I enjoy a little friendly competition now and then, but Apple's remark is just mean and gratuitous.

Apple, as a company, has made many disparaging remarks about Microsoft, but Microsoft has yet to return the favor.

In this case, I side with Microsoft.

Aw, C'mon...it was funny, admit it.

It's no joke. Windows is legacy and obsolete. Any person with more than one braincell replaces it with OSX as soon as possible. I don't understand the laughter. Windows is bad, OSX is good. Now go away.

No, a Mac running windows and more hardware sales for Apple in the Window's community.

What do you call a Mac PC with an Intel processor running Windows Vista?

mmmm. A Dell PC?

"Windows is a legacy OS. We don't offer legacy support,"

Funny, if Windows is Legacy then how come windows can support 64Bit Processors?

But wait...the mord advanced MAC OSX is sooo much better, but oh no! No 64Bit Support!? If Apple wants to talk about legacy, it took them since the invention of the mouse up until 3 months ago to release a multi-button Mouse. Apple didn't even know how to add a 2nd button or a scroll wheel to a mouse, but their EFI process is sooo advanced! Instead their customers have had to hold down the little squiggly mark thingy, combined with a swift movment of the mouse, and tap the apple button twice to get a Left click menu. Poor people...

As for the blow at Intel because MS doesn't want to convert to EFI from BIOS, What does MS need Intel for when they have Advanced Micro Devices? I mean, AMD is taking over the Clone Processor market. With each day that consumers buy a Dell with an Intel inside, realise how bad they really are, they go out and buy an Acer from me with an AMD Chip aboard!

Fanboy-ism is alive and well, I see.

Again, I challenge you to TRY and use Windows XP-64bit. See exactly how 'supported' it really is. I can think of at least 2 devices in my own system that aren't supported... and it's just a home PC.

You might also want to consider that up until recently (and even now) Macs have no need for 64-bit support, as there ARE NO 64-bit PROCESSORS in their line-up. Why would you waste you time? It was a bit like nVidia with PS3.0 when no games supported it, and their hardware was too slow to use it anyway. Yay for wasted development time. :P

You are braindead and have no idea what you are talking about. OSX does support 64 bit, and it did that way before the first version of winXP64 or that retarded Vista crap. You go use vista with the other morons, that's where you belong.
Also try find a decent chipset for your fake AMD processor that doesn't blow up in your face the minute you try to install the latest videodriver crap or whatever you windows guys do when you feel like having sex but can't get it or don't know what it is.

AMD Blow up in your face? lol Now you are an idiot. Go ahead, look up any Intel VS AMD Benchmark. The AMD Always out performs the intel, runs cooler, and uses less power consumption. Also the Intel counter-part costs 20% more than it's AMD Counter-part.

Now you say OSX Supports 64Bit Processors, Then how come their are none in their line up? Kinda makes me wonder myself.

"Also try find a decent chipset for your fake AMD processor that doesn't blow up in your face the minute you try to install the latest videodriver crap or whatever you windows guys do when you feel like having sex but can't get it or don't know what it is."

Funny, Because I've done nothing but run AMD Processors, on either nForce or VIA Chipsets, with ATi Video cards. I've never had a single problem. :)

Talk about your Fanboy-ism. You can trust me on this, I am not a fanboy of windows. The only reason why I use windows is compatability support. But I was retailiating on the fact that Cameron called Windows a "Legacy OS" like OSX is Soooo much better. And I stated how Intel sucks, and it took mac 20 years to design a mouse with more than 2 buttons... SO go have fun with your mom k?

LOL if people proving time and again they don't know s*** about Apple but still have an opinion. Apple currently has 3 64 computers in their line up. If you don't know this, you don't know s***, and all the rest you say is bollocks as well. That's the only way anybody can think VIA chipsets are stable. Yeah, measured against your lowly win98 standards that also cause you to think MS has a usable winXP 64 proposition.
But well, what could I expect, you're a windows user, while you have the opportunity to switch too a real OS, so you must be retarded like all the other sheep.

"Windows is a legacy OS. We don't offer legacy support,""

LOL... I've never heard it put that way before... I agree ^_^

""Apple is a much worse monopoly than MS is.""

Monopoly means they have control or domination over the market... Apple doesn't.

Apple controls their platform much more than Microsoft does. While Microsoft tries to make their platform support everything including ANY kitchen sink available, Apple says, "You'll use our sinks, our toilets, and our appliances, and if that's not good enough-- here's a limited list of vendors who develop other devices like printers and scanners."

Ah, but on the upside, it works. :P

And speaking of using a particular brand of kitchen sinks, have you tried using Windows MCE yet? That gives a serious lesson in a software manufacturer controlling the hardware market.

Bear in mind, Microsoft don't make computers.

Who really cares about the dumb Apple club or their machines... I can build my own and it will work much better than the mac ever did. (Can you say Blown apart usb chip on the g4 motherboard that apple refused to admit?)... Apple is a much worse monopoly than MS is. I have been burn burned much more with apple than i have ever been with MS.

Huh?

How can you be a monopoly with only 4% of the market share?

"Apple is a much worse monopoly than MS is."

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Which word?

Apple? MS? Much? Or maybe if he's Clinton: Is?

Sorry. I couldn't resist. =p

Well just so we're clear, I looked it up. According to Webster's Dictionary monopoly means:

1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2 : exclusive possession or control
3 : a commodity controlled by one party

By definitions #1 and #2, Apple is a monopoly on their platform. Just like Microsoft, when you go Apple, you go Apple all the way or you don't go at all.

By definition #3, neither company is a true monopoly, because computers are definitely a commodity, and no computer is truly controlled by any one party, since there are multiple platforms from which you can choose to operate... Windows, MacOS, Linux, Unix, etc etc. Once you choose a platform, you still have countless choices on individual programs to run and uses for the computer.

Of course, this is all assuming that we buy into Webster's definition of monopoly rather than let's say Judge Jackson's definition, or Massachussetts' definition, or worse-- the EU's definition of the word.

See, what it is is...

Well put sir, hopefully this bunch of MS-attacking bas****s will finally understand the concept.

Do you actually understand the word monopoly? Or do you think it's a board game that you can play on your ugly PC when Solitaire is boring you?

Vista FebCTP 5308 32bit

It's 32 bit and have support for EFI

It have Bootmgr.efi and EFI folder

Can any one tested out...

Why should MS spend a minute of coding time trying to woo away mac users from their OS of choice. What a waste of time that would be. Apple recently celebrated the fact that usage broke the 4% market share barrier. WooHoo. No wonder Adobe also finds it easy to give them the cold shoulder when they feel like it. Other than all the good times dancing for the whiney, spoon-fed apple crowd, what's in it for MS?

Are you are finished with your ignorant fanboy rant? If so maybe you should take a moment and find out what EFI is since you obviously have no idea. It is not just something for Apple. It was created by Intel (perhaps you've heard of them) as a replacement for the twenty year old BIOS we are all using in our PCs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...ible_Firmware_Interface

The Microsoft monopoly is a real cancer in the IT industry and it's always affecting manufacturers and the adoption of new technologies. Now they are so silly to not include EFI Bios support into Vista 32bit versions and only the 64bit ones will work with the new BIOSes, replacing the ancient legacy PC BIOS.
Microsoft should be split by the Republicans in order to give the IT industry some freedom back.

Here's a novel idea...

Maybe they aren't including EFI on x86 processors because they want people to adopt new technology in the form of x64 processors...

If you think about it, EFI boards (with the exception of the Mac's) are pretty much all going to be designed for 64 bit processors... that's just the direction technology is moving...

If you can migrate to EFI, but can't migrate to 64bit, you have some major issues to overcome...

You're wrong... Microsoft is Way bettter and treats people better than that drugged-out-freak-of-a-crack-head Steve jobs. apple screws more people with the so called bios updates that maim your system...MS doesn't do it.
May the Apple corp die a fast death.

What the fsck are you talking about? Literally - this post is majorly screwed up in everyway....

Steve Jobs may not be a drugged-out-freak-of-a-crack-head, but I certainly know somebody who is.......

If it wasn't for Microsoft there wouldn't be an IT Industry. We would all be working on $15,000 Macs or AS400 Dumb Terminals.

Your article said: "According to APCMag.com, which first broke the story on Friday morning Australian Time, support for EFI among 32-bit processors would have to wait for "subsequent release of Windows client."

I appreciate you guys crediting the article to us at APCMag but unfortunately that isn't quite what the article says. The APCMag article (full disclosure: I'm the author) says that there will be NO support for EFI booting in Windows Vista client (even the 64 bit version) until a "future release" of Windows.

And it also says that there will NEVER be EFI booting in a 32 bit version of Windows.

The first time we will get EFI booting in Windows is in 64 bit Longhorn Server. After that, Microsoft couldn't specify when it would be introduced into 64 bit Windows Client.

The fact that Intel Macs use 32 bit processors right now is unfortunate but incidental -- Apple can change to 64 bit Intel processors as soon as they are released.

The real story here is that Microsoft has withdrawn its plans to offer EFI booting for ANY version of Windows Vista client on its release.

The correct story is here: http://apcmag.com/apc/v3...303D9AACA25712C008166C4

Since Windows XP x64 edition currently has full support for EFI booting I'm surprised Microsoft suddenly decided to pull the EFI booting support they already planned to include in the 64-bit Windows Vista client OS. If Microsoft is suddenly removing support for EFI from Windows Vista they must have some sort of bias against Apple.

Well, at least there is one version of Windows that will be compatible with Apple Intel Macs once they start using 64-bit CPU's.

????

Windows Server 2003 already supports EFI on Itanium Processors.

Hmm, I'm surprised no one has mentioned the possibility that perhaps Apple and Microsoft have agreed to not make it possible for Windows to boot on a Mac, and this is their method of achieving that.

Itanium?! What's Ita--- ohhhhh yeaaaaaaaah, that Intel chip that no one cares about that Intel wishes would go the way of the Pentium Pro.....

When Windows runs on Mac hardware, and OSX runs on PC, we might have some choices! Nice to see this convergence.

Both companies are closing to their segment... Smell like this is part of the agreement they made some time ago, and against their users.
Sad for everybody (except Micro$oft, of course).
From a Apple point of view, it would be best to allow a Mac to run Windoze "legacy" applications without using the pathetic Virtual PC. In that case, if you have a Mac you could have all you might need, but now you don't, just for political reasons, shame on you, Apple.
I think Steve jobs passed the line, he turned in a liar: He was not sarcastic, but hyprocrite when said Apple wont do anything to avoid Windows running in Mactels, we have proof they did: They removed the existing CSM code from the already existing EFI. What a shame.
Maybe customers should start pirating Apple software and use maxxus releases into clones, so Apple will not sell software nor hardware (no, sorry, they could continue selling iPods).
Maybe then, Apple will understand that they made a big mistake, again. There is enough time for Apple to open their eyes... DO IT!

i agree, just 64 bit is very fishy

Bzt. Wrong.

Why build new features into a dying platform? EFI was designed for the Itanium processor, long before Apple went x86.

Microsoft's descision to limit the building in of new features to the 32-bit platform has nothing to do with Apple.

I don't necessarily think it had anything to do with Apple, but I wouldn't be so quick to rule it out. Microsoft building Windows 32bit to support EFI and Mactel systems would just open up a legal hole for Apple to use against them. So I think it's in Microsoft's interest not to support it.

That said, I do agree that the primary reason is that they really are trying to push everyone onto 64bit now. Yes, ladies and gentlmen, it's time to move on to bigger, better hardware.

How could supporting a new BIOS technology allow Apple to go after Microsoft? That's like saying by support x86, MS could go after Apple.

???

The tech was developed by Intel, afaik. Anyone who's licensed it can use it, and MS has licensed it.

It'll happen sooner rather than later by VMWare or all those hackers gunning for that $12k prize.

Oh please, Apple people (robots) will laugh and cheer at anything Apple says to.

"Windows is a legacy OS. We don't offer legacy support."

good point, lol. xp is still basically the same ui as 95, just prettier, even tho vista vill be totally modified, ill stick with xp 64bit and mayby osx :).... When i can afford a real mac that is..

Sadly for Mac users, Apple's comment also means that they don't support their OWN legacy OS. Although they have transitional technology for supporting the most popular apps shipping today, the fact is that today's Windows XP will run most of the apps which shipped in 1981 for DOS 1.0. Today's Mac OS X will not run ANY app which shipped in 1984 for the original 128KB Macintosh. Not a single one. In a nutshell, that has been the single biggest difference between evolution of the Mac and evolution of Windows. Microsoft has gone out of its way for years to preserve backward compatibility as much as possible. In contrast, Apple has repeatedly run into dead ends and been forced to reinvent its platform, abandoning old apps in the process.

"Today's Mac OS X will not run ANY app which shipped in 1984 for the original 128KB Macintosh."

Not quite true. Apple still sells PowerPC based systems and Mac OS X 10.4.5 PowerPC still has Classic mode which allows running older 68k and PPC applications.

Sadly, I was running a program designed for the original Macintosh in Classic yesterday... worked just fine.

In fact, Apple went out of their way to preserve 68K backwards compatibility in System 7, OS 8, and OS 9, and since Classic uses OS 9.2, most, if not all, of the apps designed for the original Macintosh should work.

Hell, just go to Macintosh Garden, download some old school games, and see for yourself...

Couple of points:

Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 already support EFI as will Vista. In the 64-bit versions, which is what EFI was designed for (Itanium). They have no intention, nor should they, of supporting Vista or XP 32-bit booting off of EFI systems.

Intel need not be worried about EFI adoption as more and more computers are going 64-bit. The mobo manufacturers will be offering EFI boards as soon as the market for 64bit computing outpaces the 32-bit market.

If a mobo manufacturer chooses to go EFI, they can, very easily, put in a BIOS compatibility module that will allow 32-bit Operating systems to Boot normally.

For obvious reasons, Apple chose not to include this module.

Just wanted to make a few things clearer for ya'll.

"Windows is a legacy OS. We don't offer legacy support."

Man, you gotta love Apple's sense of humor.

ROFL @ that last point.

Nice.

Awww good, no Intel clones other than approved Apple machines, no MS software on Intel/Apple iMacs. Sounds good to me.

If Apple wants to play hardball, they are in the wrong league.

Say what? Your comment makes no sense. You presume that Microsoft would want OS X to be available on machines other than the ones Apple sells.

And what does Apple wanting to play hardball have to do with this?

Inane.

MS would be more than happy if Vista/XP ran on Apple systems. More money for Microsoft.

They aren't going to waste Dev making it work though.

No, he meant that MS would like it if Vista could be loaded on Apple systems...more sales of Vista...more money!

Pretty straight forward if you ask me!

They must not like it too much if they removed the one feature needed to load Vista onto a Mac, then.

They did not remove it, it was never there. They are just not going to add it for 32bit computers. Yet! I am sure they will eventualy.

Why? 32-bit is a dying platform.

Dying... Yes... but will still be used for several years... The avg. user does not need 64bit... or will they use the addition resorces it has... They still have people using DOS and Windows 95.... 32bit will be around for a long time.....

I dont touch computers with windows 95/ 98 and me. I aggree that the average computer user ( 80% of all computer users) dont need that much firepower. they just use their pcs to check their emails and burn music).

"they just use their pcs to check their emails and burn music)."

Heck, most users are lucky if they figure out HOW to do those things at all, nevermind if they can do it without getting viruses and spyware all through their machine. *grin*

Nobody needs technology at all, strictly speaking, but it sure does make our life more convenient to have newer, better technologies.