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 Vista Beta Running on a PPC Mac

timothy posted more than 8 years ago | from the sideways-approaches dept.

121

goombah99 writes "Macosxhints is giving a set of tips that let any Mac user boot Windows Vista on a Mac. In this case, it's not a native Intel boot but rather VirtualPC running on a PPC G5 Mac. Thus Vista and Mac OS X can run concurrently. There are no extravagant hacks needed, just a matter of finding the right set of configurations to let VirtualPC present the proper disk images for mounting and BIOS settings to the installer. This bodes well for native installs onto the Intel Mac." Actually, there have been successful (though not glitch-free) installs of beta versions of Vista on Intel Macs for a few months now. Here's a report from Hans Verbeeck (Developer Evangelist for Microsoft EMEA) on putting Vista Beta 2 on a MacBook Pro.

cancel ×

121 comments

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

Wow... (0)

bano (410) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518642)

VirtualPC is doing what it's designed to do, run peecee os's.
This is not news.

Re:Wow... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15518683)

lol fuck of you lunix-luser get a live and learn to spel.

Yes it is news (2, Insightful)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518706)

First,
      Other's have only been able to install Vista by wiping out the EFI boot partition. Here's a way to concurrently run Vista. It shows it can be done without reformating the disk.
Second,
    it shows that Contrary to rumors, Vista is not crippled against running on macs or under virtual systems.
Third,
    it shows macs meet the minumum specs for Vista, so one need not hesitate about buying a mac now if one was worried about running vista.
Fourth,
    it means you can do comparisons of Vista and mac osx.

Re:Yes it is news (4, Informative)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518783)

Other's have only been able to install Vista by wiping out the EFI boot partition. Here's a way to concurrently run Vista. It shows it can be done without reformating the disk.

PowerPC-based Macs (you know, what the article is about) don't have EFI partitions. Unless I'm missing something, there's nothing about this that indicates that Vista can be run concurrently with OS X on Intel-based Macs.

Re:Yes it is news (1)

RemovableBait (885871) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519143)

Unless I'm missing something, there's nothing about this that indicates that Vista can be run concurrently with OS X on Intel-based Macs.

Maybe using Virtual PC on Intel Macs? It'll run under Rosetta, I'm sure; and Universal builds can't be far away.

Re:Yes it is news (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519244)

It'll run under Rosetta, I'm sure

Are you? From what I've heard, it won't run under Rosetta because of weird dynamic code generation stuff it does, or something.

Not to mention that an x86 version of it would kind of be a completely different program, since it would be doing x86->x86 virtualization instead of x86->ppc emulation. Somehow I doubt that's the kind of code that can be made universal with just a recompile, ya know?

Re:Yes it is news (1)

donutello (88309) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518791)

Virtual PC running on a PPC G5 and a second boot partition on an Intel Mac are two completely different environments. From a technical standpoint, they have absolutely nothing in common beyond the fact that both claim to support the x86 instruction set. An Intel Mac has more in common with a Dell PC than it does with Virtual PC running on a PPC G5.

The fact that you can run Vista on Virtual PC on a PPC machine says absolutely nothing about whether or not you will be able to run it on an Intel Mac.

Re:Yes it is news (1)

bsartist (550317) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518812)

Other's have only been able to install Vista on Intel-based Macs by wiping out the EFI boot partition.

Bold text is mine - it's an important distinction to make. VPC emulates a traditional PC, not an Intel Mac with an EFI boot partition.

it shows that Contrary to rumors, Vista is not crippled against running on macs or under virtual systems.

How seriously did anyone take the tinfoil hat brigade and their conspiracy theories anyway?

it shows Virtual PC running on PPC G5 macs meet the minumum specs for Vista

Again, the bold text is mine, and it's an important distinction to make.

it means you can do comparisons of Vista and mac osx.

Once the final Vista release is booting on an Intel Mac and running natively, we can compare it to Mac OS X on the same hardware. Trying to compare the two with a Vista beta running in a virtual machine with an emulated CPU is absurd.

Re:Yes it is news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15518855)

I understand what you are saying but you are missing the key point I think. Right, VPC allows the mac ot look like a bios system and can fake the boot track. THis means running on intel macs can be done the same way as it is done here on ppc. Presently this has been a bottleneck in intel macs.

Re:Yes it is news (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518998)

THis means running on intel macs can be done the same way as it is done here on ppc.

Ummm, if you mean that Vista will run on Intel Macs under a virtualization environment, then yes, it can. However, I don't think anyone ever doubted that you'd be able to do it. Well, anyone that actually has a clue about these things, at least.

Re:Yes it is news (1)

BandwidthHog (257320) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518894)

Vista is not crippled against running on macs or under virtual systems.
How would it “know?”

it shows macs meet the minumum specs for Vista
How?

it means you can do comparisons of Vista and mac osx.
As someone who spends an inordinate amount of development time running XP on 10.4 via VPC, no, it really, really doesn’t mean that, anymore than viewing screen shots of the operating systems side by side in a magazine gives you a feel for how responsive the GUI might be if a train left Chicago on Tuesday carrying three apples and an angry Lithuanian bookkeeper.

Re:Yes it is news (0)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518946)

Damn! My only frame of reference is a bus leaving Los Angeles on a Thursday carrying a crate of oranges and a mildly irritated Zimbabwean shoe cobbler.

Re:Yes it is news (1)

BandwidthHog (257320) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519093)

Yeah, well, that’s public education for ya.

Re:Yes it is news (1)

yobtah (16795) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518965)

Third, it shows macs meet the minumum specs for Vista, so one need not hesitate about buying a mac now if one was worried about running vista.
Not exactly. It actually shows that the "virtual PC" presented by VirtualPC meets Vista's minimum requirements. An OS (Vista, in this case) running inside VirtualPC can't see the bare hardware at all. That a VirtualPC VM meets Vista's minimum requirements is much less newsworthy.

Re:Yes it is news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15519272)

God this discussion is painful. Most mac users should simply just avoid talking tech.

MOD PARENT UP! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15519585)

This one comment summarizes this whole discussion. The worst part is that even when being refuted by very knowledgable people, Goombah still sits there telling everyone that they're wrong and that he's right.

Re:Yes it is news (2, Insightful)

Spokehedz (599285) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519522)

1. I do not think that word means what you think it means... Concurrently means that you are running both at once, where as you are referring to being able to switch between both of them at boot time through a boot manager. This article says you can run them concurrently, which is clearly possible with an EFI boot partition. Formatting isn't even in the equation, as you have a disk image residing on the HD with whatever filesystem/boot whatever.

2. This is a BETA and most if not all the retail checking mechanisms are not in place, due to the fact that in a year--let alone whenever it gets released--the methods of detection will most likely change significantly.

3. It is a virtual system, therefore it can trick the OS into thinking whatever specs are needed for the OS to run. See the last question about changing specs, and timeframes. by the time it is released, the specs may change significantly.

4. Err... No. Not on a virtual system, that's running on top of another system. The virtual system (unless part of Xen, and even still) will most likely fail all tests. Not to mention it's an apples to oranges-who-are-growing-on-fake-trees-with-artific ial-nutrients-being-fed-to-them comparison in the first place.

Re:Wow... (0, Offtopic)

AsmCoder8088 (745645) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518724)

Dang.. an ID of 410? That's impressive.

omg (5, Funny)

AsmCoder8088 (745645) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518644)

That poor mac!

Re:omg (1)

kesuki (321456) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518813)

I feel it's pain.

Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be.

Sure it's cool to mess around and figure out how to get vista to run on mac, but mac is cool because it runs OSX :)

I'm sure there are people who will buy the intel macs just to play around with this, but most people who buy macs will stick with thinking different :) Still, If I had a Mac I know I'd be tempted to play around and try to get vista running on it, just to say I had. Then I'd probabbly get sick of vista and go back to OSX, but that's me. everyone has their own way of doing things.

How so? (4, Insightful)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518654)

This bodes well for native installs onto the Intel Mac.

How so? I would like goombah99 to clarify this statement. As timothy points out, Vista has been installing on Intel Macs for a while. The thing is that it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Vista can run in an x86 emulation environment for a different processor family. It doesn't bode anything at all because it's irrelevent.

Re:How so? (0)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518796)

The headache of installing Vista on a mac intel has been the fact that it won't boot off of the EFI partition block. This has lead to speculation that it may be hard for OSX and Vista to function well togheter on the same computer. Under this vitualized environment the Disk is booting off of a EFI block (holding OSX), and then Vista is running and accessing the same disk not living on it's own disk. The two are running concurrently and not fighting. This is what I meant by bodes well. That is installing vista does not have to cripple your mac or limit your ability to cut and paste beteeen them.

The bigger news however is headline: vista runs on PPC.

Re:How so? (2, Insightful)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518903)

Under this vitualized environment the Disk is booting off of a EFI block (holding OSX)...

Except PPC Macs use OpenFirmware, not EFI. The first Macs to use EFI were the Intel Macs. And as others have pointed out (which you repeatedly seem to be ignoring), Apple introduced legacy BIOS support for EFI Macs with BootCamp. Since that came out a few months ago, you haven't had to worry about wiping out your EFI partition.

The bigger news however is headline: vista runs on PPC.

Vista runs on PPC under an x86 virtualization environment. That's not news in the slightest. You really sound like you don't understand what role the different processors play in the whole scheme of things.

Re:How so? (2, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519300)

The bigger news however is headline: vista runs on PPC.

Uh, no it doesn't. It runs on emulation of an x86, running on a PPC. It does not, repeat NOT run on the PPC hardware. It's in a 100% emulated environment.

Re:How so? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15519363)

What the hell are you talking about with EFI and PPC? Are you suggesting that the only thing stopping Vista from runing natively on a G5 is the fact that they don't use the same BIOS alternative?

Re:How so? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15519715)

The G5 is a PowerPC processor Mac, which means it cannot run Vista as a native operating system (as Vista is written to only work on Intel based processors)

If you run an emulator such as Virtual PC or VMWare, you can emulate an Intel based PC on a Mac.

The newer macs are based on an Intel processor, such as the Mac Mini. The insides are much the same as a PC, bar a few changes to work with Apple's OSX.

For the love of god... (3, Funny)

PGC (880972) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518663)

WHY?!?!

Re:For the love of god... (1)

bsartist (550317) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518717)

Because it's there, and they can.

Re:For the love of god... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15518718)

cuz osx is teh suck

I'll be annoyed (0, Offtopic)

Horatio_Hellpop (926706) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518666)

... if it runs better on an Intell-Mac than it did on my own standard PC.

In fact, Vista Beta 2 wouldn't even install -- I kept getting a "error copying Windows files" after 30% of the files had copied. This, on two different hard drives. Oy.

First time I've ever encountered that from a .ISO image ... countless Linux ISOs installed without a hitch.

Re:I'll be annoyed (0, Offtopic)

isa-kuruption (317695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518780)

This also occurs when you have a scratched CD or a memory problem. I would swap out your memory and try again.

Re:I'll be annoyed (-1, Offtopic)

kahei (466208) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518816)


Whereas I have never, ever, in my life, since the days of Slackware, installed Linux on a machine and had it actually work, meaning network, graphics card, and all. Not on a Compaq 486SX, not on a Vaio, not on a Thinkpad which had a 1600x1200 screen back when that was an amazing thing for a laptop to have, but which was covered in cow stickers, not on the Dell at work, not on the Shuttle at home, never. I've managed to get 'everything except networking' once or twice but the advent of wireless cards just moved the goalposts further away again :(

But that's not the actual point of my post.

The actual point of my post is:

Take away the curse...
With a great big ZOTZ!!

Re:I'll be annoyed (1)

Horatio_Hellpop (926706) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518967)

//Take away the curse...
With a great big ZOTZ!! //

Abra-Cadaver, is that you?

Re:I'll be annoyed (1)

kannibal_klown (531544) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518848)

In fact, Vista Beta 2 wouldn't even install -- I kept getting a "error copying Windows files" after 30% of the files had copied. This, on two different hard drives. Oy.

I had this problem with my rebuilt PC. My motherboard died so I replaced it (and only the mb) and tried to do a fresh install of windows. I kept getting that same error.

It turned out my memory went bad, running memtest86 revealed it failing some tests. I don't know if the memory died along with the motherboard or if I mishandled it when transferring it to the new motherboard but it was dead all the same.

In any case, it was the first time I'd seen that error message when installing an OS. Before I tried memtest86 I tried 2 different CD ROM drives, different copies of the disk, different cables, etc. It didn't even seem like it would be a memory error but an IO or disk error.

So, check the memory and let it go ALL the way through. It'll take a while, but this way you'll know for sure. I've known people that have only failed late tests.

Re:I'll be annoyed (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518887)

You're describing similar problems to what I've had trying to install Vista. The things I can come up with, are, make sure that you're burning the ISO to a writable DVD drive, and not a CD-R (Hey, even the smartest people could overlook this sometimes, like how every "it won't start" troubleshooting guide starts with "is it plugged in?")

The next one, was to make sure that I'm installing off a DVD-ROM drive, and *not* a burner. This was the biggest problem I had. I could *not* get Beta 1 to install at all at home, despite having an official Microsoft Beta DVD, and I eventually traced the problem down to trying to install with my CD-RW/DVD-ROM combo drive. I went out bought a simple DVD-ROM, and plugged it in just long enough to install Vista, and it worked perfect.

Re:I'll be annoyed (1)

Horatio_Hellpop (926706) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518947)

//traced the problem down to trying to install with my CD-RW/DVD-ROM combo drive. I went out bought a simple DVD-ROM, and plugged it in just long enough to install Vista, and it worked perfect.//

hmmm ... that might be it ... i'm using a combo-mombo drive. I'll try a regular 'ol DVD drive.

Re:I'll be annoyed (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518961)

hmmm ... that might be it ... i'm using a combo-mombo drive. I'll try a regular 'ol DVD drive.

I hope it works out for you. I was upset when I figured out that that was the problem. It's like, why should that make a difference? *sigh* Maybe I should file a bug, I mean, how could they not already know about it though?

Why? (-1, Troll)

Donniedarkness (895066) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518667)

Other than the "it's cool, look what I can do!" factor, why would anyone do this? PPC Macs are much more expensive than Intel Macs, so why would you even WANT this on a PPC Mac? Hell, I'd be proud if my PPC Mac *couldn't* run Windows =)

Re:Why? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15518688)

Why does a dog lick his balls???

Because he can...

Re:Why? (4, Informative)

donutello (88309) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518755)

VirtualPC for Mac is an existing product [microsoft.com] that I'm assuming has the requisite number of customers who think it's worth doing.

From a personal standpoint, some of the reasons for wanting to do this are:
1. I like working on Macs but it's a Windows world out there. I need to be able to run some Windows software but don't want to buy and maintain a separate machine just to do that.
2. Running VirtualPC makes it easer for me to share the data between my Mac and the Windows machine I occasionally need to use.

Re:Why? (3, Informative)

MyDixieWrecked (548719) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518861)

Other than the "it's cool, look what I can do!" factor, why would anyone do this? PPC Macs are much more expensive than Intel Macs, so why would you even WANT this on a PPC Mac?

well, some of us already have a PPC mac. I use VPC for 2 reasons; primarily to test how websites look/work in different versions of IE. sure, you could build a cheap x86 machine and pop a bunch of different versions of windows on there, but that can be expensive and requires a lot of rebooting. with VPC, I can see win2k and XP side by side, and when I close the window, it freezes the state, so I don't need to reboot windows every time I fire up VPC.

the other reason is to test how code works in cygwin and occasionally how pygtk apps run in windows.

I tried installing the vista public beta last night, but it failed complaining about the bios thing and I assumed that it wasn't possible to do, but now that this has been shown to be possible, I can actually see how the new version of IE will render my sites. I'm not really looking forward to seeing how it'll perform, though. XP is only usable for webstuff. win2k runs pretty well. my dual 2.7ghz G5 emulates about a 550mhz pentium4, so I'd hate to see what a mess vista will be.

mod parent up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15519213)

sensible reply to a snotty grandparent.

Re:Why? (0, Troll)

GotenXiao (863190) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518881)

Maybe because the PPC arch is better than x86 by a long shot.

Re:Why? (1)

Ramble (940291) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519456)

My G5 got over 10,000 points in 3DMark. Oh, wait...

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15519557)

the PPC arch is better than x86 by a long shot.
And that is why Apple switched from Intel to PPC. Oh, wait...

Re:Why? (1)

rainer_d (115765) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519128)

> PPC Macs are much more expensive than Intel Macs

In fact, Apple will have a hard time beating the price of a Dual DualCore G5.
Just compare what a fully stacked XW9300 or Ultra40 would cost.
Also, the the PPC-Mini was cheaper than the current Intel Mini - IIRC.

This has nothing to do with Intel Macs (5, Insightful)

bsartist (550317) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518677)

VPC emulates a traditional PC with a BIOS. An Intel Mac is an entirely different beast. Getting Vista to boot in VPC is no more difficult than getting it to boot on a generic "white box" pc, and has just as much relevance to the Intel Mac. That is, none at all.

Re:This has nothing to do with Intel Macs (1)

NekoXP (67564) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518698)

Well, it would be news if they got it to boot on a pre-BootCamp Intel Mac.

As it stands Apple beat everyone to the punch and there's no news in it at all now.

Re:This has nothing to do with Intel Macs (1)

MarkGriz (520778) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518779)

"Well, it would be news if they got it to boot on a pre-BootCamp Intel Mac"

Hell, all they'd have to do to make it "news" would be boot Vista on a PC with the processor fan running at 12 volts [slashdot.org]

Re:This has nothing to do with Intel Macs (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518728)

Well, it means that you can at least run Vista on VirtualPC for PPC running within Rosetta.

Disclaimer: this is a joke. I imagine that the code-generating nature of VirtualPC might mean that it breaks Rosetta (ignoring the dreadful net performance, if it would actually "work").

x86 emulator runs x86 OS? (4, Funny)

appleprophet (233330) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518707)

So an x86 emulator is capable of running Vista, an x86 operating system? Sweet!

Even more amazing... (4, Funny)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518782)

Even more amazing is that an x86 emulator sold by Microsoft is capable of running Vista, an x86 operating system written by Microsoft. Sweet! Dude! Sweet! Dude! Sweet!

Re:Even more amazing... (0, Redundant)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519663)

Yes, but you guys are missing the most amazing aspect of this... this is an x86 emulator sold by Microsoft for PPC! And it's emulating a Microsoft x86 operating system on PPC! Dude, sweet!

Microsoft to buy Apple. (4, Funny)

mypalmike (454265) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518732)

I would not predict such a thing. But I would predict an article by Dvorak and/or Cringeley predicting such a thing.

"You can already run Windows on the Mac. And I'm talking Windows Vista. Microsoft is already doing this internally. Microsoft, given its problems with security, will buy Apple so that it can get its hands on the OS. It will then port the entire Windows API to run on top of the Darwin kernel. With Virtual PC, they're already doing this. The purchase will give Microsoft all the benefits of the Unix security model with the developer base of Windows."

Re:Microsoft to buy Apple. (1)

neonprimetime (528653) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518761)

"You can already run Windows on the Mac. And I'm talking Windows Vista. Microsoft is already doing this internally. Microsoft, given its problems with security, will buy Apple so that it can get its hands on the OS. It will then port the entire Windows API to run on top of the Darwin kernel. With Virtual PC, they're already doing this. The purchase will give Microsoft all the benefits of the Unix security model with the developer base of Windows."

Exciting ... so MSFT will be able to care even less about their OS security ... because they can rely on Unix on the back side? Nice.

Re:Microsoft to buy Apple. (2, Insightful)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518877)

The slightly more credible version of this speculation is that Apple is dumping Darwin and will port the OS X user interface frameworks to the Vista kernel, thus allowing perfect side-by-side Windows|Mac compatibility. Of course, that's still not very credible.

Re:Microsoft to buy Apple. (4, Funny)

kahei (466208) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518842)

all the benefits of the Unix security model

Oh, GREAT.

with the developer base of Windows

Oh, EVEN BETTER!

Re:Microsoft to buy Apple. (1)

RoadWarriorX (522317) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519634)

I guess it's better than Dilbert security model [blogger.com] .

Re:Microsoft to buy Apple. (1)

igaborf (69869) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519199)

Jesus, that sounds just like Dvorak/Cringely! Get thee to a psychiatrist!

Re:Microsoft to buy Apple. (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519207)

But I would predict an article by Dvorak and/or Cringeley predicting such a thing.
If those twits live long enough, they'll manage to predict everything.

Re: Microsoft to buy Apple. (1)

gidds (56397) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519966)

Er, yeah. Coz we all know just how much MS cares about security.

(I mean 'cares' as in 'wants to improve', of course, not as in 'wants to use as an excuse to charge people more money'.)

Mac OSX on PCs? THIS is what I am waiting for.. (0, Redundant)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518734)

As someone who is a longtime Windows user and now MAC OS X user out of necessity (I'm an IT Director at a sports publishing company and we are ALL MAC OS X), I wonder why any Mac user in their right mind would buy a Mac only to install Windows on it.

After leaving Windows completely and happily I'm mystified. Especially considering that MAC equipment is way overpriced just to run windows on it.

Now as a new MAC OS X user who is thoroughly in love with it (compared to Windows but still MORE in love with Linux) if MAC OS made it's way to regular commodity PC boxes then I would gladly chuck all of our Mac boxes and iBooks and buy PC boxes.

If I were MS this is what I would be REALLY scared of, MAC OS X on a PC box. I would have no reason to use MS.

Admittedly Apple must make a ton of money their boxes for as overpriced as they are.

Re:Mac OSX on PCs? THIS is what I am waiting for.. (2, Informative)

WombatControl (74685) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518878)

Now as a new MAC OS X user who is thoroughly in love with it (compared to Windows but still MORE in love with Linux) if MAC OS made it's way to regular commodity PC boxes then I would gladly chuck all of our Mac boxes and iBooks and buy PC boxes.

And then Apple would go out of business.

Rule #1 when it comes to understanding Apple is this: Apple is a hardware company . They make their money selling those Macs and iBooks, and if they lose that revenue stream they go out of business. That is why Apple will never release a version of OS X for generic PCs unless their entire business model changes. Apple is first and foremost a hardware company that only happens to make some really, really good software. The margins on software are such that Apple could not offset the losses on hardware that would be incurred by selling boxed copies of OS X.

In other words, no, that is not going to happen. You're right, the margins on Apple's hardware is quite nice, and the margins on software are nowhere near as nice. Apple doesn't play the software game for that very reason - unless it's to boost their own hardware sales.

Re:Mac OSX on PCs? THIS is what I am waiting for.. (1)

imnojezus (783734) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519123)

One important thing every Mac admin should know is that MAC = Machine Access Code. Mac = Abbreviation for Macintosh.

I know it's a douchey fanboy thing to point out, but clarity is always a good thing. It can get confusing when you send an email telling a staffer how to "assign a MAC to the MAC".

Re:Mac OSX on PCs? THIS is what I am waiting for.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15519268)

>"I know it's a douchey fanboy thing to point out,"

It really is, especially since he clarified every instance by following it with "OS X".

Re:Mac OSX on PCs? THIS is what I am waiting for.. (1)

Golias (176380) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519596)

Like here?

Especially considering that MAC equipment is way overpriced just to run windows on it.

Machine Access Code equipment is way overpriced? Holy shit, what's a network admin to do???

Re:Mac OSX on PCs? THIS is what I am waiting for.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15519818)

Especially considering that MAC equipment is way overpriced just to run windows on it.
Admittedly Apple must make a ton of money their boxes for as overpriced as they are.
I'm sure you've seen the Dell-Apple comparisons many times here on /. and on Walt Mossberg's column and many other places. Your point is losing its validity/not valid anymore. Especially the way part of it. And it definitely is not worth mentioning twice in a single short post.

Re:Mac OSX on PCs? THIS is what I am waiting for.. (1)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15520010)

As an IT Manager, he probably could give a flying fuck what Walt Mossberg thinks. And maybe you should stop listening to other people and check the prices at Dell and HP? You can get a quite servicible business desktop computer for far below what Apple's consumer-oriented models cost.

Speed? (1)

Rorian (88503) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518744)

Given Vista's demand on systems, is there even any point in trying to run it emulated on modern-day hardware? It seems to me like the overhead presented by emulation would bring vista to a grinding halt..

Re:Speed? (1)

tysonedwards (969693) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518846)

Uh, running Vista on an ultra-bleeding edge machine is enough to bring the OS to a grinding halt.

Re:Speed? (1)

traveller604 (961720) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519160)

Probably still slightly faster than native Mac Os X :p

Re:Speed? (1)

mangaskahn (932048) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519356)

Not true, Vista runs well on VMWare on a P4 2.8 with 512 MB RAM allocated to the VM. At this point I'm not a fan of the interface, but it runs and is only limited as far as I can tell by my slow hard drive and the imposed limit on RAM, I will be installing it on a stronger VMWare box this weekend and expect even better results.

Vista will flop (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15518748)

After trying the Vista beta, I am convinced that it will be a huge huge flop for Microsoft. The thing is that people who likely own hardware capable of running Windows Vista don't need the constant babyish security reminders ("Is it really YOU running this program?") that users who bought an eMachines something five years ago likely do. Does your grandmother have 256 MB of memory? because even with my 128 radeon Vista was sloooow. And I will stick to OS X on my mac, thanks.

Re:Vista will flop (1)

slazzy (864185) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519085)

I think Vista will be a huge success. With M$ partnership with hardware vendors, everyone will be forced to upgrade yet again, and both M$ and the hardware vendors will be advertising like crazy telling us how great vista is and why we MUST have it...

Re:Vista will flop (1)

foamrotreturns (977576) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519129)

The thing is that people who likely own hardware capable of running Windows Vista don't need the constant babyish security reminders
How insightful, yes. I mean, there's absolutely NO chance that Joe Sixpack is going to spend $2K on a high-end gaming box just so he can have bragging rights. I mean, no one has EVER bought a more powerful machine than they needed! Who would do that? This even translates to cars too, if I may extend that tired old analogy into this arena. No one would ever buy a car with more than 200HP unless they're a racecar driver.
[/sarcasm]
Get real, man. Vista won't flop because it will be the DEFAULT INSTALL on any new computer. Do you think Joe Sixpack is going to care if it's Windows Vista or XP? No. He's gonna have a very simple checklist in his head when he goes shopping:
1) It's a computer
2) I can turn it on
3) It's got Microsoft (no kidding. many people actually don't distinguish Microsoft from Windows)
4) It's got Internet (many laypeople don't even understand the concept of an ISP)
5) I can browse pr0n
The only people that will be interested in upgrading their OS will be people who know what the hardware requirements are and are capable of getting their system up to spec. Otherwise, they'll just stick with whatever works like all the n00bs out there that I happen to know are still using Win98 First Edition.

The only way Vista will flop is if people stop buying computers. Like that's gonna happen.

Re:Vista will flop (1)

abscissa (136568) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519167)

YOU might keep buying new comptuers. But for people who just browse the internet and use e-mail, the market is saturated. They already have a computer and they don't need a new one because their computer already does everything they want and more.

Currently, the low-end machines from most major companies do not support Windows Vista. And people who use WWW and e-mail don't want bragging rights and they don't buy gaming computers, they want WWW and e-mail.

Re:Vista will flop (2, Insightful)

foamrotreturns (977576) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519220)

You really don't understand the consumerist society, do you? People buy new stuff even when the old stuff works just fine. It's about social status and bragging rights. It's got nothing to do with if it works or not. Also, you'd be surprised by the number of people who think that getting a virus means they need to get a new system. There was even a newspaper article around here in my hometown that said something to the effect of "Be careful of viruses. They can delete your data or even destroy your computer so you have to buy a new one." I of course called BS in a letter to the editor but they didn't publish it. People are ignorant when it comes to technology. They don't understand it and don't want to. They just want it to work. And a lot of times, that means buying a new computer. If you think the market is saturated, check out the PC sales numbers. They're higher than ever before. As more people want to get on this "newfangled intarweb thingy" they all buy computers. Then they hook them up. Then they get pwn3d. Then they buy a new one. Rinse, repeat.

Re:Vista will flop (1)

Dan Ost (415913) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519245)

But there is still some upgrading going on. People are aware that their computer is
5 years behind the curve and so when something goes wrong, instead of spending the
time and the $50 dollars to replace whatever needs replaceing, people are more likely
to spend $300 and get a new (low end) machine which will likely have Vista on it.

That's the how it works. Old machines don't run forever, and the older it is, the more
likely it is to be considered "totalled" or "untrustworthy" when something does go
wrong (even if it's not a hardware problem).

Re:Vista will flop (1)

abscissa (136568) | more than 8 years ago | (#15520029)

Which low-end machine is capable of running Vista? :-) Apparantly you have not tried the beta. I feel so sorry for the hardware manufacturers... suddenly those low-end machines are going to have to have blow-you-away specs... the real strategy would be to get one of them and install XP.

Re:Vista will flop (1)

rob1980 (941751) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519227)

People said the exact same thing when Windows XP came out, if you'll recall.

128MB of ram? This is ridiculous!

Two for the price of, err, two? (1)

JayDot (920899) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518750)

So, it's now firmly established that Windows can run on Apple hardware. Are anyone else's feet cold, or is that just me?

I'm actually thinking that having a Mac might be okay, especially if I can convince the Wife that we'll be getting so much more. Hmm, what was that? Oh you'll have to excuse me. I think I hear Half-Life 2 calling.

The even shorter summary: (3, Insightful)

ABoerma (941672) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518758)

"Virtualization allows you to run an OS that was designed for another type of hardware. This is news. Really."

Misleading headline... (1)

xXenXx (973576) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518776)

The headline is very misleading. When I saw it, my first thought was "Why?". Then reality kicked in, how did they get it running on PPC hardware? After RTFA, I have to say that was seriously a waste of my time. x86 OS works in x86 emulator. Wow what a breakthrough (sarcasim).

Having said all that, wouldn't it be disgustingly slow running on one of those PPC's?

Re:Misleading headline... (3, Insightful)

mh101 (620659) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518991)

After RTFA, I have to say that was seriously a waste of my time. x86 OS works in x86 emulator. Wow what a breakthrough (sarcasim).

Since you claim to have read the article, you'd have noticed that the big deal isn't "It works in an emulator" but rather "At first it wouldn't install in VPC, but someone found a neat trick to get it to install." I didn't even know it was possible to get into a BIOS setup screen in VPC.

I agree, it would be extremely slow though. I have a Dual 1.8GHz G5, and the Virtual PC seems to run at ~350 MHZ for me (not a scientific measurement... just a guess based on how it 'feels'). Considering Vista's minimum requirements are at least 800 MHz, I wouldn't want to use it on a regular basis.

That being said, I'm going to try it out anyway, just to take a look at Vista.

Re: Verizon Chaperone (1, Funny)

OSS_ilation (922367) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518825)

Do you know what you Mac is doing right now???

Re: Verizon Chaperone (1)

BarkLouder (916884) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518978)

Do you know what you Mac is doing right now???

Yes, my Mac is on crack [new alias for Windows Vista]

And in related news... (-1, Redundant)

jpellino (202698) | more than 8 years ago | (#15518964)

Other 1337 users have h4x0rd the print command so that their letters come out on a piece of paper, they also got the little switchy thingie next to the door to make the room light up, and they got Jolt Cola to run downhill.
Film at 11.

By the time vista full boots... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15519032)

It may have come out of beta!

Macosxhints? (3, Funny)

iceborer (684929) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519078)

Did anyone else read that as Masochists "giving a set of tips that let any Mac user boot Windows Vista on a Mac?"

Re:Macosxhints? (1)

briancnorton (586947) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519114)

Actually, I did. And after reading the article, I'm convinced that it was a typo.

omg omg omg omg (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15519103)

Virtual PC on mac works? This is amazing, maybe I can install linux on it too! It is so badass that I can now run x86 binary code on a PPC! Amazing, i have never seen anything so cool. VirtualPC for the WIN!

Who would have thought that there would be a piece of software that would "pretend" to be an x86, but when it's really on a PPC processor. Amazing I tell you. I guess you might call them emulators. WAIT! Even better, virtual machines! Great news article timmy! The future is bright for running multiple OS's on a computer. I can't wait to order my copy of Virual PC. Because IT and only IT can run windows vista.

MOD PARENT DOWN! - Redundant (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15519176)

Dude, this comment is totally redundant. Good job to the moderators. Not a troll comment either. In absolutely no way is the comment a troll. At all. Period. But redundant, Oh yes! In every way possible.

Virtual PC 7.0.2 PPC - Network, Sound working? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15519127)

I have been tweaking with getting Vista Beta 2 (5384) working since it was released out in the wild. I have been able to install without a glitch, although slow. It works great. I have poked around and found that by installing Virtual Server 2005 R2 and extracting the files and installing the virtual machine additions that come packed with that, that you can get a significance performance increase (ppc virtual pc 7.0.2), although I have yet to get networking and sound working. anyone here been able to get these two devices working?

you can download Virtual Server 2005 R2 @ http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/virtu alserver/software/default.mspx [microsoft.com] for FREE. As a mac user, I booted into a WinXP virtual machine and performed the following commands to extract the new virtual machine additions to be installed in Vista.

Command Prompt type:
-------------------
setup /c /t c:\temp

If you then run the following command, you can unpack the MSI file. And you then you have access to the VS2005 R2 additions ISO, which you can install into your VPC (just use the CD -> Capture ISO Image... option)

msiexec /a "c:\temp\Virtual Server 2005 Install.msi" targetdir=c:\temp\extract /qn

after doing this, I have been able to install Office 2007 beta on vista's virtual machine with acutally not too bad performance, considering the emulation.

Microsoft Buena Vista (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15519135)

How to waste your macbook (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15519140)

Install the Microsoft proprietary piece of shit Windows Vista system. I guess I'll pass.

Simple but pointless (5, Informative)

keot (667523) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519175)

I did this a few days ago on my 1.67GHz PowerBook G4. Yes I am insane.

All you need to do is ensure the RAM setting is at 512MB otherwise the installer refuses to work. Then just before booting hit the delete key and enable APCI in the BIOS. Once installed, you can lower the RAM setting to something like 256MB. You also need patience because it took almost four hours to install (although it only asks for information at the beginning and end.)

It's extremely pointless though. For starters the Aero Glass interface won't work because the best graphics card Virtual PC emulates is a 16MB generic VGA card.

The only thing I learnt is that Microsoft have created an installer that requires 512MB to merely display a fake Aero Glass interface, you get seemingly random error codes with less RAM. Vista seems to use about 300MB once booted.

like a priest having sex with every prostitute (4, Funny)

xkr (786629) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519178)

Wow. You can take a machine that has almost a zero chance of getting malware and convert it to giant virus magnet. This is like a Priest having sex with every prostitute in the Caribbean. Repeat after me, "Sweet!"

Intel Mac (1)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 8 years ago | (#15519202)

But when, oh when, will I be able to natively boot Linux on my Intel Mac?

-Peter
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>