How to dual-boot XP on an Intel Mac (in theory)

The method for dual-booting XP on an Intel Mac posted to Neosmart isn't exactly the most straightforward means we've ever seen of getting an operating system on a machine, but then again neither was shoehorning those OS X dev builds on a PC. Does it work? We can't yet say ourselves, but if anyone wants to go give it a shot and holla back, we'd love to hear if this will get XP running on that new Core Duo iMac of yours.

[Via memeorandum]

[matt jackson @ Jan 30th 2006 11:07AM]

WOW!

[Wants an iBookMacBook-Pro @ Jan 30th 2006 11:08AM]

You might want to add "In Theory" to this title. This has not been proven or actually tested.

[Rob @ Jan 30th 2006 11:16AM]

that photo just looks...odd

[aural @ Jan 30th 2006 11:19AM]

my question is... why on earth would you want to run windows when you could run OSX?

[andrew @ Jan 30th 2006 11:21AM]

unfortunately the site seems to be down already!

[Oli @ Jan 30th 2006 11:22AM]

That's not gonna work. It starts with the software (WINDOWS software!!!) he uses to partition the drive: how on earth would the Mac boot from a CD that's intended for PCs? It's chicken and egg all over again.

And even if he would manage to boot from the CD, the partitioning app would not know what to do with a HFS+ harddrive.

Next he obviously has no idea how Darwin works, Darwin has no boot loader that let's you choose. There simply is no mechanism for that.

His how-to is unfortunately full of errors and assumptions (most of them wrong). I don't think he has ever seen or programmed a Mac...

[punk @ Jan 30th 2006 11:23AM]

yeah... so I can run a crappy OS on some expensive hardware. way to go!

[Rickie @ Jan 30th 2006 11:23AM]

Awesome, good look everyone ;)

[Tim Brown @ Jan 30th 2006 11:25AM]

All thats needed now is a copy of Linux and it would we a sweet top 3 OS machine.

[elektrotekno.com @ Jan 30th 2006 11:33AM]

good progress

[Kiteless @ Jan 30th 2006 11:34AM]

While I do not ever plan on buying a mac, I am very curious to see how long it takes the folks out there to get it running XP and eventually Vista. Keep hacking away out there!

- Kiteless
On the net since 1994.

[Jason @ Jan 30th 2006 11:34AM]

@punk
I hate reading all the unoriginal posts saying something like "crappy OS, great hardware." Just open your mind and think about it.

If I could boot into Windows just for playing PC games, I'd do it in a heartbeat. And that's about all. And I DO own one of the new iMacs, a 20".

Everyone, people at Digg had good comments on the validity of this method.
http://www.digg.com/apple/Dual-Booting_Windows_XP_on_a_MacBook_instructions

[Alcaron @ Jan 30th 2006 11:35AM]

Okie dokey, so I find myself saying, yet again, big freakin' deal.

I REALLY do not understand why there is so much more buzz for running XP on Macintels than there is for running OSX on PC's.

I mean, think about it. The vast majority of the Mac users are too snooty to be caught slumming it with XP, and the XP users CERTAINLY have better hardware options and prices available than the Macintels.

So why is every story about XP on Macintel, and not OSX on PC's?

[crappyhardware @ Jan 30th 2006 11:36AM]

#6 - you mean running on a crappy hardware right?

[df @ Jan 30th 2006 11:37AM]

The idea of a dual OS (Mac-XP) is, to me, really compelling. Forgetting the above mentioned solution and its unlikely ability to work, is there a fatal fundamental hardware reason that would permanently prevent it from ever being even possible?

[Mike @ Jan 30th 2006 11:39AM]

All CDs are the same ISO format, so theoretically if you held down C when booting the iMac it could boot from the CD.

[Will @ Jan 30th 2006 11:40AM]

Punk, I am one of those people who would love to get XP to run on a macintel. I currently have a PowerBook and a PC desktop. I want to get a Mac Desktop but i need windows for some games, unless they get a OSX port of CS:Source

[Sevenwolf @ Jan 30th 2006 11:41AM]

"#6 - you mean running on a crappy hardware right?"

As far as laptops go, the MacBook is pretty much top of the line (sans 15lb machines that use all desktop parts and have no battery life whatsoever). Some people on the internet need to think before they type.

[kamil mytnik @ Jan 30th 2006 11:42AM]

i am a troll: [e-mail]

[Cloudscout @ Jan 30th 2006 11:43AM]

The instructions in their current form do not work. This has been hashed out in the OSx86 Project forums. It's been attempted and it didn't work.

[Benson Leung @ Jan 30th 2006 11:49AM]

Clearly this guy hasn't tried any of this on a real Mac...

He's going to get stuck right here :
Using the Bootable Acronis Disk Director CD on the MacBook, shrink the Mac partition. Create a new partition of type NTFS/HPFS in the remaining space.

It's not going to boot from that CD... and it's not going to boot from the Vista CD either.

Nice try though.

[Ryan Gardner @ Jan 30th 2006 11:50AM]

This wont work. The guy makes crazy assumptions that are not true - and he even bases his whole method on the MacBook Pro - which isn't even shipping yet.

Come on Engadget - hire an editor that knows his butt from a hole in the ground, will you?

[Jcee @ Jan 30th 2006 11:56AM]

I, James Manning, am a troll: [e-mail]

[Michael Wilson @ Jan 30th 2006 12:05PM]

#5: I will redress all of your objections.

1. Windows Software used to partition:
It is perfectly acceptable for this to occur because the software that is run from the CD is independent of Windows, it doesn't require Windows to run. It boots the CD and runs the software on that, which only requires an x86 architecture to run. The new Macs have the same architecture as a normal Windows PC. If the new Macs can boot CDs, then there is no reason why they shouldn't boot to bootable CDs made in Windows or in Mac OS X.

2. Software not being able to address HFS.
It does not specifically say that it can resize an HFS partition on the Acronis website, no. It seems as if you can though. However, even dismissing Acronis, you can still sure as hell use Linux (which has full HFS+ read and write support) to resize, for example, using this app: http://www.gnu.org/software/parted/parted.html.

3. Bootloader. I'm not certain of a Darwin bootloader, but I know that GRUB (GRand Unified Bootloader) has been installed on G4/G5 Macs before. I don't see why it couldn't be installed on intel Macs.

[bhatman @ Jan 30th 2006 12:06PM]

Well, this would be interesting that the Intel books can supposedly handle Windows because then you could play CS finally on a mac! Also you could play tons more games than on mac as well( Yes I know you can play WOW but what else can be played on OSX?)

[Desides @ Jan 30th 2006 12:07PM]

"I REALLY do not understand why there is so much more buzz for running XP on Macintels than there is for running OSX on PC's."

Then you aren't thinking. Getting Windows to run on a Mac means that switching over to the Mac platform will be literally painless (not counting hardware costs, of course.) Not being able to abandon Windows due to a lack of equivalent programs will be a thing of the past, because you can just boot into XP and run them. It also means that the Mac becomes a viable gaming platform: the hardware is certainly up to snuff to run modern games, all it needs is Windows.

I really don't understand why people denigrate that which they don't use. There's a difference between something that sucks and something that you have no use for.

[ken fager @ Jan 30th 2006 12:20PM]

I, for one, welcome our new Apple/Windows-boxen overlords.

[dave @ Jan 30th 2006 12:30PM]

YEA shame on you engadget shame on you! haha idk i dont see what the big deal is i mean if u have the money to buy a new intel mac, chances are u already have a preaty nice pc runnying windows AND linux so why mess around with it on the mac?

[peter @ Jan 30th 2006 12:39PM]

Desides is right on. I am thinking of getting a nice Mac for my next computer, but a requirement will be some way to support crusty old legacy apps from my PC while I make the transition.

Dual boot mac is the perfect transition machine.

[Pardu @ Jan 30th 2006 12:58PM]

The reason this is important is because the only thing people need XP for these days is GAMES. Otherwise, XP is pretty much useless for everything else compared to OSX. Most Mac users own an XP box that gets used for nothing other than games. If they could dual boot, then that means no need to buy another PC for this.

Why isn't booting OSX on a PC just as important? Because you would need to hack every little update to make it work and stay current. It isn't worth the hassle.

[Goobimama @ Jan 30th 2006 1:07PM]

Why? Why God! Why? Why would anyone try and run windows on a beautiful system? We buy mac more importantly because of osx and not that stupid and dumb windows xp. Please stop this nonsense.

[dru Richman @ Jan 30th 2006 1:08PM]

Gads! How long is this myth of Macs costing more than PCs going to continue? Comparably configured Macs and PCs are within $20 cost of each other. See here for more ino - http://systemshootouts.org.

2nd - You can't boot and run XP onto the new Macintels without extensive hacks. Why? BIOS. The Macs don't use BIOS they use EFI (Extensible Firmware Interface). Vista, when it gets here, will also use EFI. We'll see what happens then.

[Alcaron @ Jan 30th 2006 1:17PM]

#24
That makes no sense whatsoever.

Mac's are generally more expensive than PC's, and certainly PC's are open to alot more configuration, so why does it make switching over to Mac's any better?

I mean, honestly, if the hardware is less customizeable and more expensive and the only benefit is that you can use a dual boot to slowly migrate over to OSX, then wouldn't OSX running on a PC make a LOT more sense? I can still dual boot, still migrate over to OSX, but I'm also able to choose from a VASTLY larger selection of equipment for much lower prices.

I really don't understand why, if OSX was running on any PC, you would buy Apple's hardware. ASIDE from the niche people who want an iMacintel because it's all built into an LCD.

What you are saying makes no sense, you are suggesting the HARDWARE is what people should be switching for, and while you MAY have been able to make that argument in select cases when it wasn't running an Intel CPU, it just doesn't make a lick of sense now.

What I'm saying is the SOFTWARE is what people should be migrating to (well, not SHOULD, but, you get the point), not the hardware.

[Giancarlo @ Jan 30th 2006 1:25PM]

I'm sick of people asking why you would run Windows on a Mac. Do you know how important this is? For example, if a student of architecture wants to run autocad on his/her Macbook, that person is screwed since Mac's software is sub-par and nobody uses it. I guess I'm one of the few people that sees the significance in this.

[Alcaron @ Jan 30th 2006 1:30PM]

This thread is great.
"26. Desides is right on. I am thinking of getting a nice Mac for my next computer, but a requirement will be some way to support crusty old legacy apps from my PC while I make the transition.

Dual boot mac is the perfect transition machine."

Was he right when he said "why do people denigrate that which they do not use"? Your crusty old legacy apps from your PC? I sincerely hope you are REALLY talking about legacy apps (i.e. 16bit windows/doss apps) and not just "anything that runs in windows".

"27. The reason this is important is because the only thing people need XP for these days is GAMES. Otherwise, XP is pretty much useless for everything else compared to OSX. Most Mac users own an XP box that gets used for nothing other than games. If they could dual boot, then that means no need to buy another PC for this.

Why isn't booting OSX on a PC just as important? Because you would need to hack every little update to make it work and stay current. It isn't worth the hassle."

Thats brilliant. Completely wrong, but brilliant. In one fell swoop you just completely destroyed all of your credibility (and this being the interweb there wasn't much to begin with).

Do tell, why exactly would you have to hack every little update for OSX to make it work but not for XP?

If the XP works, there should be no reason to "hack every little update", same with OSX, as long as the OS works, what the heck do the updates care?

And for the record, we evaluated OSX/Mac's for all of our 25,000 computers here at work, and, well, lets just say Java Desktop made it WAY farther than OSX did. Saying Mac's are better at everything besides games is just an ignorant comment.

#30, your turn.

Wrong on both counts. Well, ok, misleading on one and wrong on another.

"similarly specced", well, technically, yes, thats true, but part of the allure of PC's is that you multiple choices for your hardware, you can configure it into COUNTLESS possibilities that do not exist with Mac's. So yes, you can compare a LOT of Mac's to their PC equivalent and come out pretty similar, especially if you don't look for the cheapest prices. But the simple fact remains that there are far more options in the PC realm than in the Mac realm, meaning you are not stuck paying for something you dont need, nor are you tethered to something insufficient for your task.

Even the lowest end iMacintel is still WAY more than my grandmother needs for checking her email, and I can dang sure undercut that price by lopping some speed off that system.

As for EFI, so far as I know EFI includes a method to emulate a legacy BIOS, so unless Apple stripped that out (which would seem to go against their "we wont prevent XP from being loaded" stance as there is no other legit reason to remove the legacy emulation) I'd say thats not true.

So much crap floating around these Mac threads, part of me doesnt want to consider a Macintel because I'm afriad I might become like all these Apple fanboys.

[reality_check @ Jan 30th 2006 1:30PM]

I think regardless of whether dual booting is acheived in a seamless, efficient way this is not going to be that big a feature for 90% of the users of the world. I would be in that 10% but having worked in a IT support capacity, most users have trouble figuring out one OS and will not want to have to learn/use two. (this is part of the reason Apple's market share will never really budge from its current < 5%).

Then if you look at the 10% of more advanced users and the two types of users Apple and Windows--Both platforms have their pros and cons but in order to use a dual boot system you would have to shut down the current OS and move into the next one, killing multitasking productivity. I think Virtual PC is a more efficient choice for a Mac environment.

Finally, for recreational purposes I cant imagine a "home" mac user working in Windows on his mac. It goes against the mac covenant and would be considered uncool for anything but the absolute neccessity. For PC users, I cant imagine them spending the money on the expensive, mostly non-user upgradable hardware for the ability to run OSX. This seems like a situation where some marketering may try and force an "opposites attract" mentality in order to get people to switch but I just dont see it having that big an effect

[c++ programmer @ Jan 30th 2006 1:35PM]

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but I prefer the windows XP interface over the OSX interface.

Yes, I use both regularly.

I do like that mac comes preloaded with unix goodies, but it isn't that hard to load cygwin on windows.

device installation seems easier on the mac too. usually.

[tim @ Jan 30th 2006 1:38PM]

#30

when, if ever, vista gets here

[Desides @ Jan 30th 2006 1:42PM]

"29. Please stop this nonsense."

Sure, after you stop denigrating Mac fans by attempting to troll as one. Hint: if you have to troll in order to get across what you believe Mac fans think, your opinion of them might just be wrong!


"30. Gads! How long is this myth of Macs costing more than PCs going to continue?"

It'll persist for a long while. In the meantime, it DOES cost money for a business to change their computer infrastructure from PCs to Macs.


"31. Mac's are generally more expensive than PC's, and certainly PC's are open to alot more configuration, so why does it make switching over to Mac's any better?"

You're beginning with a fallacy and supporting it with myths. One, Macs are not more expensive than similarly-configured PCs, as #30 has linked and shown. Two, a person or business may wish to switch to the Mac for whatever reason, but still have a need/desire to use Windows. Dual-booting XP solves that dilemma. Three, software is exactly the reason why people would want a Mac: OS X's software is great, as is OS X itself.

Just because you personally don't want to use a Mac does not mean other people don't, and that doesn't mean there isn't a reason to dual-boot Windows on a Mac. Your tastes and computing habits are not a microcosm of the desires and needs of every segment of computer users. Just accept that some people want to use XP on a Mac for their own personal or not-so-personal reasons, and stop reading the threads related to getting Windows on a Mac.

[David Boroditsky @ Jan 30th 2006 1:44PM]

#22, you are quite mistaken on several counts.

[Rugby God @ Jan 30th 2006 1:50PM]

I can only say for myself, but one of the main reasons for dual booting Mac OS X and Windows XP for me will be to run those couple of cruial windows apps (that I use for work, SAS and SPSS) natively in windows XP.

I used to have powerbook few years back, but I had to switch over to intel notebook for work purposes. SAS and SPSS and other high end apps do NOT support Mac OS X, if they do then the versions are pretty old, so it is pretty much useless for actual work.

That's my 2 cents for dual booting....

[petros @ Jan 30th 2006 1:55PM]

Installing OSes on different boxes doesn't have to be part of a general migration strategy, it can simply be fun. I run various Linux distributions on both my Macs and my PC. Just for the fun of it. My PC runs both XP and 2000pro (mainly cause 2000 is faster and more usable). I really have no need for XP. Yet I have it installed. For the same reason, I would like to install XP on a Mac (the Apple PC kind) and definately OSX on a PC (the generic PC kind). For the fun of it. After I 've succeeded, I am sure I would come up with some kind of serious "reasoning" to explain to my wife what took me so long in the basement.

Honestly sooner or later platforms will be powerful enough (they probably already are) for us to be able to one way or another run anything we want on any platform. (MS writing code for the PPC in their xBox and Apple for Intel). Our hardware choices will be based on aesthetics, quality or budget.
It is all good.

Petros

[Bobby Name @ Jan 30th 2006 2:00PM]

Mac users can be described as elitist assholes, but we are not selfish when it comes to our company. That is why we (some of us, anyway) don't want OSX running on a PC. Apple won't stay alive by using OSX alone, it needs hardware sales. I'd love to have XP to switch into to play games and the like. And therefore, XP running on a Mac is very desirable toward me and other mac users.

[w00master @ Jan 30th 2006 2:02PM]

As the wise old Homer used to say:

"In theory, communism works. In theory..."

[HJ @ Jan 30th 2006 2:17PM]

I, James Manning, am a troll: [e-mail]

[bryan ribas @ Jan 30th 2006 2:24PM]

I agree that XP on a mac is not right, but for work related things it weems ok. If you need to convence your boos that you need a new macbook pro and you whole network is mac then just tell him/her that you are going to put xp on it.:)
www.thepiratesus/relief
www.onejackmove.com

[Desides @ Jan 30th 2006 2:28PM]

"34. Finally, for recreational purposes I cant imagine a "home" mac user working in Windows on his mac. It goes against the mac covenant and would be considered uncool for anything but the absolute neccessity."

Buying Macs only because of their prettiness is a phenomenon that exists only in the minds of those who don't understand why anyone would want one. Excellent job at tipping your thought process, but the whole "Mac users are cultists who worry about aesthetics instead of productivity" is completely imaginary.

[Desides @ Jan 30th 2006 2:32PM]

"40. By the way, if it will be easy to dual boot on a mac, what is the motivation for 3rd party developers to write aps for the mac?"

The same motivations that cause them to write software for OS X despite Windows' market share. The vast majority of Mac users will not be dual-booting even when someone figures out how to do it (or when Vista is released with EFI support, whichever comes first.) Software will be written for OS X as long as it's profitable for companies to do so.

[Andrew Roazen @ Jan 30th 2006 2:33PM]

For the record:

EFI does *not* come with BIOS emulation. It merely provides an empty space for a vendor to add it if they care to. Apple has no incentive right now to do so.

Because there's no BIOS, bootable CDs meant for legacy PCs will not do squat.

EFI is typically configured by an application run AFTER booting, not a key-mash at startup. Intel's docs on EFI make it clear that vendors can alter this at their discretion. The experiments which have killed Intel Macs relied on running EFI configurators designed for other platforms.

Just because something runs on an x86 does NOT mean that it necessarily behaves the same as a Dell at startup.

In order for this idea to work, you have to reconfigure EFI after booting OS X to install a BIOS emulator. Since Apple isn't talking on how EFI's configured on MacIntels, you're on your own. Plus, Intel's own documentation on how these emulators work or are installed is deliberately sketchy. EFI's supposed to make BIOS irrelevant, not support its limitations into the next century.

Key mashing is pointless: on a PPC Mac, the command keys which control boot devices are controlled by Open Firmware before anything else loads. On an Intel Mac, this is not the case. EFI loads first and the key mashing is handled by the Mac's own bootloader. In other words, it's software, not firmware.

Apple has no vested interest in making their machines vulnerable to hacking from removable media, and Intel has no vested interest in sustaining BIOS (which makes that possible).

Will EFI be hacked eventually? Yes. Will Apple support Intel Macs which have been compromised by having BIOS emulation added to their EFI? No.

[Paddy O'Furniture @ Jan 30th 2006 2:59PM]

"Gads! How long is this myth of Macs costing more than PCs going to continue?"

It will continue as long as it is true. Anyone who thinks that Mac's are close to P.C.'s in price is insane. The one huge advantage P.C.'s have is the ability to upgrade just about every component. With the sheer amount of available hardware, and the vendors who sell it, you can find prices that are considerably lower if you build the rig yourself.

Comparing Mac's to companies that sell pre-built systems like Alienware isn't fair because the point is there are many options for P.C. owners that are considerably cheaper than Mac's. And it really doesn't take much skill to build your own P.C.