Sorry, MacTel owners: Windows Vista won't support EFI

Mac owners hoping to boot Windows on their new Intel-based boxes have been pinning their hopes on Vista, which reportedly would be able to boot using Intel's Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI), the BIOS replacement implemented on the MacTel computers. However, those hopes were just dashed, as Microsoft has announced that EFI support will be delayed until the release of Longhorn Server, currently scheduled for sometime next year. Of course, all hope is not lost: guerrilla efforts to get Windows to run on MacTel boxes continue, and there's always the possibility that VMWare, WINE or a similar solution will make booting into Windows a non-issue. And if you really just need a break from OS X, there's always Linux.

[andy @ Mar 10th 2006 8:36AM]

the whole point in getting a mac is for the superior operating system, putting windows on it does nothing except open up a can of virus worms DUURR

[The ultimate icollection @ Mar 10th 2006 8:40AM]

Ha ha...but hey, most mac owners Looooove their OS so I guess this is really a non-issue.

[jamesbrown @ Mar 10th 2006 8:42AM]

i understand the geek allure of running windows on a mac, but seriously. windows on a mac? why? as far as i'm concerned, the mac os is one of the main reasons to buy a mac in the first place.

[jimmy @ Mar 10th 2006 8:43AM]

I guess I won't be buying that Mac this year.

[Alex @ Mar 10th 2006 8:45AM]

It's not that fact that i can't run windows on a Mac that i find annoying, it's that they keep dropping more and more features from Vista!

[Oktobr @ Mar 10th 2006 8:45AM]

jamesbrown, there are some apps which people depend on that are still Windows-only. It would be preferable to have a Mac which can dual-boot than to have to buy another box for these apps.

[Raider @ Mar 10th 2006 8:51AM]

There is always Virtual PC for the Mac that can run Windows. It might even run at a decent speed by going with Intel. Plus having multi-core processors should help it even more. So if you need Windows but still want a Mac, there still is a way.

[x23 @ Mar 10th 2006 8:55AM]

Microsoft announcing that Vista will be missing another feature? *gasp!* no way!

sorta lame though. i'd rather virtualize anyway... given the choice between dual-booting that is.

- - -

"Of course, all hope is not lost: guerrilla efforts to get Windows to run on MacTel boxes continue"

er... i think you misunderstand the basic premise behind the OSx86 project. like you know. you have it totally backwards. just read the posts you linked...

[Dan S @ Mar 10th 2006 8:56AM]

While I understand the desire to dual-boot in some instances, but wouldn't it be much more preferable to the vast majority of users to run somthing like Virtual PC (or wine)? This way you can just copy and paste between envoronments instead of saving to disk and rebooting.

And the current complaints about VPC (that it's dog slow) wouldn't be an issue since it's natively running on Intel hardware.

[Woolly Mittens @ Mar 10th 2006 8:59AM]

So except for that glass-skin, there won't be anything new in Vista anymore?

[jamesbrown @ Mar 10th 2006 9:03AM]

although you would have to pay me vast amounts to use windows, i see wht oktobr is sying. there are some very industry specific apps that only run on windows. it's not an instance where you would want to run it on virtual pc becasue you need to run it for extended periods at one time. until, if ever, mac get a higher market share, industry specific apps will still be written just for windows.

[Tom Karches @ Mar 10th 2006 9:11AM]

Just buy a $400 Dell and a $30 KVM. Dual boot is a pain anyway.

[Evaldas @ Mar 10th 2006 9:12AM]

I was in hope to buying mactel mini, place it in a car and boot windows with navigational software.
yeah, i could by those mini itx computers, but nothing beats mactel mini price of $600.

[Josh @ Mar 10th 2006 9:15AM]

That's just like windows to edge out MAC.

[Mirko @ Mar 10th 2006 9:15AM]

Oh no, Engadget, not you, too: Vista supports EFI.

The crippled 32-bit version of Vista won't support the odd mac-only combination of 32-bit chips, and EFI. The 64-bit version of Vista, will support the standard configuration of 64-bit chips, and EFI, just like XP 64 already does.

Please, check your facts before posting a story. Thanks.

[furby @ Mar 10th 2006 9:30AM]

I think I speak for many people when I say. Nooooooo

[Tonio @ Mar 10th 2006 9:31AM]

Not a big letdown. The furthest I'd go anyway is to have Windows running in a tiny tiny window tucked away somewhere in the bacground like I do now with Virtual PC. There's no news on MS porting VPC on Intel yet though - or VMWare making it's way onto MacOS X...

Oh and does somebody really think Vista will be out this year?

[Jordan @ Mar 10th 2006 9:31AM]

If by the "crippled, 32-bit version of Vista," you mean the regular version of Vista that will be shipped with all current normal 32-bit chips that are in 90% of computers, than you are correct.

Enough with the politics and spin. Engadget is not a propaganda machine, as much as you might think. Fanboys aside, the fact of the matter is that it's weak for Microsoft to not include it on the version that everyone will use, on the chips that everyone will use.

[edward @ Mar 10th 2006 9:36AM]

I don't see the point why you try to run windows on intel mac for dual booting. if you really need it, use VPC. that's it. only my use of windows is autocad on PC in my office. otherwise I don't use it anymore. why? virus, some dumb malware, other bothering issues I don't want to deal with. to me, windows booting from intel mac is useless.

[mcloki @ Mar 10th 2006 9:42AM]

To Many mac users the Windows OS is just a games OS, and that's how it would be used. I mean I would have bought/ripped it to run Supreme Commander. (June 2006) The feature is one that is wanted for business reasons more than anything else. XP running macs would be trojan horses bringing OS X into the larger corporate environtment. Microsoft is smart ot not let it happen. It would degrade their position. Most Windows don't know the alternative. This would have opened a few eyes to something different.

[Mr Yuk @ Mar 10th 2006 9:48AM]

I would buy a Macbook tomorrow if I could run windows on it. Solidworks (industry standard for solid modeling in product design) is windows only. Heck, I know some product managers at Apple who have a windows box so they can run it. High end CAD software like Solidworks, ProE, CATIA runs like a dog under virtual PC on powerbooks. I am tired of lugging that stickpad around.

Yes there are decent CAD packages for the MacOS (formZ); but these models don't translate very well and Solidworks is like MS Office in my world.

[Carvalhinho @ Mar 10th 2006 10:15AM]

Two reasons to prefer a dual boot system...

http://www.lockon.ru

http://www.il2sturmovik.com

I don't want a computer to play pac-man

(even in native mode, OPENGL for MAC OSX on a macbook pro is worse than OPENGL for Windows on an Dell 9100 that is year and half older... check Ars review to check it out...)

[Sean @ Mar 10th 2006 10:31AM]

Buy a $350 Compaq, put it in a closet (so you don't have to look at it), wire it to your router and run Remote Desktop Connection from your mac! Its just like having VPC, but at least now you don't have to worry about buying a version of Windows, working till the wee hours to hack the version onto your Intel Mac and then tying up precious memory and resources running an emulator along with the rest of your Mac only apps.

[Mirko @ Mar 10th 2006 10:36AM]

#18: Regardless of how you feel about the matter, stating Vista won't support EFI is simply not true.

And to your argument: Remember that users do upgrade their OS by buying a new PC. The PC I bought LAST YEAR is a 64bit capable machine, and now that Intel caught up to AMD, I don't think even the average Joe will buy a new 32bit only machine.

And even if he would, he would not care if his computer boots through BIOS or EFI. And if the user doesn't care, why should MS?

[Bill Gates @ Mar 10th 2006 10:39AM]

Basically, what me and my guys at Microsoft have tried to do with Windows Vista is to create a really awful copy of Mac OSX, it's taken us a really long time to copy what they've been doing for 5 years.. We just don't get it you see, we've tried so hard, but we just don't get it. But hey, what the hell, everyone will think we're really clever when we release our awful cover version. Ha, it's awful, an awful awful cover version of OSX, ha ha. Everyone will buy it and use it, Ha Ha!

[Bill Gates @ Mar 10th 2006 10:41AM]

Basically, what me and my guys at Microsoft have tried to do with Windows Vista is to create a really awful copy of Mac OSX, it's taken us a really long time to copy what they've been doing for 5 years.. We just don't get it you see, we've tried so hard, but we just don't get it. But hey, what the hell, everyone will think we're really clever when we release our awful cover version. Ha, it's awful, an awful awful cover version of OSX, ha ha. Everyone will buy it and use it, Ha Ha!

[Samuel McConnell @ Mar 10th 2006 11:03AM]

You can always install Linux on the Macbook, then use Mac-On-Linux for OSX and VMware Workstation or kqemu for Windows. Then you have Linux, OSX, and Windows all at the same time. Granted, probably not good for 3D games...

[Karl Viklund @ Mar 10th 2006 11:07AM]

Can't all those OS X hackers just stop hacking OS X and hack Windows XP and Windows Vista for once so it can wotk on Mac? Will keep em busy for a while... Just stop hack OS X!

[David @ Mar 10th 2006 11:24AM]

Personally, I'd rather the efforts be focused on WINE and other such items to allow the apps to run native on top of OS X instead of having to actually install Windows. I have no need for Windows myself - but I understand how there are people that rely on certain pieces of software. I think allowing them to run that software independently of the OS would be a better solution than hacking a separate OS to run on certain hardware.

[tim @ Mar 10th 2006 11:33AM]

I want to dual boot because I split my time between 3 different cities. I don't have the option of keeping a windows box "at work", because "at work" is the laptop(s) in my briefcase.
I love how some people think the entire world operates just like them (i.e. 'I have a mac to post on the Blog-o-sfeer, why would I ever use Windoze?!? LOLOLOLOLOL SJ I

[Drew @ Mar 10th 2006 11:42AM]

WINE and other virtualization options are fine and dandy for lightweight business apps, but many people are looking to boot to Windows for gaming.

A MB Pro or iMac would make a decent XP gaming rig if you could do it. Sure... I prefer to spend most of my time in OS X, but why not have the best of both worlds?

[Court K @ Mar 10th 2006 11:59AM]

This wont' have any effect on windows vista running on mac. The betas already ignore the EFI completely... Windows on mac will stil happen. THIS has NO effect whatsoever.

Also I microsoft product manager told me that the next virtualpc is going to allow you to run MS windows apps inside of a layer at native speeds without leaving OS X. I trust him.

[Mackworth @ Mar 10th 2006 12:22PM]

Mirko: Are you sure?. The article makes it sound like they wont even support 64-bit systems on launch either.

Read these quotes: "Microsoft revealed today that it will not support EFI booting for Windows Vista on its launch." "Andrew Ritz, also revealed that there will never be any support for booting Windows via EFI on systems with 32-bit processors."

"Although Microsoft has previously said EFI booting would be supported by Vista, Ritz admitted that EFI support won't be seen in any version of Windows until the release of Longhorn Server."

So Vista wont see EFI support until longhorn server. Its not even clear if they will any support for EFI in the consumer products.

[galaxie @ Mar 10th 2006 12:50PM]

The virtual PC suggestion for core-duo based machines is currently not to feasible of an option in some cases. There is a bug in the VPC code that will cause the emulated box to randomly hang for 3 or 4 seconds at a time. (gets annoying fast).

Actually, it does the same thing with VPC 2004 for the PC (using hyperthreading in some cases, and on new core duos)

Microsofts work around for window folk... disable the dual core properties... yeh.. cause i bought the dual core machine to have it run as only a singe core... boneheads.

[TexMax @ Mar 10th 2006 12:55PM]

Sorry, VPC won't run on Intel Macs.

[GadgetGav @ Mar 10th 2006 2:14PM]

I've got a 64bit Dell machine at work and Macs at home. To me it would be nice to dual boot (I use Solidworks too) but this is more concerning to me because of what Vista will not do. There is little enough support for Windows XP x64 edition at the moment. To hear that the new operating system won't really support 64 bit either is disappointing.

[Me @ Mar 10th 2006 3:13PM]

F*UCK MAC!

[Flag @ Mar 10th 2006 3:17PM]

My question is, why would someone purchase an expensive piece of machinery to run an O.S. (Windows Vista) that can be purchased for Hundreds of dollars less? It's stupid is what it is.

[Kyran @ Mar 10th 2006 3:55PM]

I'm starting to think this site is becoming more and more of a Mac site every day. This whole EFI thing is **MUCH** bigger than just getting Windows to run on Apple hardware.

EFI is a replacement for the long since obsolete BIOS. It opens up MANY doors for hardware manufacturers to move their technology forward.

Some EFI awesomeness includes:
-Hardware makers can produce OS-independent drivers which are delivered on the hardware itself.
-The operating system consults the EFI driver rather than a software driver whenever it wants to access a piece of hardware.
-You'll never have to install a software driver from a download or CD just to get a piece of hardware to function.
-Driver updates could be flashed directly to the hardware and instantly work across all operating systems... even before an operating system is even installed!


Just think, a world where manufacturers won't have to prioritize which operating system (Mac, Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, etc) they want their hardware to work on because they can simply make one universal driver. A world where you'd never have to manually install a driver again. A world where you can go out and get the latest and greatest graphics card without even having to WORRY if it's going to work in your version of your operating system. That's what EFI sets out to do.

Microsoft felt this was unimportant.

This isn't only about dual-booting Macs, people.

[Bill Gates @ Mar 10th 2006 3:58PM]

They can put their computers to sleep, I'll copy that in Vista. You can just close the lid on a laptop to put it to sleep, how do I come up with these ingenious ideas??
They've got the dock, I'll copy that but call it side bar.
They've got Expose, I'll copy that in a really awful way and call it Flip 3D, I just don't get it do I?
They've got spotlight, We can call it search box!
The aqua interface looks sweet, we'll rip it off and call ours Aero! God, I'm coming up with some really original ideas today!
Dock = Sidebar
Widgets = Gadgets
iPhoto = Windows Photo Gallery
iMovie = Windows Movie Maker
It's a really awful, and I mean really awful, cover version. Tee hee hee. I am a cheeky scamp!

[Reg @ Mar 10th 2006 6:29PM]

Kyran, I agree completely. Why only the Mac angle in this Engadget story?

The real news is that Microsoft is intending to prop up an obsolete technology. BIOS is a relic of the past, EFI is the way of the future.

Is this largely to spite Intel? It can't please PC manufacturers too much either being held back on modernizing their designs.

[Tim @ Mar 10th 2006 8:28PM]

Like lots of people who have commented on this story already...

WHY!!!

why would you want to put windows on a Mac anyway? I went to Mac because i was extreamly sick of Windows, and I prefer Mac OS X, and i Prefer the Mac hardware.. why would you want to ruin it all and run windows again??

[Macindows. @ Mar 10th 2006 9:24PM]

WHY windows on Mac? Easy.

I have a freaking huge laptop that runs windows. I have IT cause MAC DOESN'T HAVE DECENT SOFTWARE for my particular kind of developing.

Also I like FPS games.

But I like Macs. I need to test on Macs, linux, as well as windows. Oh crap.

Wouldn't it be nice to develop in windows, test on windows, test on mac and debug mac problems?

I prefer the OS X. It's just that people don't make important development software for it.

[acidreflux @ Mar 10th 2006 10:39PM]

teh mAC fann boyz waants to runn windoze four their viddy's, so buy a winodoze pc, heheeehhhhheee, cuz your stupid, you buy the mac for the windoze viddys, hehehehhehheee, MAc fann boyz dosint run the viddys, heheheheheheeee, buyz tah mac with no viddys

[gnark @ Mar 11th 2006 5:40AM]

Even if what's stated in this news article was true, the Longhorn server will be launched one month after Vista according to a recent MS presentation(CeBIT - UMPC slides), so what's the prob, you wouldn't want to run Vista on overpriced Apple hardware either.

[Jeff @ Mar 11th 2006 8:45AM]

Every time apple is mentioned it seems like the fanboy's on both sides come out of the woodwork to o battle

its really getting old.....I personally can't understand why people get so angry at the concept of windows running on a mac...some people like to use there products in differant ways.....aparently there are enough out there for a story like this to be relavent

likewise it seems like every ipod story is followed by a torrent of "ipod sucks comments"

if you don't want to read posts on one or the other then i am sure there are plenty of places to go dedicated to your paticular poisen

[Razor @ Mar 11th 2006 10:47AM]

Why knock MS over EFI? Apple refuses to release OSX to run on generic hardware. If they did, nothing would prevent them from selling their hardware too.

[acidreflux @ Mar 11th 2006 1:21PM]

Engadget coverage of this story isnt the only blog that people are complaining of why in the world a mac user would want to run windows, they phrase it as if a user buys a mac for the sole purpose of running windows, so dont think it is engadget only.

[GeoNorth @ Mar 11th 2006 1:54PM]

As a Windows user with admittedly no experience of Mac OSX (although goowy has an OSX-style dock with bouncy icons and just as wide a variety of software!) who is only prevented from using Linux more often by his complete inability to connect to the internet under the damn thing (USB modems suck, the next ISP had better give me a router of some description) my opinion is...

...why SHOULDN'T an Intel Core Duo based Mac be able to run Windows XP/Vista? Can't it be the user's choice if they want to install the far more popular OS on their far more expensive (albeit very elegantly styled) Mac?

Also, why shouldn't X86 based OSX run on generic PCs? Only licenceing the OS and not producing hardware did Microsoft no harm, did it?

It seems pointless making the user buy two boxes for two OS when it's technically (theorectically?) possible to have one box run both!

And I cannot understand the MacFreaks with the vehement DEFENCE of Apple's outrageous vendor lock-in, I like having alternatives, I like to make a choice every now and again and I will never accept Steve Jobs as my Lord and Saviour (unless one of you's prepared to save my soul and give me a Mac, then I might think about...!)

[James @ Mar 11th 2006 3:40PM]

sidebar is a copy of the dock? lol. wtf u smoking you idiot. the dock is a copy of the windows 95-xp quick launch bar. all they did was turn it into icons that magnify when you scroll over them. lol. you mac guys are seriously so blind when it comes to apple. they create everything in this world i guess.

GeoNorth it's no use arguing with these idiots. if it's not from apple, they don't care. let them have their osx with pretty gui that is useless. macheads are all about looks and less on function. why else do you think they claim vista is a copy of osx? just because it looks nice. i feel bad for them. it's just so sad when they get all mad and make these stupid claims in defense of their precious apple.