XP won't run on Intel Macbook, iMac

S

Stugots

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 25, 2004
Messages
7,255
BETANEWS said:
XP Won't Run on Intel MacBook, iMac
By Nate Mook, BetaNews
January 11, 2006, 1:15 PM

With the announcement of the first Intel based Macs yesterday, many users have rejoiced in being able to dual-boot both Mac OS X and Windows. Unfortunately, this is not the case; due to Apple's use of the extensible firmware interface (EFI) rather than BIOS, current Windows releases will not run on the systems.

On Tuesday at Macworld, Apple senior vice president of worldwide product marketing Phil Schiller said the company would not specifically block the use of Windows on Mac hardware. Instead, limitations in Windows itself will prevent its use on the new MacBook Pro laptop and iMac.

With the switch to Intel processors, Apple also moved from Open Firmware to EFI, which is an updated BIOS specification developed by Intel. Advanced features include the ability to boot into an EFI shell and run diagnostics and power up the CPU into a fully functional state immediately.

EFI also separates the control of devices from the operating system, meaning it can initialize hardware before loading the OS. This feature would allow for a system to connect to the Internet and download updated drivers before booting up.

Intel initially deployed EFI as part of its Itanium architecture. As such, Microsoft only included support for the BIOS replacement in its IA64 and later x64 operating systems. While Microsoft plans to add EFI support in 32-bit versions of Windows Vista, a final release isn't due until the end of the year.

Microsoft's 64-bit versions of Windows will also not work despite supporting EFI, because Apple's Intel platform is strictly 32-bit at the moment.

For its part, Microsoft encouraged Apple to build hardware compatible with Windows.

"We have an open specification and a process for certifying the hardware. We welcome all efforts in this area and we'd support Apple the same way we support every other PC manufacturer," a company spokesperson told BetaNews. "Anyone, including Apple, can purchase and re-sell Windows for use on their industry-standard hardware."
Click to expand...

Original Article: Here

In short, PC's use BIOS, the new Intel Mac's use EFI. Microsoft only supports EFI in IA64 and x64 Windows versions. Vista will be the first 32bit version of Windows to support EFI.
 
Instead of protecting Mac OS from running on non-Apple PC's, I would try to prevent Windows from running on Apple PC's.
 
Because now that Mac's can run Windows, to me they are no better than a Dell.
 
acascianelli said:
Instead of protecting Mac OS from running on non-Apple PC's, I would try to prevent Windows from running on Apple PC's.
Click to expand...

huh? Apple makes the same amount of money if you buy the iMac and then put windows on it, or if you just use MacOS. You will still buy mac programs for the mac side of the computer (assuming you don't JUST use windows, but that would be dumb), and apple peripherals.

Apple won't have to support your homebrew windows installation, so no extra tech support budget for them. Really, Apple shouldn't care.
 
valve1138 said:
Just get a Vista Beta :D
Click to expand...

If you RTFA, EFI support in Vista won't be included until a near final build. ;)

But once Vista is released and assuming that it isn't very difficult to install, being able to dual boot would be a huge incentive to make the switch to a Mac.

Me? I just want to dump Windows entirely... :p
 
acascianelli said:
Because now that Mac's can run Windows, to me they are no better than a Dell.
Click to expand...


Please explain this, because it makes absolutely no sense to me.
 
valve1138 said:
Please explain this, because it makes absolutely no sense to me.
Click to expand...
Me neither.

Maybe because both a Dell and a Mac would require a fresh install of Windows XP.

OH SNAP!

J/K...
 
Chris_Morley said:
Me neither.

Maybe because both a Dell and a Mac would require a fresh install of Windows XP.

OH SNAP!

J/K...
Click to expand...

If you remove the J/K then QFT. This kinda sucks though even though I was thinking apple would do something like this(well I was thinking openfirmware again but o well). Personaly I would love to get a new macbook but I still need xp on my notebook and I'm really not looking to lug around 2 units. Hell thats why I put xp back on my notebook. It was running redhat.
 
I doubt that Apple chose EFI to prevent Windows XP from running on the Macbook. From what I've read about EFI its clearly obvious that there are many advantages over BIOS.

I'm sure its only a matter of time before BIOS is replaced with EFI on all PC's
 
It'll only take weeks for some sort of dual-booting guide/tutorial to make it out. They'll figure something out...

What I really want is a version of Virtual PC which doesn't really create a virtual copy of Windows, but rather, Windows running natively, side-by-side with Mac OS X, able to put in a window, or switch to using fast user-switching.
 
Shorty said:
What I really want is a version of Virtual PC which doesn't really create a virtual copy of Windows, but rather, Windows running natively, side-by-side with Mac OS X, able to put in a window, or switch to using fast user-switching.
Click to expand...

2 questions on that...

1) Is that how OS9 compatability mode was ran under OSX?
2) Wouldn't this be possible with Xen?
 
Well there are those developer versions of OSX X86 floating around out there that don't use EFI.
 
Man -- I knew something would be wiggy about doing a dual boot. I hope someone can find a way around the EFI issue. Frankly -- I was ready to buy one yesterday after the original statement regarding running windows on the machines.

I got switched to a Mac from a PC at my new job 3 months ago, and I HATE switching back and forth. I've found that I like to use the Mac regularly and use my Windows XP box strictly for gaming. Other than having to buy about $1000 of non-pirated work-related software for a new Mac, it would be an easy switch.

Being able to use both on the same machine, however, would be nice for transitional purposes. Continue using the high-end software on the XP side until I can afford to replace it with Mac versions.

IronChefMorimoto
 
This is genius!

If folks can dual-boot Windows and OX, it will get the Mac OS and hardware into the hands of more people. When they start getting familiar with Mac OS they will find out how superior it is. Then application support will expand. People will use Windows for their current apps and games and Mac OS for media.

I've never owned a Mac but if it runs Windows Vista reasonably well, I would definiately consider a switch.
 
I've seen systems running OSX86 looks feels and runs just like mac. I wonder what the legality of such a system is?
OSX is based on BSD (openBSD i believe) there should be a patch or work around to make a legal version of OSX run on a stanfdard pc.
Really, if Apple wants to gain Market share, sell a retail version of the os that will work on a Higher end PC, and build a computer that will run software other than their own. If the product is better it will win out.

I was thouroughly impressed with the "gray" version of the OS I saw, if there were a higher level of inter compatibility with software I'd definatly consider switching
 
inotocracy said:
Darwin actually.
Click to expand...
That's circular. ;)

http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/darwin/faq.html

Q. What is Darwin?

A. Darwin is a version of the BSD UNIX operating system that offers advanced networking, services such as the Apache web server, and support for both Macintosh and UNIX file systems. It was originally released in March 1999. Darwin currently runs on PowerPC-based Macintosh computers, and is being ported to Intel processor-based computers and compatible systems by the Darwin community.
Click to expand...

And to explain that: http://developer.apple.com/darwin/history.html

DARWIN'S ROOTS
The Darwin team is indebted to a diverse collection of open source projects, including the following:

- Mach, which was originally developed by Project Mach at Carnegie-Mellon University, and later enhanced by the Open Software Foundation (now The Open Group).

- 4.4BSD-Lite2, originated in UC Berkeley's Computer Systems Research Group and developed by a large number of contributors:
FreeBSD, the primary reference platform for Darwin's BSD kernel development.
NetBSD, the upstream source for a significant portion of Darwin's user-space commands and tools.
OpenBSD, with its focus on robustness and security and its integrated cryptography, provides OpenSSH for secure remote access.
Click to expand...
 
Archer75 said:
And Darwin is based on FreeBSD. Same difference.
Click to expand...

Wasn't arguing that, was just stating specifics (he said OpenBSD). And yes I see OpenBSD did contribute to Darwin but I believe Darwin is a fork of FreeBSD.
 
Releasing OSx for PC's would NOT be a wise move for apple, because that would mean they'd have to follow it up with some form of support, driver or otherwise. It would mean less hardware sales, and it's the hardware sales where they get their money. EFI can't be a castrating move against dual-booting; it's simply apple exercising its ability to explore new technologies easily, given their complete propriety set of hardware/software.

Upon dual booting: I have the devkit version of OSX x86 on my other partition. I have an A64 Newcastle core (Note, no SSE3, as OSX x86 requires... it's been patched to work on SSE2). It runs quite well, although no hardware video acceleration with nvidia. (So far, this is only possible on intel graphics chips in the OSx86 projecs). Here's how I see it: The community of people wanting to get OSx running on PC's is arguably smaller than those wanting to get WinXP running on macs. If the OSx on PC community was able to patch the devkit for something as major as SSE2 compatability, I am well sure that eager Windows gurus will patch XP for boot with EFI. In fact, it will probably happen within this month, so watch the news.
 
I've seen systems running OSX86 looks feels and runs just like mac. I wonder what the legality of such a system is?
Click to expand...
The legality is nonexistant. Apple's EULA doesn't allow you to run Mac OS X on a non-Mac.

OSX is based on BSD (openBSD i believe) there should be a patch or work around to make a legal version of OSX run on a stanfdard pc.
Click to expand...
Darwin may be open source, but all the secret sauce that makes Mac OS X as good as it is, is proprietary and closed source. The only ones who can port it are Apple.


Really, if Apple wants to gain Market share, sell a retail version of the os that will work on a Higher end PC, and build a computer that will run software other than their own. If the product is better it will win out.
Click to expand...
Apple aren't in the business to gain market share. They're in the business to make money. Chances are they make more by selling computers.
 
krizzle said:
The community of people wanting to get OSx running on PC's is arguably smaller than those wanting to get WinXP running on macs. If the OSx on PC community was able to patch the devkit for something as major as SSE2 compatability, I am well sure that eager Windows gurus will patch XP for boot with EFI. In fact, it will probably happen within this month, so watch the news.
Click to expand...

I certainly hope so. The moment they get Windows running stably on a Macbook, I'll buy one and sell my other three computers. At that point all I will need is a nice 20 or 24" LCD and a Macbook Pro.

Mac OSX for working in all the Adobe program and XP for playing WoW and using other more Windows-friendly apps. That would be a beautiful thing. I've longed to go back to one computer but since I became a professional designer, it's always been a pipe dream unless I wanted to work in an XP environment (yuck).
 
violentblue said:
I've seen systems running OSX86 looks feels and runs just like mac. I wonder what the legality of such a system is?
Click to expand...

Not legal at all, but if you were to buy a retail copy of OSX Apple would still get their money, so, I doubt anyone could claim it is immoral...

As for running XP natively - Isn't that what VT is for? I'm not 100% up on Yonah, but I didn't think VT was a part of it... might have to wait for the Conroe powermacs (or, well, whatever they decide to replace power with, MacMacs? BunnyMacs? PentiMacs?)
 
"That's fine with us. We don't mind," Schiller said. "If there are people who love our hardware but are forced to put up with a Windows world, then that's OK."

If it were impossible to get windows running on intel macs, I don't think he would have even said this. Whether It will work no problem, or maybe with a little tweaking, I'm pretty sure we can expect windows on these new macs pretty soon.
 
Calm down people! Jeez! :cool: :cool: :cool:

First of all:

I overheard on Applenova that EFi for x86 computers includes a compatibility mode for old operating systems. You can probably find some details about this here: http://www.intel.com/technology/efi/

Secondly:

(also overheard on Applenova) Gateway released a system with EFi on it in 2003 and it ran XP just fine. Quote from the thread over there:

Gateway shipped a PC that used EFI back in November of 2003, so we know it is possible to run XP on an EFI system. Whether Apple's new Intel offereings have the compatibility mode needed to allow this, I suppose remains to be seen.
Click to expand...

Linky http://news.com.com/2100-1008-5131787.html


Thirdly:

If the above two methods fail there is probably some way to write a boot/OS loader that can make all of these problems go away and fool XP into thinking a BIOS is present.

So RELAX :)


Edit: if there are any admins present, you should probably change the overly authoritative title of this thread.. it's a bit absurd to be claiming that windows won't run on these systems, given the evidence from the past, intel .. but also.. given the lack of evidence since nobody actually has a MacBook yet.
 
Black Morty Rackham said:
Apple aren't in the business to gain market share. They're in the business to make money. Chances are they make more by selling computers.
Click to expand...
this same premise (while slightly OT) also applies to Nintendo. People rail on Nintendo for not trying to go for 't3h w1n', but Nintendo is the only of the Big3 that is profitable quarter after quarter. Nintendo, like Apple, is in the business of making a solid product for their target consumers (and this in turn makes their investors very happy)

also, chances are that Apple didn't go with EFI to "prevent Windows" but rather to accomplish something they've been talking a lot about lately -- control power consumption. The power management profiles that we see in current BIOS's were shoehorned into an architecture that really didn't give the vendor/engineer much control over how the system behaves under low-power conditions. EFI does this and more. I think that that is a large part of why Apple went with it.
 
One thing that would be the big stumbling block, at least for dual boot systems is partitioning the drive half and half and maintaining the boot volume. To my knowledge, its not possible, because I can't even dual format an external drive with NTFS/Mac OS Extended
 
Nasty_Savage said:
One thing that would be the big stumbling block, at least for dual boot systems is partitioning the drive half and half and maintaining the boot volume. To my knowledge, its not possible, because I can't even dual format an external drive with NTFS/Mac OS Extended
Click to expand...

Possibly use two drives? One for windows, one for OSX? (Obviously this is less than ideal for the MacBook, but would work fine with an external drive on the iMac).
 
You know, i've been thinking, and I think this EFI stuff shouldn't be an issue. Here's why:

The latest BIOS chips still have legacy options for OS's back from the 80's, e.g. DOS floppy-swap and USB emulation options and such. That's always been a plus of all PC hardware, even today's current stuff... it still natively supports arcane operating systems.

So how is it logical, without a massive discontent community, that intel plans to adopt EFI in all its PC systems soon, and not implement some kind of compatibility mode for current-gen operating systems? I think I actually read about some compatability option on EFI lately, I've just forgotten where. It will definitly exist, and we will be able to boot XP without BIOS on EFI... at least on PC's. I have no idea how we would access the EFI pre-OS options menu on the MacBook... is there some hotkey for the BIOS menu durring boot on any powerbooks? (could we still call it the BIOS settings menu? or is it EFI menu now? :eek: )

Anyway, given the facts, I'm sure someone will have winXP running on them macbooks very soon.


Upon dual booting on a single drive: I have the devkit of OSX x86 running on my PC right now (it's beautiful.) It's on an HSF+ primary partition on a 200gb SATA drive, sharing it with a bootable NTFS partition, where I have a backup windows installed. They both work! I donno if it's the same for retail version of OSX x86, but I've had no problems!
 
I agree with that. And if EFI doesn't support the current version of Windows XP, maybe Microsoft will come out with some sort of service pack for it.
Anyway, if you can get the x86 OS X working on your PC, Kirill, that doesn't mean you will be able to run Windows XP on a MacBook.
 
krizzle said:
Upon dual booting on a single drive: I have the devkit of OSX x86 running on my PC right now (it's beautiful.) It's on an HSF+ primary partition on a 200gb SATA drive, sharing it with a bootable NTFS partition, where I have a backup windows installed. They both work! I donno if it's the same for retail version of OSX x86, but I've had no problems!
Click to expand...
can you help me out w/ that? im finding the tutorials a little too hard to follow, nor do i feel like wiping my main drive :rolleyes:

PMs or IMs work nicely. thanks!
 
EFI is way better than a BIOS. many mac users know the power contained in openfirmware.

EFI is the "wave of the future" like it or not. I'd bet a few bucks that it lets the computer make sure things are secure (for DRM)... As well as all the added features...So really, i could just be a requirement for apple, as they may have to migrate to it in the future.
 
RussianBoy said:
I agree with that. And if EFI doesn't support the current version of Windows XP, maybe Microsoft will come out with some sort of service pack for it.
Anyway, if you can get the x86 OS X working on your PC, Kirill, that doesn't mean you will be able to run Windows XP on a MacBook.
Click to expand...
Alex, please refrain from disclosing our identities... they may be... on to us...!
 
wonkman said:
This is genius!

If folks can dual-boot Windows and OX, it will get the Mac OS and hardware into the hands of more people. When they start getting familiar with Mac OS they will find out how superior it is. Then application support will expand. People will use Windows for their current apps and games and Mac OS for media.
Click to expand...
Yep then all the Virii and scumware will follow too :(, personally i would like Apple to be as popular as MS, /cheer at apple
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top