Login:
Password:
Lost Password?
Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

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."

Add a Comment

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By surajse

edited Apr 27, 2008 - 2:34 AM

hej

Score: 0

By pokewade

edited Feb 22, 2008 - 7:16 AM

me and my sister has a USB that wont work in a window xp and a mac ibook but thay where working before can you send me something that will help me or fix it or make it work. thank you for your time.

Score: 0

By pokewade

posted Feb 22, 2008 - 7:26 AM

cfghjdghjdghjdfghffjhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Score: 0

By munnalovely

edited Jan 31, 2007 - 7:58 AM

mac installestion process

Score: 0

By ArmadilloGoner18

edited Jan 12, 2007 - 9:48 AM

Just browsing through a Vista RTM CD- ooh, there's an EFI folder in there! And in there is some fonts-ooh, and a boot manager too! Oh Microsoft, you wascawwy devil!

Score: 0

By fkadoo

edited Jul 19, 2006 - 2:28 PM

You can with the apple bootcamp > http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/

http://mlangfr2003.free.fr/

Score: 0

By bheibert

edited Apr 12, 2006 - 5:01 PM

Apple's BootCamp Software now lets Intel Macintoshes run Windows
http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/

Score: 0

By Shawn Gordon

edited Feb 4, 2006 - 11:48 PM

While I am more of a PC fanboy than anything, I feel that Microsoft really shouldnt complain about the lack of hardware compliance here. The world is an ever changing place; as such Microsoft just implement a version of Windows for the Mac just as they did with Office.

The comment made about industry standard hardware I feel might have been sort of a veiled complaint about how in fact Appl ehardware is not industry standard withinthe PC world (EFI vs BIOS). As I stated before, the world is constantly changing and standards are not constant; they change. If the world is slowly converting to Apple systems, then other companies need to be able to adapt.

In the defense of Microsoft, I will say that had it not been for Microsoft, Appl ewouldn't be here today ( but that was more of a self supporting act anyway). In time I feel that both companies will be as close on the same page as Intel and AMD or Ford and Chevy. In fairness, if Apple "builds" hardware compatible with Windows, then Apple should also release a PC version of OSX.

For the comment aboveby "Zyk0tik" mine concerningthe emulation of a BIOS under EFI... I don't think that the end product would be worth it. anything you emulate runs slow. the point of a MAc is to be fast and easy. If you were to add extra steps and make it run buggy and slow why not just go ahead and buy a POS PC? It makes as much sense to me as PearTree emulating OSX on a PC. Technology doesn't allow you to eat your cakes and have them too. We have to deal withwhat is given to use and wait until enough people either complain or make it themselves to get what we want. Thats teh beauty of it all though...technology is all what we make of it.

Lastly, why would you want to have Xp on the macbook with Vista right around the corner> Form what I can tell, Vista is smarter, faster and a lot easier onthe eyss (borrowing heavily from nVidias ForceWare nView tricks - of course nVidia has been working with MS onthe visual aspect of Vista so go figure).

Score: 0

By MACATTAC

edited Jul 29, 2006 - 11:51 PM

Shawn although most of your comments are quite relivent you need to learn your computer history a bit better. If it had not been for Apple and Comodore, Microsoft would not be the powerhouse it is today! Mr. Gates was involved in the development of both the Amiga OS and Mac OS. Bill Gates cut his Icon driven system teeth on these two systems when IBM PC's were still running in Monochrome and beeping at us. After doing the work for these two companies he went on to develop an icon driven system that we call windows today. The only reason these two systems did not dominate is because of the sale of the MSDOS technology to every company who wanted to make one. The good part of Apple keeping their technology is that the quality and integrity of the product has remained high. We can't say that about the PC. The rest of your comments however are duely noted.

Score: 0

By Zyk0tiK

posted Feb 12, 2006 - 6:31 AM

yeah but the bios is only ever used right at start up. so once it's emulated it's fast again. not like a BIOS does anything spectacular though, the emulation would be fast...

Score: 0

By Zyk0tiK

edited Jan 14, 2006 - 9:15 AM

Yeah but surely that's only gonna stop it from natively booting Windows, right? I mean, some bright spark out there is surely going to develop some kind of bootloader to emulate a BIOS.

Score: 0

By ivanmix

edited Jan 14, 2006 - 1:49 AM

Supposedly XP Media Center 2005 has EFI support:

http://forum.osx86projec...ew=findpost&p=42256

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jan 12, 2006 - 1:11 PM

Oh how nice, the Slashdotters have come out to play. *eyeroll*

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jan 12, 2006 - 5:08 PM

I resemble that remark, you insensitive clod!

Score: 0

By xoineg

posted Jan 12, 2006 - 1:08 PM

Not really disappointed by the news. You can still run windows software on a MAC if you use Virtual PC which is made by Microsoft. I have used it in the past and is was a little slow, but with these new intel processor it should run a lot faster. I personally use it to run software that is not available on a mac. Over all if you are using a mac for video or music is far better to just use the software that comes with mac os x.

Score: 0

By Floodland

posted Jan 12, 2006 - 8:52 PM

Nono, Micro$oft virtual PC is a pain in the ass. Version 7 of the software works pretty SLOW, hang like hell. Conectix versions (upto v6) were pretty good. Microsoft is doing their best effort, to sink the product...
I just hope that vmware build a emulator for OSX now that Apple migrated to x86. I really hope so...

Score: 0

By g400

posted Jan 12, 2006 - 11:14 AM

afaik, efi is at least as programmable (on software-side) as openfirmware was... so i think it shouldn't be a big problem to write some app similar to what xpostfacto does for oldworld-powermacs that are not longer supported by os x/ppc.
only the partition table could be a problem, yes.
but who knows ?
maybe we could patch some of xp's .sys-files with the reactos ones (which could be made compatbile to'efi-partitions') - as soon as ros is xp compatible enough.....
only speculation, though.
but if efi is as flexible as intel says, there won't be anyone who could permit accessing the efi shell and place some bios compatibility script.
we'll see.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jan 12, 2006 - 5:09 PM

"efi is at least as programmable (on software-side) as openfirmware was"

More so. almost infinately so. OEMs can simply add modules to it that would allow pretty much anyhting.

Score: 0

By juandesant

edited Jan 24, 2006 - 7:00 PM

«"efi is at least as programmable (on software-side) as openfirmware was"

More so. almost infinately so. OEMs can simply add modules to it that would allow pretty much anyhting.»

EFI is indeed programmable, but Open Firmware is every bit as programmable as EFI. The only difference is you create EFI bytecode from C code, and you create Open Firmware bytecode from Forth code.

PCI cards can have EFI or Open Firmware bytecodes to provide their one self-loading drivers…

Score: 0

By Thunder-GOLD

posted Jan 12, 2006 - 10:00 AM

eWho need windows if you can use OSX..!! It's the proof that Microsoft isn't a good choose even when I'm writing it in a Windows PC. I wish to use other thing. But with Intel platform. get out over here Windows. Soon I'll kick you out my PC.. Muahaha

Score: 0

By markroder

edited Jan 12, 2006 - 9:15 AM

Industry-standard hardware? Clearly a comment from a company that doesn't appreciate good design.

Score: 0

By skags442

posted Jan 12, 2006 - 9:04 AM

efi sounds like a security risk in the making

Score: 0

By gawd21

edited Jan 12, 2006 - 2:36 PM

"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."

Yeah, the viruses can run amuck long before the virus scanners can load.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jan 12, 2006 - 5:10 PM

I'm sure EFI resides in protected memory, dude.

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Jan 12, 2006 - 5:57 PM

How long do you think it would take to over come that?

Score: 0

By CrazyBee

edited Jan 12, 2006 - 8:11 AM

"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."

Why on earth would Apple do that?
That's like selling nutcrackers which also does laundery! In a way, atleast.

Score: 0

By Gerwin

posted Jan 12, 2006 - 7:36 AM

OSX is good, Windows is bad, now go away.

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Jan 12, 2006 - 2:37 PM

Name one thing that OSX can do better and back it up from a site other than apple.com.

Score: 0

By pritchet1

posted Jan 13, 2006 - 1:27 PM

Keeping Malware from bothering the system.

Score: 0

By riegel

edited Jan 12, 2006 - 3:15 PM

Name one thing...

1. Transparency (Alpha channels) at the OS level. Not only does it make the OS prettier, but it makes it more usable. But really it isn't better since Windows doesn't support Alpha channel transparency at the OS level.

2. A Unix shell

3. I haven't had a virus since 1993 (I had a hypercard stack virus on my old Powerbook 100. The only one I have ever had)

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Jan 12, 2006 - 5:59 PM

Umm, no. That is just stupid. That is like saying , "I like Winders fer da perty colors".

Score: 0

By ConceptJunkie

posted Jan 12, 2006 - 5:05 PM

1. Transparency is a gimmick. Name one way it improves usability. It's kind of like skins: it's an interesting idea, but non-default skins in the real world are almost always ugly as sin (or in the case of XP, the default skin).

2. A unix shell is great, but on Windows cygwin is a short, free, download away.

3. I've used (and developed for) Windows since 1990 and the last time I got a virus was in 1989 on DOS. Your point?

There are some reasons the Mac is better (like the fact that you don't need to be some kind of uber-geek to actually install and use hardware), and that Apple actually thinks about usability and then acts on it, but really the difference between the platforms in terms of what you can accomplish and how is shrinking away.

Score: 0

By Magnus Dredd

posted Jan 13, 2006 - 8:02 PM

I do some *nix systems adminstration.

One of the things that I have to do is to add/modify user accounts. I recieve an email regarding the problem. I leave the message open, kick over to iTerm which is partially transparent, which allows me to make the changes while being able to reference the original email at the same time.

Score: 0

By moq

edited Jan 15, 2006 - 10:26 AM

you can do the same with windows and remote desktop the only difference is that its not transparent but you can have the email an RDP next to each other.

on a side note: in an active directory environment you wouldnt have to remotely access the computer of the user you want to modify, you can do all this at a central location - the domain controller.

Score: 0

By jsherwood0

posted Jan 12, 2006 - 11:46 PM

Not only is transparency a gimick, but it is one that WinXP does support at the OS level, but it is undocumented, and has no interface.

There are a couple of free utilities out there that give you hotkey and rightclick control over the WinXP native window transparancy though:

http://www.chime.tv/products/glass2k.shtml

http://www.download.com/...000-2347_4-9661147.html

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Jan 12, 2006 - 6:03 PM

My point was very simple, what can a MAC do that a Windows box can't do better? I mean as in functionality.

Score: 0

By yodamitsu

edited Jan 12, 2006 - 7:37 PM

hell thats easy I have been a Mutilmedia artist for 10years + and a Windows Admin for 6 years +! (managed about 300+ Win PCs and 5-6 Windows Servers) so lets just say I have pretty equal experience from both sides of the fence. Keep in mind Id switch to something else tomorrow if it WAS better, but at present heres a small list for you:
OSX - with *nix underpinnings, hell I got more network tools than I ever could have right from the terminal (can a win user say SSH? wheres the tools to mount NFS, or HFS+ disks Hybrid Cds/DVDs, oh thats right you have to buy them, all you can read is NTFS/Fat32. And Video, Can you run industry standards such as FCP, Motion, Shake, Logic? Do all your Video devices seamlessly integrate? Does your FW hardware work flawlessly without buying expensive add on cards? (I stuffed around for 4 years trying to produce content in XP with enough money spent on capture boards to make a Quad G5 look dirt cheap!) How about Graphics? Does your XP box have built in Color management? Do the ICC profiles seamlessly integrate from your photo catalogue apps all the way through to Photoshop and what ever publishing app you use (sorry I have not seen an XP box do this effectivley yet) Can your XP Box handle PS1 PS2 TT and OPenType Fonts? I remember the days not long ago when Apple was doomed and NT4 was to dominate the publishing industry! Funny stuff indeed! How about general Office work? well clearly you have not used or compared Office for Mac to Office for PC? Drag and drop installation (no "Install Shields/Wizards here thanks) Superior security model (virus, spyware issues) yep none of those for the past 5 years on my Macs either! Oh and games! Buddy I stopped playing at PC based Lan partys when we all got the s***s spending 2 hours getting everyone connected, games and sound cards working! Can you say the word... Playstaion 2 or Xbox 360? My Windows friends you have been using dead technology now for at least 4 years! Time to move on and use OSX or Debian or something gawd! Hey you just might be blessed with Longhorn-Vista! (or the new name... Windows XMas 2006) But if my many years in the Windows industry watching promise after promise from NT3.51 thru to WinXP has taught me anything.... Don't hold your breath! ;-) mjb

Score: 0

By gawd21

edited Jan 12, 2006 - 9:35 PM

yodamitsu,

"OSX - with *nix underpinnings, hell I got more network tools than I ever could have right from the terminal (can a win user say SSH? wheres the tools to mount NFS, or HFS+ disks Hybrid Cds/DVDs, oh thats right you have to buy them" No MAC has ever come close to the network tools Windows has as default, seeing how MACs have crappy networks, and let get on to the more proven side of things.

"And Video, Can you run industry standards such as FCP" that is far from a standard. sorry try again!

"Do all your Video devices seamlessly integrate?" Yes, yes they do. haven't had a problem yet.

"Does your XP box have built in Color management?" Yes it does, just as good as MAC's built in. Not speaking about the second or third party software that you need to even see pictures in the correct format with MACs.

"Can your XP Box handle PS1 PS2 TT and OpenType Fonts?" WTF are you talking about, are you stupid? XP can handle every font that a MAC can I have tested this a 100+ times!

"ow about general Office work? well clearly you have not used or compared Office for Mac to Office for PC? Drag and drop installation (no "Install Shields/Wizards here thanks) Superior security model (virus, spyware issues) yep none of those for the past 5 years on my Macs either" yeah and seeing how you can't teach even a 10th of the world to use MAC Crap that you can't use it so that is null!

"Oh and games! Buddy I stopped playing at PC based Lan partys when we all got the s***s spending 2 hours getting everyone connected, games and sound cards working!" Just because you have the lack of intel doesn't mena the rest of the world does too.

"My Windows friends you have been using dead technology now for at least 4 years!" OMG!!!!! MAC is the one that used the OLD OLD OLD OLD OLD version of FreeBSD! Get a grip!!!

Dude you need to stop telling lies and be honest with yourself the real world that MACs are out dated and that when we were in school and didn't know better we used then, but we grew up and moved to Windows or Linux (something that works) without having the BS you and others try and push down us with now facts to back it up, other that what you believe. MACs are out dated and have been for 10 + years now!

Like I said, I want FACTS that can be proven with numbers!

Score: 0

By Carbon unit

edited Jan 16, 2006 - 12:09 PM

Wow! Anyone who is this angry and biased should keep his distorted view of macs to himself. I use both, they are tools. FCP is the real deal and most professionals (including spielberg) use mac for Audio and Video. Your lack of awareness makes the rest of the PC fanboy club look bad!

Score: 0

By jsherwood0

posted Jan 13, 2006 - 12:31 AM

Sorry gawd, but here I have to disagree with you:

> No MAC has ever come close to the network
> tools Windows has as default, seeing how
> MACs have crappy networks, and let get on to
> the more proven side of things.

As of OSX at least, Mac's include a full bash shell with all of the command line tools that your hacker next door needs to nslookup, traceroute, remote login, etc. While WinXP handles a lot of different network types, and is now including a lot of network utils, you still don't get the full suite of network tools that a netfiend is likely to want, unless you install something like Cygwin utils.

That said, it sounds like you may be thinking of the old days when Macs were doing their own thing network wise. Remember, now they are effectively a unix box with a more stable and intuitive UI, so they deal with *a lot* more network types than they used to.

Score: 0

By ntkern

edited Jan 12, 2006 - 9:53 PM

Let me preface this by saying that I use both XP and OS X on a regular basis. That said, I do use XP more. Each has its own strengths and I use them accordingly. Also, you seem to have confused Macs with MAC (media access control) ;)

"No MAC has ever come close to the network tools Windows has as default, seeing how MACs have crappy networks, and let get on to the more proven side of things."

Please, show me these tools. Until I install Cygwin, the default toolset in XP is lacking.

"Yes it does, just as good as MAC's built in. Not speaking about the second or third party software that you need to even see pictures in the correct format with MACs."

I'm not really sure what image formats you're talking about there. OS X's Preview app seems to handle most of the images I've thrown at it, plus PDFs, which XP requires a third party download for. If it's odd ones like tga and the various raw formats, XP needs third party software for that.

"WTF are you talking about, are you stupid? XP can handle every font that a MAC can I have tested this a 100+ times!"

I'll agree with you on that one. Unless there's some obscure kind that I'm not familiar with.

"yeah and seeing how you can't teach even a 10th of the world to use MAC Crap that you can't use it so that is null!"

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.

"OMG!!!!! MAC is the one that used the OLD OLD OLD OLD OLD version of FreeBSD! Get a grip!!!"

If you think that OS X is FreeBSD, you're wrong. It uses the FreeBSD userland tools (which are far from being old versions. Most being actively developed.) and a fairly customized version of the Mach kernel.

"MACs are out dated and have been for 10 + years now!"

I fail to see how they are outdated. Perhaps aimed at a different market, but not outdated. My Mac supports just about every current technology as well as Windows XP does, and better in the case of Bluetooth (I really wish XP had a better BT stack, since I end up using XP more often than OS X)

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Jan 13, 2006 - 12:13 AM

Blue tooth works only about, what 75% of the time, at MAX? Come one. I tell everyone to wait a few years until it gets the point where the batteries and the cutting out is a thing of the past. The batteries drain way to fast!

Score: 0

By ntkern

posted Jan 13, 2006 - 9:44 PM

Perhaps I'm the only one, but my Jabra headset and Nokia phone work pretty close to 100% of the time. I don't forget to toss both on the chargers at the end of the day. You can always say "Wait a few years" with any technology. There will always be something better a few years down the road. Some of us like to take advantage of what we have available now.

Score: 0

By Dimpfinator

edited Jan 13, 2006 - 1:47 AM

Here's one for you...

Exposé - Ability to find windows, instantly. None of this fiddling with the taskbar at the bottom of the screen to find your one of thirty open windows.

Intuitive and easy to use User Interface - Great keyboard commands to get around, plus well organized format that's easy to work in. Unlike Windows craptacular file browsing system.

Dashboard Search - Find what you need to, now.

Safari - Tabbed Browsing, RSS, the works. Firefox is good too, but I've used both (on both PC and Mac)...and I have to say Safari works better.

Viruses - eh? wazzat?

It is entirely possible for me to continue, but lets see how you do with those. :D

Score: 0

By terrancew_hod

edited Feb 4, 2006 - 9:00 AM

I like these features that are built into the Macs OS without addons:

* The ability to fax, email and export documents and webpages as PDFs. I do a lot of research for different programming projects at work and it's helpful when I'm at home to find some information select print->pdf->email pdf and I'm emailing a exact copy of the page to my work email. And I don't need to purchase a copy of Adobe acrobat to do it.

* parental controls for applications and internet--it's coming in Longhorn but mac users have had it for about a year or more.

* speakable commands--I've played around with this a bit, and of course it's a wow feature. But it's nice to voice activate your email and chat program when I get home from work. And with a bit a work you can voice activate the new Front Row navigation frontend interface for entertainment on the mac.

* multiple network location configuration settings: When i take my powerbook to work, a friend's house or starbucks, I can go to network settings in system preferences, and from a drop down box, set a location such as 'Home', 'Starbucks', 'Debbies House', etc and the network settings are automatically set. And adding new location is just as easy. That's something that you can't do with XP without 3rd party software.

* smart folders--haven't played with this much but you basically can use spotlight to display file results into a folder so certain types of documents can be stored in one location.

* Adding a particular file directory to the finder; it's like being able to add a directory shortcut to your windows explore window and can drag and drop files to that directory or go directly to that directory without navigating or cluttering your desktop. I have my development web page directory pinned to my finder so I can go directly to it.

* spelling checker is available through most apps; i can check my spelling within textedit, safari (web browser), and ichat to name a few.

* There are more useful mini apps. Tiger comes with a dictionary (widget is also available), DVD player, font management, calendar, image capture, phone syncing, sherlock (which i use to do english-spanish translations), calculator with scientific functions, and a grapher application. Most of those you would have to find 3rd party equivalents of. Most casual users don't have to find these on the net, they have most of what they need to get started immediately.

The ilife suite (although not built in) tools allow me to edit videos, add music and pictures from itunes and iphoto and send the result to a DVD. Each year they update the program, but each mac initially comes with a copy of ilife so it's something that you don't have to pay when you get it. For the casual user, there's no really no equivalent on the PC--unless get it from a third party. I tried playing with windows movie maker and unless i just want to make a windows only wmv, it's just not sufficient.

There are lots of interesting things that you do with it that I keep finding out about every week. From making a few tweaks to use your screensaver as your desktop to utilities that are free (that you would pay for on the pc) that are conversions of linux and unix utilities to convert video and edit pictures. Of course you could do it on XP, but how it's implemented and viewed on Tiger is much cooler. I guess you could see why some features coming up on Vista are similar to what's already available in Tiger... users just have to make sure they have the hardware to run it.

I use Windows for work and business development, but my home computer is definitely my mac. For a home user, it's just a lot better machine. A lot of my friends that used to down apple computers are now either getting one or contemplating buying one after seeing what I can do with it and also not having to deal with the security updates and viruses and spyware that have plagued their computer for so long. We can go back and forth with which one is better, but it all comes down to what you use it for. For what I use it for at home, it makes sense for me to have a mac and my friends do drool at some of the things it can do and how well it can do it. For work, well apple has some catching up to do to really be enterprise ready... but with the iPod, apple is gearing up for some really interesting home and entertainment options and getting a mac will open up the home for some fascinating opportunities.

Score: 0

By rkgroups

edited Jan 11, 2006 - 3:56 PM

good widgets are also available on windows too. see yahoo widgets program

Score: 0

By jsherwood0

edited Jan 12, 2006 - 5:08 AM

Just a few interesting observations, some mentioned in other posts:

Reasons to run Windows on a Mac:

* Games developers are still primarily DirectX users. Yes there are OpenGL games, but game companies like market share (i.e., DirectX on Windows).

* Corporate Inertia among software developers. Their comfort zone is in Win32 application development. The vast majority of commercial developers will be slow to adopt the new platform for fear of betamax syndrome. This does however leave a nice niche to be filled by startups and traditional mac developers.

* Software familiarity. Users often are reluctant to dump a program that they are comfortable with just because a better platform has become available. Witness all of the folks using MS Office when open office is free and opens and saves in portable MS Office formats (not to mention saving to PDF). It's just not the same old familiar program. Once all of their favorite programs will run on the new platform, then they might dump the old.

* Comfort Zone. -- "I'm not sure how to do XYZ on the Mac yet... Better keep Windo$ for a bit longer"

Reasons to run OSX86 on other than Mac HW:

* Gives users a chance to become familiar for a lower investment.

* Lets users learn that Mac is a platform that is more focused on usability than Windows (though admittedly not as much as when Tog (http://www.asktog.com) was evangelizing it)

* Forces a greater degree of competition, since OSX is the most useable *nix based OS out there, and the only one that really has a chance at home market penetration (until we tech geeks get our act together and make linux truly useable as well as powerful)

* Allows Apple to access the potential of the OS market to a degree that was previously only available to MS.

* Assume $1000 profit on Mac PC and only $10 profit on Mac OSX86 "boxed edition". 1000 copies of the OS makes you as much money as 10 PCs, and you now have 1000 customers (i.e., poor college students) that used to be MS customers.

* Having more users attracts more serious commercial software developers. Would you rather have 10 potential customers for your new XWidget software, or 1000?

* The Mac OS is no longer like a car with the hood welded shut. Now it is like a car that would run forever if it was welded shut, but that comes with a fully equipped automotive garage anyhow... So I want one!

:D

Reasons why added HW variety doesn't hurt Apple:

* HW manufacturers should be the ones shouldering the load of writing and testing the drivers (I have a friend who tests drivers for Macs professionally for nVidia, so this works...) and it is the HW manufacturer that is to blame if they suck.

* Users avoid HW with shoddy drivers (except when they are from ATI, go figure...) unless they cannot (or will not) afford better. In that case, they still expect the world, but you can point a laugh when their system gets hosed, comfortable in the knowledge that it is their own fault for being too cheap (there is a line there).

* When the cheap HW works, the system is still more stable than MS products with equivalent HW. This lets more of us "Poe Foke" get exposure to the exciting world of quality OSs (with consistent, usable interfaces. Sorry Linux guys...;), which breeds loyal users.

In all, my perspective is self-serving. I'm tired of the inconsistency and instability of open source GUIs, but I want the power of *nix AND a reasonable amount of software. How do I spell relief? M.A.C. O.S.X.86! Does that mean that I want to give up all of the SW that I already use regularly? Not overnight!

-John Sherwood
--------------
HW: AMD Sempron 2800+ on Abit NF8 mobo, 1GB RAM, 250GB HD, nVidia GeForce4 ti 4200 w/ 64MB

OS: Windows XP Pro, Kubuntu Linux v5.10 (Breezy Badger), Knoppix Live Linux DVD v4.0.2, 50 GB just waiting for OSX v10.4.4

Score: 0

By jsherwood0

posted Jan 12, 2006 - 11:16 PM

To the best of my knowledge, they still don't intend to sell it separately, but with all of the good reasons to change their mind, one can still hope. :D

Score: 0

By hfztt

posted Jan 12, 2006 - 9:46 AM

But did Apple make a 180 on its first statement and actually allows for OSX86 to run on anything but Apple HW?

Not as far as i know...

Score: 0

By DigitalSin

posted Jan 12, 2006 - 9:20 AM

All great points there

Score: 0

By wetboxers

edited Jan 12, 2006 - 4:03 AM

well, like some people would say, why ruin a perfactly good Mac by installing windows on it?

Score: 0

By tmh

edited Jan 13, 2006 - 9:37 PM

Here are a few good reasons for a dual boot computer.
Imagine you are an accounting firm with clients who use Mac's and some that use windows. It sure would be nice to work with the proprietary data formats that are not cross platform and only have one computer on your desk or to lug around. Quickbooks is one glaring example. Intuit states that the data files are cross platform but not if you use more than just the rudimentary features. There are numerous other accounting apps that either have the same problem or only exist on one platform with no way to read or write to the data file on any other platform.
What if you use proprietary software that only runs in a Windows environment that you have to use for a given purpose yet you really would rather use OSX for everything else you do with a computer. Once again, dual boot solves this problem without having to use more than one computer.
How about someone who does tech support? If you want to support Mac's, PC's, *nix etc... it sure would be nice to be able to do so with running software for all OS’s natively on just one computer without the horrendous loss of performance when using emulators like Virtual PC.
An IT department for an organization that works in a multi-platform organization should look at this possibility and be salivating for the solution. Imagine having only one spec for laptop hardware and only one spec for desktop hardware yet these two configurations will support all of the operating systems the users you support need to use or want to use and probably use without your blessing. The number of part numbers you would stock for break fix situations would drop.
The prospect of this being a reality should have many of you excited. Think about it. You get to use the best designed hardware yet run any OS you want to or need to plus get to use OSX for all the functions that it does so elegantly.

Score: 0

By Magnus Dredd

edited Jan 13, 2006 - 8:08 PM

one word:

Games....

Oh, don't bother with the whole there are Mac games bit... I have a Mac, I have a Wintendo. The Wintendo has certain games that kick a** and don't run on the Mac.

Score: 0

By g.raj

edited Jan 12, 2006 - 3:50 AM

For me, Il like to run Windows on Apple hardware. I like Apple hardware but Im sceptical about the OSx. Here are some of my comments, not intending to insult anyone or the os.

I had my hands on the iMac G5 64 bit & code/run a c program to display the bits of a number. It probably not the best way, but it works. It showed 16 (which is 32 bit) & not 32 (for 64 bit). So, Im happy with the Hardware, but not the software.

I also feel that Windows users allows users to focus on their job & installing few applications makes windows very fast. With OSX, everything starts in 2-10 seconds. Firefox starts in 4 seconds. Personally, I would like Quartz turned off & use the processing power to work on the speed.

Another annoying thing is that OSx users cant create a new file with the mouse. This is a fatal mistake as I use this very often in Windows/Linux.

The terminal is black & white, not colors (try ls --color *linux*), Although theres a hack to it, I find it completely important to have this as an option.

Once in 20 times in iMac, the Osx Crashes with a grey box (before software upgrade)

Almost everytime its used used for dial up internet, it will disconnect after 2 minutes always & request a redial in which it would be stable. Downloads are faster than windows at this point.

There are lacking tools for OSx, I would use lots of Java applications but for Web Designing & RAD tools, Windows has a better share in productivity.

Windows on the other hand has loads of problems with drivers & viruses. These are easily solved with good hardware (thats y i would choose apple) & disciplined surfing/internet usage.

In short, Il Use Windows for Web Design & Making application with RAD tools. Il Use OSX for Server Side applications, Java & Unix based scripting. Both are equally needed for a developer.

I love OSX on Apple but it seems to be a patch job over bsd & needs to go a long way. Bios or EFI, Im sure its within time someone will figure out a way to beat the system.

Score: 0

By Thalagyrt

edited Jan 12, 2006 - 2:31 PM

Re g.raj:

Try ls -G for a color listing. OS X is a BSD based OS, not a GNU based OS. GNU doesn't use the BSD options, hence ls --color will not work on a BSD system.

Also, Quartz actually speeds things up. Read up a bit on how it works - It's an OpenGL UI accelerator. It doesn't speed up program processing or loading, it speeds up the user interface itself. I share the gripe about the development tools. XCode is great, but Interface Builder is a program straight from hell.

Score: 0

By Thrudheim

edited Jan 12, 2006 - 10:29 AM

"The terminal is black & white, not colors (try ls --color *linux*), Although theres a hack to it, I find it completely important to have this as an option."

Um, you just need to use the "Window Settings" menu item to set the colors you want. No "hack" is needed. Sheesh.

Score: 0

By kklord

edited Jan 12, 2006 - 12:46 AM

Psh! I already have Mac OS X Tiger, Windows XP and Linux on my computer (PC) months ago... So this is nothing new (except its now "offical" and on mac hardware)..

Meh..

Score: 0

By danwarne

edited Jan 12, 2006 - 12:43 AM

All Intel 945 chipset boards support EFI and boot Windows no problems.

Intel recently created a new compatibility layer for EFI to allow standard x86 operating systems that don't directly support EFI to boot.

See: http://www.intel.com/technology/framework/

Also, this Q&A is useful on the subject:
http://www.intel.com/tec...ogy/framework/qanda.htm

Especially this bit:
"Yes. The Framework provides the capability to support legacy BIOS interfaces through the Compatibility Support Module (CSM), allowing the system vendors to continue using the operating systems and tools they use today as they make a gradual and managed transition to EFI. A typical CSM is approximately 60 KB (38 KB compressed) of firmware that is specific to each Participating BIOS Vendor and is based on that Vendor's latest BIOS code base."

Presumably Apple didn't try to write its own BIOS, so one would imagine that a Compatibility Support Module is available for the motherboard use in Intel Macs. I hope anyway.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jan 12, 2006 - 5:12 PM

EFI has been on a Certain Gateway PCs for some time now... (Gateway 610 Media Center)

Score: 0

By farrellj

edited Jan 11, 2006 - 7:23 PM

I give it about a week after these machines are in the hands of users before someone finds an simple hack that will allow this to happen. Of course, you can already boot Linux on EFI platforms...see here:

http://www.debian.org/re...ble/ia64/apbs05.html.en

Score: 0

By KazVorpal

edited Jan 11, 2006 - 8:25 PM

Let's be realistic, people...Apple has always been a very monopolistic-behaving computer maker. Of course that's much of why they've never had kept a significant market share. They have always insisted on a closed platform, and they absolutely hated the short time they actually deigned to license out a few machines to clone makers, whom they always mistreated.

And this is no different. They're surely happy to make it as difficult to boot a competing OS on their hardware as possible, just as they've specifically gone out of their way to NOT make the OS boot on the open platform that most other OSs, like Windows and Linux, use.

Among other things, this gives them the opportunity to remain the most overpriced personal computing platform out there.

Score: 0

By tedd4u

edited Jan 12, 2006 - 5:09 PM

Wrong. Apple is a hardware company. Once you've bought the hardware they could care less if you put Windows on it--it doesn't affect their sales.

Conversely, Apple hardware sales would take a big hit if you could install MAC OS X on Windows... even illegally.

Score: 0

By AntiochMedia

posted Jan 11, 2006 - 7:13 PM

Great! Sounds like Apple is doing things their way and that we'll just need to wait for 3rd Parties to make compatibility software or a wrapper of sorts.

Sounds good to me - I am not a gamer and use mostly open source software with the exception of a few speciality softs -- SWiSH being one of the big things I'd like compatibility for (or a Mac Version).

Score: 0

By debugged

posted Jan 11, 2006 - 6:52 PM

Well yes, but if the EFI implementation includes the CSM module, Windows XP could boot on an intel mac. The CSM emulates a normal PC BIOS. If Apple used a reference implementation of EFI from intel, then the CSM module is probably in there.

Bigger problem will probably be the different ways in how hard disks are partitioned. (Can read windows xp a partition table that is made on osx?)

Score: 0

By firewire

edited Jan 11, 2006 - 6:26 PM

EFI sounds like it has some futore for new cool viruses :/

Score: 0

By citizen420

posted Jan 11, 2006 - 5:07 PM

hmm, when 64 bit macbooks come out, is when ill buy one. i want dual boot, but xp no support macbook, but as far as i kno xp64 dose (any1 kno about win 2003?). AND NO!, im not gonna use vista.

Score: 0

By acey99

posted Jan 11, 2006 - 4:11 PM

yeah, but will it run Win Apps ??

Remember there's virtual Pc & Wine, who cares about Dual - boot.

Score: 0

By Pixelsmack

posted Jan 11, 2006 - 3:45 PM

For the skinny on what you're NOT getting with the new Macbooks.

http://www.unsanity.org/archives/000445.php

Score: 0

By nate

edited Jan 11, 2006 - 6:49 PM

Honestly, that rant goes a bit overboard in order to get linked on Digg.

FireWire 800? Moderately useful, but how many mobile users will require that? I'd rather have more USB 2.0 ports.

No dual layer burning? Lame, yes. But how many people burn dual layer DVDs in their notebook? Hell, I've never burned one ever.

60 pixels less? The screen is actually bigger than previous PowerBook displays. Only in the most recent revision did Apple make the resolution larger, and it made things far too small.

The name sucks? Granted, but so what?

No modem? If you're one of the 2% of people who still needs a modem, pay an extra $30 and buy one. For the other 98%, we'd rather have a smaller laptop.

Score: 0

By admcs13

edited Jan 11, 2006 - 4:43 PM

MUCH more than 2% of people need a modem. About HALF of Americans who access the internet do so via broadband connections, and only 35% of adult Americans have broadband in their homes.

Score: 0

By bobobob

edited Jan 11, 2006 - 5:12 PM

Most laptop users connect wirelessly, anyway. And most people that don't have broadband either can't afford it, or don't want to spend the cash. People that shell out $2000 on a laptop would probably not have these problems.

Score: 0

By Adrian79

posted Jan 11, 2006 - 3:20 PM

man this is getting good 2 years back...all of this talk would NEVER have been thought possible!! lovin this

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jan 11, 2006 - 3:22 PM

Many folks, myself included, learned the hard way never to say things like, "It'll never happen." again, that's for sure.

Score: 0

By Fickleflame

posted Jan 11, 2006 - 2:35 PM

IT WORKS!!! I got OS X (Intel) to boot on my laptop! I now have a XP/OSX system!!!!

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Jan 11, 2006 - 2:37 PM

Where did you get OS X for Intel? I want to buy it, and do the same thing...

Score: 0

By photocrimes

posted Jan 11, 2006 - 2:40 PM

http://www.opensource.ap...es/darwinx86-801.iso.gz

Score: 0

By Fickleflame

posted Jan 11, 2006 - 3:16 PM

you will need to register before you can download.

Score: 0

By Banquo

posted Jan 11, 2006 - 3:25 PM

Darwin is not OSX

Score: 0

By skimore

posted Jan 11, 2006 - 9:47 PM

Lot's of people are using OSx10.4.x in VMware and norml PC hardware. xxx.xplodenet.com/blog/

Apple is all about FreeBSD. Why should anyone make an OS when they can get someone else to do it for them for free. Then rip/mod it and you got something..

Score: 0

By Fickleflame

posted Jan 12, 2006 - 10:47 AM

I think you guys miss understood. This isn't Darwin.

Score: 0

By Banquo

edited Jan 12, 2006 - 3:38 PM

What? It says Darwin right in the file name: darwinx86-801.iso.gz

Darwin is just the kernel, all you get with it is a command line interface. There is no GUI, no Aqua buttons, no Apple applications, etc. It's open source so you can download it; you cannot download OSX.

Score: 0

By Floodland

edited Jan 11, 2006 - 2:09 PM

Mhh, just give us some time... I see a problem in the boot loader and partitions rather than BIOS-EFI.
I also think apple should open OS X to any x86 computer rather worrying about install ugly Windoze on Macs.

Score: 0

By Das mod

posted Jan 11, 2006 - 2:07 PM

opening OSX is not a good idea because anyone would build a "budget" pc and install it,
which translates into bad business for apple since nobody would be willing to buy overpriced hardware from them anymore.

Score: 0

By Kompressor

posted Jan 12, 2006 - 11:49 AM

The real money is made in software. Microsoft is a perfect example. While money can be made with hardware, it is more general where software is more personal and people tend to gravitate to one standard for a number of reasons, two in this case relating to usability and compatibility. If Apple played their cards right, they could give Microsoft's flagship software (Windows) a run for their money. The Mac OS is the only one that can truly compete with and threaten Microsoft, and Apple could still sell their hardware to businesses and loyal consumers. Opening the Mac OS to the masses would be a smart move in my opinion.

Score: 0

By Floodland

posted Jan 11, 2006 - 2:30 PM

I don't think so. Microsoft built their evil empire selling software. Apple could improve their market share trough software and later improve their hardware sales.
There are many reasons for buying a Mac, being the best design the more evident. Not everything is price. Maybe if you buy a bugdet :) PC and install OS X on it, it will work as bad as Windows.

Score: 0

By xyzcb1

posted Jan 11, 2006 - 4:38 PM

I don't understand how Microsoft is evil and Apple is not? Apple sell thoe most over priced hardware ever.

Score: 0

By fractured

edited Jan 12, 2006 - 9:38 AM

Apple hardware is actually not that bad, price-wise, when you look at similarly performing PCs. Granted, the peripherals and expansion cards are more expensive. It seems a little off that I'd have to pay $250 for a video card that would be $100 for a PC.

Score: 0

By gawd21

edited Jan 12, 2006 - 3:05 PM

What? "Apple hardware is actually not that bad, price-wise, when you look at similarly performing PCs."

You are crazy. The "PC" as you call it, would have to be a very cheap and old one to be as slow and incumbent as the newest MAC. There is no comparing the two. MACs aren't able to do anything better than a Windows Box! Windows has more supported apps and hardware. MACs have very little. I have still never found out what a MAC can do that Windows can't do better. Don't get into the virus crap as that will turn around as you will see and security flaws aren't there either. Take out anyone trying to hack the computer, and tell me what they do better with their slower and proprietary MACs.

Score: 0

By fitchmicah

edited Mar 9, 2006 - 11:16 PM

You know, you keep talking about this "MAC" thing... Are you talking about an ethernet hardware address? Must be.

Score: 0

By fractured

edited Feb 28, 2006 - 1:57 PM

I suppose I must be crazy. I build PCs for music. I know how to make a "blazing fast" machine, tweak out Win XP to be stable and operate it well. I do, however, use MacIntoshes for my main machines. It is because they are functional and stable out of the box. The installers for software are designed elegantly. I could buy a car that runs very fast. I would not necessarily enjoy driving it. That is because there is more than just raw speed involved. The interface is important. I wouldn't drive a clunky car just because it goes from point A to point B quickly. I want to enjoy the ride and know that I won't be caught on the highway with nothing but a blue window in front of me, needing to restart my car while the other cars around me fly past. Of course, the bulk of the cars careening toward me may very well also stop suddenly right before hitting me, as they are probably running Windows, too.

Score: 0

By riegel

posted Jan 12, 2006 - 4:15 PM

> Don't get into the virus crap

Hmmm, so you concede one area where the Mac is better. Wow, I imagine there would be many more concessions if you knew a little bit about the Mac.

Score: 0

By gawd21

edited Jan 12, 2006 - 6:06 PM

That has NOTHING to do with MAC being better or worse, that is a third person trying to hack your computer. Not all Windows boxes or MACs are on the net to get viruses.

EDIT: "Hmmm, so you concede one area where the Mac is better. Wow, I imagine there would be many more concessions if you knew a little bit about the Mac."
Then why hasn't anyone been able to state a fact to prove anything that MAC can do better? Not an opinion, but a fact that can be proven with numbers.

Score: 0

By Odd

edited Jan 21, 2006 - 7:15 PM

Why is it that the Apple folks have to prove they are better to you? Are you the ultimate decider of what is or isn't better? BTW dude, I don't own or use a Mac at all, I own 4 XP PCs. But man you are acting lke a butthole.

Score: 0

By Banquo

posted Jan 11, 2006 - 2:22 PM

Also one of the things that helps make OSX so stable is that Apple doesn't have to support the bajillions of generic expansion cards out there. If they opened OSX to all hardware they'd have to support it all. It would be a horrible business decision.

Score: 0

By Paradise-FH-

posted Jan 11, 2006 - 3:02 PM

yeah you're right. supporting a crap load of hardware has absolutely killed windows.

people don't want choices.

Score: 0

By Banquo

edited Jan 11, 2006 - 3:27 PM

I'm talking about stability smart aleck. Also Microsoft is not a hardware company, they aren't selling computers.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jan 11, 2006 - 3:13 PM

It explains pretty much 80% (probably more) of windows crash and instability support issues.

Easily. So, while you may have been joking, you were actually dead on. Most of the rants about Windows XP problems (Not security issues) arise from the use of substandard hardware.

Score: 0

By kholdstare

posted Jan 12, 2006 - 2:57 PM

exactly windows XP is a rock solid OS. the problem is there tpp much hardware you can put in it and too many programs that can crash it. most crashes theat happen in windows are probly not the fault of the main windows system.

Score: 0

By photocrimes

posted Jan 11, 2006 - 1:57 PM

Lol, Banquo and I must of posted about the same time. Looks like we agree on the Pinto ;-)

Score: 0

By Banquo

posted Jan 11, 2006 - 2:23 PM

The poor Pinto gets no respect. :D

Score: 0