build on Intel x86 architectures. From it's Apple heritage, it could build on PPC systems. From it's BSD heritage, it could build on pretty much anything else. OS-X had been ported so much that it had developed a fairly flexible hardware abstraction layer.

In contrast, consider Windows, which has been successfully ported to...Alpha? Once, many years ago? Windows is far more intransigent about porting to new hardware platforms, because they've never needed to, never wanted to, and never put any friendly handles in to smooth the transition.

Re:Irony (1)

Lussarn (105276) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932651)

Windows runs in full 64bit mode on Itanium. I think it's safe to say Windows is portable.

Phew! (3, Funny)

gentlemen_loser (817960) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932535)

Now that the public has done the work Bill's engineers should have done for Vista, he'll be able to sleep much better at night. /sarcasm

Can't play the video (2, Informative)

SpinyNorman (33776) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932541)

Using the Quick Time player on Windows XP it says required compressor not available (1st time I tried it also said not available on server)... what do I need?

Re:Can't play the video (5, Funny)

787style (816008) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932581)

Using the Quick Time player on Windows XP it says required compressor not available (1st time I tried it also said not available on server)... what do I need?

An Intel Mac, obviously.

Why? Because it's there. (2, Insightful)

Marbleless (640965) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932555)

There are people who want climb mountains and people who want to run XP on MacIntels, and both groups do it just for 'fun'!

Big deal (4, Insightful)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932564)

Wake me up when someone lets me run Windows binaries *inside* Intel OSX. That is the achievement.

Look at what you've done! (2, Funny)

Runefox (905204) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932605)

Now we have to put up with Mac OS XP! Where will we put the Start button?

why why why why (1)

thabigdada (730299) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932658)

why would you pay all that cash for a great workstation to just take it out the box & dump XP on it....come on please let go of the mouse, take 3 steps back, now ask your self 'do i really need this esoteric box of hi-tech gadgets'

from macrumors (5, Informative)

ClassicComposer (916856) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932664)

Since it's won now, I guess I can talk. The install requires a Windows XP PC, with which Windows is already installed. From here you use Nero Burning ROM to mix files from your XP SP2 CD, copy them to a new project, and add in some $OEM$ files and folders, and fix some of the files in i386. From here, you use xom.efi (which is the bootloader), and bless it in Terminal. Once it's blessed on startup you get a pretty nice selector, and you choose Windows. From here the CSM layer pauses for 2.5 Minutes while it does whatever its doing. Then you'll get into Windows Setup.

I should also mention at this time, you cannot reboot Windows. You need to shutdown. If you attempt rebooting it will hang at Windows is Shutting Down screen.
from mac forums [macrumors.com]

How can you knock flexibility and choice? (3, Insightful)

_Pablo (126574) | more than 8 years ago | (#14932668)

Excellent work by Narf2006 and Blanka.

I don't understand why some people are so negative about something which gives the user greater flexibility and choice. I love using OS X for my personal needs, but my job requires Windows and CounterStrike:Source requires DirectX, so it's made my MacBook Pro even more flexible and that can only be a good thing.

Whilst I can imagine that some software producers will look at the situation and say "The Mac now runs Windows so we don't need to produce a Mac native version", I think the ability to boot Windows tears down one barrier to buying a Mac...if you have to run Windows then you don't need to compromise and buy a Windows only machine.

Finally, I know you can buy a regular PC and dual-boot with a hacked copy of OS X, but it's illegal, whereas dual booting a genuine retail copy of XP on a Mac is legal and that makes it a real option for the workplace. I look forward to taking my MacBook everywhere and leaving that chunky Dell on the table...someone needs to start producing 200GB+ 2.5" 7200rpm drives fast!

mac problems running Windows XP (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14932672)

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Mac fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Mac (a 8600/300 w/64 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to load Windows XP. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Mac, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.

In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even BBEdit Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Macs, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Mac that has run faster than its Wintel counterpart, despite the Macs' faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 300 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Macintosh is a superior machine.

Mac addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Mac over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?