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 January 13th 2006 9:42AM
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.