The mystery deepens. Despite
protestations on Apple's
part that the company's new
Intel-based iMac and MacBookPro
wouldn't be able to boot Windows XP, reports are starting to trickle in that the Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI)
boot manager can launch XP after all. No less an authority on EFI than Intel has commented (through its Australian
office) that motherboards using the Intel 945 chipset (which is assumed -- though not confirmed -- to be the set used
in the new Macs) support EFI and can boot XP. Intel's EFI documentation also says that a "Compatibility Support
Module" will allow EFI to boot OSes that aren't directly supported by the boot manager. Given that Apple has said
it won't directly stop Windows from running on Intel Macs, it seems at least feasible that a Compatibility Support
Module is available. Of course, all this rampant speculation can be solved pretty quickly soon enough once the Intel
Macs start shipping and users simply stick their XP install discs into the CD slot. That's when the real fun begins.
posted Jan 13th 2006 9:42AM
Apple is always talking about allowing people to have "choice". Yet by not explictly allowing Mac intel machines to boot xp, and by making it hard to load OSx on non Mac intel hardware, aren't they limiting choice?
As for the "quality" of Apple hardware...give me a break. It is just as cheap, and crapy as pc hardware. They only have 5% of the market, if the hardware (now I am talking about the plactics metals ect that make up the "box" surounding the electronics), and the electronics where so much better in quality then they would face a problem with the "economies of scale". Pc makers have a much greater choice in the various components (thus there is more competion), and the makers of these components can make more of them - thus make less on each part, but make more money in total at the end of the day. If Apples were quality wise so much better they would cost even more than they cost now. I would claim that apples are infact inferior because of the small market share, and the need for apple to maintain a greater profit margin on each machine, than say Dell, or IBM, Toshiba, or any other Wintel machine makers needs to do. And the cost to thes Wintel makers of each part would be less than a comprable Mac part simply because many components used by wintel makers are the same, resulting in huge savings again due to "economies of scale".
I think this is actually the main reason Apple is moving to Intel. Now they can choose from all that great hardware out there that until now was only with x86 Operating Systems.
Maybe now we will see Apples priced like PC's. Cheap! Let's face it, most people really don't care what name you put on the box, they just want to be sure that when they press the power button something will happen.
By the way, I have always hated the plastic apple used for their desktops, and displays...it doesn't take very long when it is exposed to the harsh everyday environment of life for it to start looking so very tacky.
dont you people realize that by moving to mac your supporting the proprietary movement! i dont have anything against windows and i like the macs but things need to stay the way they are or YOU, the consumer, will never be able to modify or build your own things. windows vista will be coming out soon, and all of the programs in it will be exclusively for windows, and macs have hermedically sealed hardware that no one can modifyyou people think your getting security from this, but let me quote ben franklin for you "anyone who is willing to give up liberty for security deserves neither" i encourage you to stick to your PCs and run a linux distro, becuase if you fall into the hands of microsoft and apple you will soon find yourself in a world of invasive operating systems and there will be no creativity in computer programming.
and dont tell me you want to get a mac cuase the GUI is so shiny, or becuase it comes in a cool tight white box.
make Mac OS move to PCs.
and seriously folks, dont trust anything you dont understand.
I can't wait to see these things running XP...they really are the most high end laptops around..including the price!
What about Linux distros?
I suppose with the EFI and the CSM you could Multi-boot OSX, XP, Linux, etc... Interesting very interesting.
Why would you want to run Windows on a Mac? Isn't the point of buying a Mac to get the pretty user interface that comes with it? If you wanted to run Windows, why wouldn't you just buy one of the dozen or so other Intel Dual Core machines that have come out recently? Wouldn't that make more sense? Or has the lure of Apple products crossed over to the Windows world?
Wasn't it not so long ago Steve Jobs had that "the soul of Apple is the OS" or something to that effect speech?
It makes me wonder of the intel marrage was conditional on the ability of the chipsets to boot Windows. The volume of Mac users alone is probably not as driveable a developement force on the hardware side for intel. Perhaps the inticement of hardware focused Apple (Windows users who love the look and feel of Apple) fans to expand the Mac market was the dealbreaker in getting intel in bed with Apple.
I'm just waiting for the performance comparisons of the same HW running applications like Photoshop or something similar. Then let the flame wars begin.
I would assume that Linux distros would be bootable as well. I would like to dual boot the machine so I could use it on my corporate network.
I think it was smart of apple to leave the systems open to XP. Someone would have hacked it within days of the new hardware getting in an uber-nerds hands..why try and stop the inevitable? As long as Apple is still getting their $$$ from the sale, there is no downside to them.
I would love to dual boot, but only for business reasons. I use a powerbook for my computer repair business even though the majority of work is PC based. It hasn't hurt me yet, (in fact it helps me when it comes to recovering data off of bad hard drives) but I would like to have the option without lugging around annother machine.
Let's face it, as stable and user friendly as Mac OS is, there is some software that is either unavailable for Mac OS, or way behind the Windows version. So why not use a MacBook Pro with 2 partitions, one for Mac OS and one for Windows XP?
The reason that you would want XP on a Mac is simple.
Apple puts a lot more work in puttle together reliable hardware then Dell or Gateway or anyone else does.
Anyone who gets a BSOD and blames it solely on microsoft needs to learn a little about hardware drivers.
Apple does everything it can to control the hardware that goes into the computer to ensure stability, and that is why I would put XP on a mac.
Why NOT be able to dual boot? More options, more flexibility for users, the hardware is already in place.
I have a reason! Games. That's the only thing keeping me on Windows.
Why would you want to run XP on macs? Because as nice as OSX is, it doesn't run all the programs everyone needs. If you can run OSX for everything except for one or two apps that you can run via dual-boot XP, then a huge new market will be opened up for apple that was previously closed. And a bigger market share means more mac users, which means more apps will cater for OSX, so eventually you won't have to dual-boot at all.
"Why would you want to run Windows...?"
The point is NOT that one would want to run it as a primary OS, but rather the ability to run it when someone must. One example... web designers. I currently have Virtual PC so I can do some web items where I must see how web pages work under different browsers and platforms. Granted, most won't need Windows, but it is definitely an advantage to some if the machine can boot different OS's.
My comments are the same as above. Why? I have a mac because Windows and M$ flat out suck. And for all the windows fanboys out there, why would they want to run a sucky Mac OS?
I dont see why people are getting so excited.
I am definetly going to try and put Windows on my new MacBook. Running the Mac OS and Windows XP/Vista seems like a really fun idea to me. I mean...come on - you have to do it just because you can. Besides I only own a license of Photoshop on the PC, why would I go and buy a another license just run it under emulation on the MacOS side.
I have an iMac on order, and I'll certainly give it a shot, though I will NOT continue to run it after I try to get it working.. :)
Why would I want to run Windows on a MacBook?
Simply because i'm a software developer and i'm forced to be able to run and develope software for Windows and I don't want to carry two computers around.
I use a 1Ghz G4 TiBook at home. Great general purpose machine. I also have a Compaq something-or-other with an Athlon in it (crap machine) for running 2003 Server so that I can work from home (Visual Studio .NET 2005, SQL Server, etc...).
I'd love to get down to a single machine.
Still, there's no way I'm buying a 1st version macintel. I'll wait till rev 2 or 3 and then snap one up.
Dropping a boat load of cash on Apple HW only to install XP is pretty much a waste IMO. All I want is the ability to run Windows Based software on OSX. I want that pretty MAC hardware and the pretty OS to go with it, but I can't make the switch until I can use my CAD software and iLife at the same time.
#7 There should be no difference.
The only reason those benchmarks have been such an inflammatory issue in the past is because the machines ran entirely different hardware.
Now that the OS is the only difference there really shouldn't be much at all in the way of performance gaps.
AND, as it stands right now you can spec out a PC with much better performance than any macintel, but considering laptops and imacs are the only current macintels, thats not really suprising.
Lets also bear in mind that AMD pushes Intel pretty hard at present, taking the lead in several key performance areas, so its even possible that if Apple took the best of the best from Intel you would still be able to spec out a faster PC.
All this aside, I still think this is going the wrong way.
I don't care about XP on Mac, I want OSX on PC.
p.s.: what the hell is with the Incredibly huge gap between paragraphs?
This should have one empty line between itself and the line above, instead there is a huge gulf of off white that makes it look like I had a siezure when I hit the enter key.
Imagine a world where IBM dont make laptops anymore; toshiba isnt interested in business; imagine a world where no one made a decent windows notebook anymore. That is when you get one from apple; assuming they have sorted their worldwide support anyway.
As for cost its no more than a Lenovo T series notebook and not much more than an r series.
Well if you dont have to buy XP / vista which we dont at work thanks to select licensing :)
Why would I want to dual boot? I wouldn't really, but if the MacBook Pro is shown to run Windows XP, there is a small glimmer of hope that I could convince my work to get me one even though I probably would never boot to Windows at all.
People you got it a little wrong....
According to the "athorities" only Windows Vista supports EFI, XP does not. SO you can dual boot only with Vista. XP will not work until someone works out some sort of boot loader for it.
Jeff
A dual-boot XP option would be great for mechanical designers and engineers. I need XP to run SolidWorks, but I would much rather have the MacOS interface when I'm not actually working. The ability to run MacOS on my Dell would be fine as well, except that the Dell is a big ugly brick. Of course, running XP on a MacBook without a right mouse button is going to be a serious hassle.
EFI makes multi-boot much nicer than with traditional BIOS systems. I used it to multi-boot a box with Windows. Linux and HPUX a few years ago, and the process worked well. Why did this box have EFI? Because it was an Itanium... Itaniums have been EFI from the start. Unlike Lilo or Grub, it's possible to multi-boot each OS without any piece of software outside of EFI having any awareness that they exist.
But why Windows on a Mac? I can easily see folks switching to Windows, firing up whatever game, and then switching back.
I use SPSS for stats work, and the Mac version lags behnind the Windows version dramatically. Heck, the latest Mac version won't even run on X.4!
Dual core processors: who will be first to figure out how to run Mac OS X and XP/Longhorn/Vista at the SAME TIME! Now that would be sweetness...
The "huge gulf of off white space" is one of many sad problems i've noticed with Engadget after that weekend where they turned off comments and made a few changes.
Hate to gripe about it in this section, but i haven't seen anybody else bring it up... so...
What is the deal with the main page not taking me back to where i linked out of it when i hit "back". After linking in to a post to read comments, its pretty irriatating to hit back and have to scroll all the way back down the page to where i left from.
And also... is the stars feature for comments really important? In this thread at least, not a single comment or person has earned or lost said stars. Why?
Not trying to gripe, i still check this site as often as i check ESPN or CNN. Just wondering whats up with this stuff, and maybe how i can fix it.
There is a reason OS X is not the primary system, there is a lot of software it does not support. I have always liked mac, but never switched because of the support issues. I would love to dual boot my machine with OS X and XP, most importantly, it would allow me to connect to work and still use Windows software when necessary. People forget that unless you are in the design world or you're a casual user for internet and email, a mac system isn't very practical. Even Walt M. confirmed this.
C'mon...the iMacs are supposedly shipping! Somebody test this and let us know!!!
I would love to be able to dual-boot a Mac and Windows machine, and I'm sure there are literally millions of other people who feel the same way. The problem is it hasn't been possible to do it until now.
Someone said "if you want to run Windows, why not just buy a Dell?" Well, I wouldn't buy a Dell, but I'd be perfectly happy to build my own PC *if I could then run the Mac OS on it*. But I can't. If you want to run the Mac OS you have to buy a Mac... but in a lot of cases, I also *have to* run Windows. Not only for apps that plain and simply aren't available on Mac (and yes, I have a lot of those) but also for apps that I've paid good money for and that I don't really feel a need to pay for again on another platform.
Apple is being smart here because they know that like it or not, a lot of people are in the same boat I am. We'd love to run the Mac OS but we can't abandon Windows... so our only choice to this point has been to buy Windows machines.
Apple's also being smart (though sneaky and annoying) by not licensing their OS, assuming their hardware will now run Windows. Because now, if I want to run both the Mac OS and Windows, my only choice is to buy a Mac. I can't do it the other way (which would probably save me money).
Eventually Apple may end up with a lot more "switchers" out of this, because people who really do prefer the Mac OS won't have to give up Windows cold turkey in order to run it. And as the numbers of people doing dual boots increases, Apple will be able to claim a greater adoption rate and maybe that will get more developers on board (of course, maybe not if they know all those people are dual booting, meaning they're still also running Windows).
I also personally run Linux in a Windows dual boot right now, so given that Macs have historically been able to dual boot into Linux as well, we could potentially end up with one machine to rule them all here - a tri-boot Windows/Mac OS/Linux machine. That'd be freakin' sweet. I don't know what the deal is with Linux and EFI, though.
I've been a Mac user for many years and i'm excited about the new Macs being dual boot. A couple of reasons:
1. I work in a 90% Windows company, sometimes you just need Windows (Visio, Project, etc...)
2. I bought a Dell mainly to play games and test websites in IE. (Now I could just boot into Windows on my Mac)
3. Vista might not be so bad. It would be interesting to check out Vista and the occasional non-mac app (Skype 2.0, Google Earth before the Mac version came out, etc...)
It could also be good for Apple, If you were mainly a Windows user but interested in OSX - now you only need one machine.
> Despite protestations on Apple's part
I don't think this is a correct statement. The only time the subject has been addressed was when Phil Schiller said that they are using standard Intel components and they've done nothing to prevent Windows from being installed if you wanted to so.
> Why would I want to run Windows on a MacBook?
Cause Apple hardware is cool, that's it for me. Sorry. I'm not interested in the OS or it's applications.
Two points I'd like to make.
First. Who says apple laptop hardware is amazing and high quality? Apple?! The last generation Titanium PowerBook had insane amounts of problems with the rubbish hard drives they had in them. On my university course last year, out of 25 people, around 10 people had to send their powerbooks back to apple as they had totally died. These were powerbooks purchased all over the world as well as alot of people were foreign students. The generation before the titanium's had massive problems with the rubbish tft screens they put in them, I know of loads of people who had to send them back as the screens started to get little bright patches all over them. Powerbooks aren't expensive because they are using good components, they're just trying to con people with flashy cases. And what's with the 5400rpm hard drives!? Loads of PC laptops have had 7200rpm drives in for ages now! Cheap rubbish.
Secondly, is it just me or doesnt anyone else think its totally out of order for Apple to (although unofficially) allow WinXP to be installed on their machines, but not allow OSX to install on PC's (well at least without hacks). Is it just me who thinks that is totally out of order. I too would love to dual boot OSX and XP, but certainly not on a MAC! This just reeks of anti-competitive business if you ask me, Microsoft have been taken to court (several times) for alot less.
I'd love to see XP boot on a mac, just for the Irony of it ;)
We've been seeing Microsoft removing their entire mac product line progressivly: IE, WMP, etc.., would the mac running on an Intel architecture would have anything to do with this??
check it out... Multibooting Intel based Macs -A Step-by-step By Ross Carlson and Joel Wampler
http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Multibooting
Believe it or not (for you naysayers), there are people out there who are fans of both Windows and the Mac OS. Like me. I use both on a daily basis and both have their strengths and weaknesses. Being able to run both will be great, not to mention being able to do it on an Apple with style is a plus.
An Apple VP said at Macworld that XP wouldn't boot on their boxes due to the fact that XP doesn't support EFI (without the CSM). My guess is that means that the MacBook doesn't have a CSM. We'll just have to wait, though.
why would anyone want to put xp on a mac? i will tell you why. I work in the IT department for an authorized apple distributor and the apple product manager has always wanted everyone on the apple team to be using apple systems, since that is what they sell. but company policy dictates that we only support windows systems because we are a windows house. being able to install xp on a MacBook would allow the PM and his team to have macs and still be able to do their job.
I don't understand why Apple is trying to make it a total pain to install Windows on the machine. Are they trying to earn money? or are they trying to keep the Apple purists happy?
"check it out... Multibooting Intel based Macs -A Step-by-step By Ross Carlson and Joel Wampler"
That guide is outdated. It was for multibooting on the dev kits, which used BIOS, not the actual shipped products which uses EFI.
What about booting OS X on our pc's? I wouldn't mind that. The nice clean, "bug free" (i hope) OS would vastly improve my XP machine.
I know there are emulators but since OS X is suppose to run on pentium processors, maybe I can partition my HD and choose which one I want to boot into.
Sigh, I can only Dream I suppose.
fix
the
paragraph
breaks
this is a great move for apple. it adds more value to apple hardware, which, if you're an apple fan boy is good. however, its also not good because now it means that every computer available to the average consumer will have the potential to run windows, which adds value to the windows platform. in the end, this only benefits the consumer by giving them more cost-effective options.
hey pupil, apple only has 5% market share, it would be impossible for them to be gulity of the same level of market influence as ms. they can do whatever they want with the software and hardware that they make. apple's first buisness is hardware.
#41
The reason that MacOSX doesn't crash as much as Windows is because Apple has fine-tuned the OS to work with a specific set of hardware in their machines. Since Apple controls the hardware that goes into their machines, they can make sure everything is compatible with each other.
It's amazing enough that Windows can run on so many different hardware.
If you had MacOSX installed on a PC machine, it'd probably crash. And, I can't see it 100% working on a PC without drivers being made for whatever hardware you have in your machine. You're probably better off using Windows XP.
I wonder if I will be able to install OSX on any machine with core duo, i.e. less expensive laptops?
Don't press enter twice in between paragraphs.
If you start your next paragraph on the next line, Engadget will automatically insert the "" tag and your comment will look like this.
No reason to have WinXP on your mac now that its using intel/x86 hardware. Transgaming started a while back (before intel announcement even) working on a port of their wine gaming technology, with macIntel that'll be even easier now to run win-games on your mac. And I suspect that Codeweavers' Crossover program won't be far behind. I wouldn't doubt it if Apple cuts a deal with both companies to have their software pre-installed even.
How about OSX now working on a PC? If it works on an Intel chipset, why won't it work (with a few hacks) on my Dell PC which is infinitely better than any Mac hardware that I've seen.
And after I install XP in my new iMac, I'm going to pour out (what's left of) my Patron and fill the bottle with some Cuervo!!!
You see people. Apple and Microsoft are not competing with each other as much as with the free software movement. Apple knows how to compete against a 'free' product with their music store and it has been a big success. If Apple can sell a machine that dual boots Windows both Microsoft AND Apple win. It is a win win situation. Good for computers and good for consumers and good for investors and the companies.
APPLE Is ABoUT TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD ... it's that simple
I can't believe how many people are still so hateful of the "other team". Why can't we all just get along?
Personally, I'd like to have a dual-boot MacBook because for me, Mac has advantages, such as sexy hardware, stylin' software for casual web browsing/email/media management, and Windows has advantages too, such as gaming, work needs, generally more available software.
One BIG issue I see in dual-booting a mac into XP, specifically the MacBooks, is the trackpad. There is only ONE button on any Apple laptop, forcing users to Ctrl-click their way into contextual menus, but how will that work in XP or Vista for that matter?
I called Apples Tech support and asked them this very question. According to Apple you have to use Microsofts Virtual PC to run XP on the new Intel Macs.
I will never buy a notebook that doesn't have a 'stick' or 'nipple' navigator thingy in the middle of the keyboard. Glide pads piss me orf.
my solution for the trackpad issue is to download the synaptic generic touchpad driver. I dont know if it will work with the Mac trackpad, but Mac trackpad is made by Synaptics. The Synaptics driver has options to let you specify tapping regions of the touchpad. You could set up lower right corner for ex. as the right click. So, if you want to bring up the context menu, tap the lower right corner and the menu will pop up. That is assuming the generic driver and features are compatible with Apple's trackpad.
I don't get all the excitement over booting up on XP. Sure it's great for cross-platform users, but why spend the extra money on an Apple if you're just going to use crappy software?
#51: well said! Apple and Microsoft don't want to cut each others throats, no matter what the rhetoric: they both want, and need, to make money.
Microsoft Office is, after all, one of the most popular programs on the Mac. There is simply no comparison. No, don't even count OpenOffice - for power users, it is far, far behind. And nothing more than an attempt at an Office clone for that matter. Office 12 will blow everything else out of the water - sorry, off topic...
Anyway, I see a bright future for Apple with this move - there are many who want nice hardware but still run what everyone else does. OS X has NEVER been a strong point for Apple despite its prettiness - end of the day, people need to get their work done and many times Windows is simply required. And I can hardly name a significant Mac program that isn't also available on the PC, besides of course, those made by Apple itself.
My cousin and I (avowed Wintel/Linux fans I must add) are already looking seriously at getting Apples once the performance gets a boost - right now the laptops aren't really that highly specced yet - but now we get design (with some exceptions, sorely lacking in the PC world) PLUS compatibility: it seems like the perfect match. Even the licences for Windows can be transferred from our previous machines.
If any of you have ever owned a laptop, you may recall that your hardware manufacturer had to provide drivers for certain key hardware like the videocard. The mobility graphics chips are integrated right onto the mainboard, which are custom designed by each hardware manufacturer and so require customized drivers. ATI only provides reference drivers to the laptop manufacturers which must then be tweaked and packaged for installation; you can't just go download video drivers for mobility products from ATI.
So, as much as it would be wonderful to run XP on a MacBook, I seriously doubt Apple is going to provide GPU driver support for Windows. You could probably get XP up and running at 800x600 or 1024x768 max with default XP video drivers, but forget about running anything graphically intensive.
I'll join the crowd and give my lame story for wanting to run Windows in a Mac.
I bought a 12" powerbook not too long ago and then returned it because it became just a pretty music player and web browser. I'm not ragging on Mac but the work that I do day to day has to be on a PC. I work using established enterprise software as well as EDI. I doubt it if they will work properly in the Mac and I wouldn't want to spend my whole day running them under emulation. Besides, being a contractor, I didn't want to be the only one introducing a Mac into a PC network in a major corporation :)
In the end I returned it knowing that the new Intel Macs would be out this year. Now all I have to do is wait until people start dual-booting between Mac and Windows. Once that happens then I'll teleport my Dominican Ass to the nearest Apple store and stand in line for a new Intel Powerbook, if there are any left that is; hopefully his Steveness won't try to be cute like Bill and produce limited numbers of this new Mac so that "Sold Out" signs pop up every where :)
Please Apple Gods, give me a Powerbook that will double boot. BTW, I will always call it "Powerbooks" because I think the new name SUCKS!
On a side note, on separate occasions, Apple Store employes have told me that the new Macs will be able to dual-boot with Windows. Also, there are new versions of software called "Universal" which will work on both PC and Mac. Whether that's true or not is beyond me. But, coming from Apple Store employes, who in the past would refuse to speculate, leads me to think they know something good.
The new intel macs don't even have AMD64 support since they're yonah Leap Backwards cores...
I may consider one once intel actually leaps ahead with a good mobile 64 bit short pipeline multicore chip.
For dual booting it would be nice if you needed OS X for development, virtually everything else you can just do on Windows.
"Also, there are new versions of software called "Universal" which will work on both PC and Mac."
wrong. Universal Binaries are apps that work with Intel Macs and PowerPC Macs.
in addition... these paragraph breaks suck it hard. but the 'back' button issues sucks it harder. i thought the comments were getting 'upgraded'? in the weeks since the change it is pretty clearly a downgrade. i can see NO improvements... but LOTS of problems.
check out any of the Gawker blogs for a commenting system done right. this is BS.
"For dual booting it would be nice if you needed OS X for development, virtually everything else you can just do on Windows."
just that Mac OS X does "everything else" more elegantly. For most people, it's gonna be the other way around once they get a hang of OS X. No need to worry about spyware here, adware there, running adaware and other antispyware and virus scans every week. There's no need for virus scanning in the background to take up system resources. Mac OS X just works, period. Windows is there for the occassional gaming or for the apps that simply don't have Mac equivalents. Microsoft is simply playing catch up with Windows Vista, which has absolutely nothing revolutionary. And it took Microsoft 5 years to develop. Kinda sad when Microsoft has so many more resources than Apple.
"Apple's also being smart (though sneaky and annoying) by not licensing their OS"
Yeah...that's worked out really well. OS X would be on 90% of computers if they had licensed the OS years ago. Now their OS is purely a niche market (a niche that has a strong presence here, but no mass market usage).
#66; #67: you MIGHT be correct there, but i doubt it. Apple licenced their operating system before. it was not a success the last time 'round. they (meaning Steve Jobs) quickly realised it was the hardware that really sold:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_clones
if they had licenced it years and years ago, yes, Mac might just be where Windows is today. but they didn't and frankly XP and OS X are close enough (depending on personal preferences and needs) that unless Apple has a huge marketing push (and they ARE already very, very good at marketing), they will never catch up.
I was at MacWorld the day after the Intel Macs were unveiled. Since I was also interested to find out how easily it would run other operating systems, I brought with me a copy of Knoppix , my favorite Linux Live-CD. I was able to convince one of the Apple representatives to let me try to boot a MacBook Pro from the CD, but the MacBook Pro didn't recognize the Knoppix CD as being bootable.
However, since the Intel Macs appear to use the same EFI boot manager as Itanium-based systems, and Linux does support Itanium, it's probably a reasonably simple matter to make Linux run on an Intel Mac. I don't know if the same can be said of Windows XP on an Intel Mac; we shall see.
As much as it looks to be possible to load windows on an apple / intel machine, and Ive seen you all jump up and down at the thought, why not just use virtual PC? granted it wont be cracking at games, but youve got everything you need for windows will be there for you.
And then when the windows installation borks out, you can just take your virtual pc disk back and boot off that again!
All in the safe stable and fast host of OSX.
I agree with Jeff, no. 33, when he says:
Eventually Apple may end up with a lot more "switchers" out of this, because people who really do prefer the Mac OS won't have to give up Windows cold turkey in order to run it.
In fact, that's likely to be me in future - I've always used Windows because of compatibility with work, but if there were a way of having my cake and eating it too....
Indeed, Engadget shouldn't have changed the comment system. And why does it break Firefox's quick back feature?
Listen up you gay windoz lovers, Apple OS X is the best OS, that is a fact. Windoz is a virus, most likely retards use it to help them die faster, MICROSOFT SUCKS, they should make a movie called KILL BILL...GATES vol.3
Listen up you gay windoz lovers, Apple OS X is the best OS, that is a fact. Windoz is a virus, most likely retards use it to help them die faster, MICROSOFT SUCKS, they should make a movie called KILL BILL...GATES vol.3
It wont work. for one simple reason, drivers, the drivers in macs are not supported by windows. the only way to get it to work would be to install some sort of emulator.
Or Vista! :) Now THAT would be fun :)
Best,
Auri Rahimzadeh
Author, Hacking the PSP
www.hackingpsp.com
As an encoder, and NOT a video editor, I find that having all my apps based around Windows as the primary reason for having it---and what is the alternative to having a Macbook Pro? The alternative is an Acer Travelmate 8200 which is a pound heavier and eats up battery life like a slut. I would gladly install WinXP on a Macbook Pro and watch it fly.
OK. Please everyone. Do more homework and Googling.
There are obvious reasons for dual-boot, or VM running XP/Vista with OS X as host. I use Mac for what I do, never need Windows for web development, coding, image processing, audio/video editing. I use Windows at work and have as long as I can remember. And I've been serving Windows PC's as long as they've existed.
Apple doesn't want to support OS X on generic hardware becuase they'd have to hire an entire division of engineers to write drivers for all the hardware that people would try to run it on. If you do some research you'll discover that M$ writes most of the driver code that interfaces with the core of Windows. The install disks etc...from manufacturers usually include "wrappers" and applications, not real device drivers. Apple only writes drivers for their hardware. (re: above post, apple portables are statistically better than average reliability wise.)
Apple used EFI because they will have to use it to boot 64-bit Intel chips (which only use EFI.) You didn't really think that they were going to give up on 64-bit did you? Besides, it will only be a matter of time before someone configures EFI to boot XP.
As for the repeated comment about expensive underperforming Apple hardware, do some real research. If you don't like Windows and insist on expensive hardware, use linux. It's free and you'll definitely learn more about your hardware than you ever will on Windows or Mac for that matter.
As for Apple letting Windows run on Mac. Smart.
Decide what you want to do and use the hardware software you like and that works for you. If you choose Intel/Mac, you'll likely soon find one machine can do everything you need.
re: above.
I have serviced Windows for years, use MS at work and Mac for home/consulting.
If you insist on using INEXPENSIVE, not expensive as I wrote above...use linux. Course you won't be able to play your games or 90% of the apps you know.
There are situations where you rather prefer dual boot over VPC or also over native Mac. I'm a sales engineer and with my hardware I have to get as close as possible to my customers setup. Imagine havin a triple-bootable laptop (mac os x, linux and windows). Georgeous! (ok, os x will remain my favourite)
Ahh yes, the fun always begins when some windows user 'sticks their CDs' into some kind of 'slot'
Sorry, I just had to say it.
Apple's OSX is designed to work on Apple hardware, and Apple hardware only that is why you will never have hardware compatability issues between hardware and OS on an Apple Computer.
Microsoft's Windows XP is designed to work on a variety of different X86 hardware. It's wrong to get mad at Microsoft for hardware compatibility issues, because they obviously can't make a single OS work with every single piece of hardware in existance.
It's also wrong to get mad at Apple for wanting iMacs and MacBooks to run OSX exclusively. If you had spent millions of dollars tweaking an OS to work on a specific set of hardware flawlessly, instead of spending millions of dollars trying to make an OS work on a majority of popular hardware, wouldn't you want your customers to use the OS and Hardware you designed specificly to work together?
However, I believe that if Microsoft was thinking ahead of time here, they could develop some drivers for the less than 12 Apple Computers you can buy today and all the hardware they come with and still remain the king of the OS and Software market. They would simply have to send out a bunch of Apple Support on XP discs to whoever wanted them.
Lastly, let's remember that Apple makes hardware and software, and Microsoft simply makes Software, (I know Microsoft makes Mice and Keyboards aswell). I think this is a huge turning point in the Computer industry as a whole, much like when Apple and MS were playing games with eachother back in the day (see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0168122)
For your information, looks as if http://neosmart.net/blog/dual-booting-windows-xp-on-a-macbook/ found the way which I just posted on my blog www.mjjones.net.
Can't test it 'cos don't own a new iMac but it looks pretty straightforward for someone who is used to install his/her own PC and software.