Reports spreading across the web that Intel Macs can’t boot Windows XP might be inaccurate, reports Dan Warne for APC Magazine.
“Tech journos far and wide have been quick to jump on the story that while Apple says it isn’t doing anything to specifically prevent people from installing Windows on an Intel-based Mac, the new Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI) that Apple is using on the new Macs won’t work with current generations of Windows,” Warne reports. “EFI is the next-generation replacement for the 20-year-old BIOS, the oldest part of modern PCs which is in desperate need of an overhaul. EFI allows devices in the PC to be initialised before the operating system boots, and has features like full network support before the PC has even booted, allowing drivers to be downloaded and updated before an operating system loads.”
“However, Intel Australia, while being careful not to comment on Apple’s hardware specifically, says motherboards based on the Intel 945 chipset already support EFI and can boot Windows with no problems,” Warne reports. “This cryptic statement can’t be taken as full reassurance though: it may be that 945 boards support EFI but do not come with it installed by default. Officially, Microsoft says it will support EFI natively with Windows Vista, so it’s almost certain that Intel-based MacBook Pros and iMacs will be able to boot Vista when it is released later this year. But a year is a long time in computing and there would be great utility for many users in a notebook that could run Windows XP during work time and OS X at home, or one that could easily be rebooted to Windows to play the latest games.”
“A Mac that can legally run Windows/Linux/OS X on the one box is the ‘ultimate PC’ in compatibility terms, which should further drive hardware sales. Considering Apple includes the operating system with every Mac purchase, its OS revenue isn’t endangered by allowing people to install Windows on a Mac post-sale,” Warne writes. “Of course, Apple can’t condone or encourage running Windows on Macs, because that would cause Mac developers to question whether they should continue investing in the OS X platform if Apple is not fully committed. It’s a ‘wink wink, nod nod’ situation, where Apple must know that allowing users to run Windows on a Mac can only help boost Apple’s bottom-line.”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Note: APC is awaiting an official response from Microsoft USA on how Windows XP works with EFI. They promise to update their article when they get new information.
Advertisements:
• MacBook Pro. The first Mac notebook built upon Intel Core Duo with iLife ’06, Front Row and built-in iSight. Starting at $1999. Free shipping.
• iMac. Twice as amazing — Intel Core Duo, iLife ’06, Front Row media experience, Apple Remote, built-in iSight. Starting at $1299. Free shipping.
• iMac and MacBook Pro owners: Apple USB Modem. Easily connect to the Internet using dial-up service. $49.00.
• iPod Radio Remote. Listen to FM radio on your iPod and control everything with a convenient wired remote. Just $49.
• iPod. 15,000 songs. 25,000 photos. 150 hours of video. The new iPod. 30GB and 60GB models start at just $299. Free shipping.
• Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Apple + Intel’s Vanderpool could equal Windows compatibility in Mac OS X – January 09, 2006
Is Steve Jobs prepping ‘The Cupertino Project’ – Intel-based Macs that will run Windows apps, too? – December 27, 2005
Report: Apple contracts with Intel for design of next-gen Power Mac motherboard – December 27, 2005
Report: Quanta and Asustek to partner with Apple on new Intel-based iBooks and PowerBooks – December 27, 2005
Intel ‘Yonah’ specs, performance detailed; processor expected to power first Apple Intel-based Macs – December 22, 2005
Move to Intel-based Macs one of the most important switches Apple has ever made – December 22, 2005
It’s official: Apple CEO Steve Jobs to deliver Macworld San Francisco 2006 keynote address – December 01, 2005
Will future Intel-based Apple Macs offer multiple OS worlds via virtualization? – November 16, 2005
Apple patent application designed to prevent Mac OS X from running on non-Apple hardware – November 09, 2005
Apple patent application describes Intel-based Macs that run Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows – November 05, 2005
How Apple can win the OS war – October 19, 2005
Is Apple morphing Mac into the ultimate PC capable of running Mac OS X, Windows, Linux? – June 20, 2005
Intel’s built-in virtualization tech could be one way to run Windows on Intel-based Apple Macs – June 16, 2005
Apple CEO Steve Jobs’ ultimate goal: ‘to take back the computer business from Microsoft’ – June 16, 2005
Intel-based Macs running both Mac OS X and Windows will be good for Apple – June 10, 2005
Why buy a Dell when Apple ‘Macintel’ computers will run both Mac OS X and Windows? – June 08, 2005
Will developers stop writing Mac applications if Apple ‘Macintel’ computers can run Windows? – June 08, 2005
Windows users who try Apple’s Mac OS X Tiger might not want to go back – June 07, 2005
Microsoft: The safest way to run Windows is on your Mac – October 08, 2004
A universal booting Mac will be the end of Mac OS X as the eventual progression of lazy developers insisting Mac users boot into Vista to run their software
Apple needs to protect themselves from the 95% market share of Windows to force developers to (easily) compile for Mac OS X at the same time as Vista.
According to my calculations, Windows should run like it does everywhere else – like shite!
Development costs and low market share is the reason many games and programs like AutoCad don’t spend the resources to compile for Mac OS X.
If Apple can reduce that cost substancially, making it almost effortless to compile Windows code for Mac OS X, then it would be a attractive option for them.
We get all the Windows software compiled for our OS without having to run Windows at all.
Why boot Windows when you don’t have too? Right?
It’s all the third party Windows software we want.
What are you smoking, MacDude? My understanding is it’s an extended, and expensive, process. Intel chips will probably allow recompiled programs to run better in OS X, but do you have any basis for thinking that this will result in major savings in developer time/money? Really, I’m curious to know if you have any facts to back this up. (And I hope you do!)
Jake
If Apple has not removed EFIs built-in compatibility with BIOS – and hence XP – it should be fine. What MacDailyNews didn’t quote:
“Some clues on legacy operating system compatibility with EFI might be found in Intel’s EFI mini-site, specifically the part about a new compatibility framework that it created recently. From page four. […] [Technical stuff] […] So, as long as Apple has included a Compatibility Support Module, Intel-based Macs should be able to boot XP. It seems unlikely that Apple would have left this out. It has already said it isn’t doing anything to prevent Windows from booting on a Mac.”
Why would I want to boot into XP/Vista for?
It’s all the third party Windows software we want.
sooooo.. what I’ve said lots since the intel announcement….
Whats the point of writing OSX programs if a single computer can run both OS’s?
If the problem is the Operating System, then why would you want to boot it on a Mac?
“EFI allows devices in the PC to be initialised before the operating system boots, and has features like full network support before the PC has even booted, allowing drivers to be downloaded and updated before an operating system loads.”
Does this worry anyone else? It seems like a potential way to bypass OS security.
I’ll stick with VPC & 2000 Pro for the one proprietary app that I have to be able to demo – even if it means waiting for VPC 8 before I get a Mactel.
For those that have to have access to Win the VPC route is, I’ve found’ the best way. You can isolate it from the internet – avoiding malware – and it actually runs better (not faster) than on a PC. No crashes in the time I have used it, but I use it very little.
All dual booting does is open you up to a lot of problems. VPC 8 is going to be significantly faster because it can directly go to the Intel hardware. That should be fast enough for most people who need to get into Win.
The really interesting thing about new Mac computers that no one has answered yet is, what have Apple done to stop OSX ending up on PCs?
Have Apple used a more secure technology tan they used with the dev kits to keep OSX away from the 95% market share?
If OSX is widely pirated how will Apple respond?
Personally I am looking forward to owning a 17″ Macbook Pro when it arrives. It will be my first Mac….first of many!
I don’t see developers abandoning mac development just because you can run windows. It’s like telling the customer to go out and buy a copy of Vista, hopefully it doesn’t require any extra workaround to get it running properly and is stable and then buy our software and install it on windows.
I don’t think so.
The company that develops native OS X software will get the business over the one that doesn’t.
“A Mac that can legally run Windows/Linux/OS X on the one box is the ‘ultimate PC’ in compatibility terms…”
I already have the ultimate PC, it’s called a POWERMAC G5 and it doesn’t need a cheap, faulty, imitation OS running side by side with the best.
I’d like to see a UNIX based OS integrated into a pair of Dingos that would measure and adjust for comfort in real-time. Why?
‘Cause those boots are made for walkin’! And that’s not all they’ll do. <rimshot>
(And re-booting could be quite awkward and embarassing. Wear clean socks.)
ROFLMAO at Ampar’s statement…
ampar and the macdaddyoh are spot on. i have a G5 iMac; why would i sully it by wanting to run ‘doze on it. doing so would be much like pouring fecal material on it. dull is for ‘doze; Macs are for lovin’!
Why doesn’t someone try to load Windows on the new iMac and see if it works? If it does, whatever, and if it doesn’t,whatever. OSX is why Macs are selling at record levels so who cares if it boots Windows.
The only ones that might use it are the developers themselves to test cross platform compatability.
I guess the Windoze side of a new Mac could in theory become infected with a virus… oops, I said that in the singular, with many viruses’ mal and spy-wares. I wonder whether there will be some cross-over potential to exploit the OS-X side of a Mac running both OSs.
Ferrari engine in a Ford or a Ford engine in a Ferrari…
Mac OS X on Dell and XP/Vista on an iMac, neither one will be supported by Apple because both configurations are fraught with potential problems. It is only when one company designs BOTH the OS and hardware as a unified tool that it has any hope of stability.
Anyone one that wants anything less will get what they seek.
It’s called brand dilution
Microsoft has the power to copy, and copying Mac OS X is exactly what they are doing.
Right now XP is insecure crapopla, but that can and will change, enough that the differences between Mac OS X and Vista will be little at all. Vista will look good and run good.
Now if we have a dual OS booting Mac, and if developers are lazy and dont’ bother compiling for Mac OS X, insisting Mac users boot into Vista.
What is that going to do for Mac market share?
That’s right, you can trot your MacBook Pro around and be fashionable, but 90% of the time it will be booted in Windows BECASUE THATS WERE ALL THE THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE IS
Eventually Mac users will just use Vista out of neccessity. Just like Apple has to use Intel chips now.
Unless Bill Gates allows Mac OS X to take over Vista market share, we are history with a dual booting Mactel.
“My understanding is it’s an extended, and expensive, process. Intel chips will probably allow recompiled programs to run better in OS X, but do you have any basis for thinking that this will result in major savings in developer time/money? Really, I’m curious to know if you have any facts to back this up. (And I hope you do!)”
My understanding is that SJ said at last year’s WWDC, that due to the switch to Intel Apple’s developer tools would allow developers to easily compile programs
It’s simple; buy a Mac computer that will run both operating systems, and you will eventually gravitate more and more to the OSX side due to it’s superiority to XP , and most probably Vista.
Those of us that have to run a proprietary Windows app can run it, and Apple is the good guy.
I think that will cause developers to write more OSX software, not less.
It may already be happening if you pay attention to press releases, Garmin for GPS apps, for example.
It could also be that VPC on Mac with Intel may run very well. No problem.
Apple will never allow Vista to run on Mactels, Phil was playing with Microsoft when he made that comment.
Phil and Steve full well know the consequences of a 800 lb Gorrilla M$ with 95% in market share sitting on a apple 4%.
M$ would take over in a heartbeat, it’s the internal hardware in PPC Mac’s that’s keeping M$ at bay now, making them produce VPC, but if Mac’s and PC’s were identical inside, nothing would stop M$ from moving in for good.
Intelligent developers are going to want to have their applications run on the most stable platform. Therefore, all else being equal, MAC OS X wins hands down.
Therefore, the notion that developers will not bother developing and compiling for OS X is ludicrous.
Get ready for AAPL to double again.
Even if BIOS compatibility is NOT included on Apple’s EFI … (After all, why would they need it?) you can still boot XP or any version of Windows or Linux by using GRUB which supports EFI and can directly load Windows and Linux. Beyond that it’s a driver issue.
Those commenters who are saying that Windows apps should now be a simple re-compile to run on OS X are confused.
PowerPC OS X apps are a “simple recompile” (as long as they don’t have byte-order issues) for Intel OS X. That’s because the OS, frameworks and APIs remain the same – the code just needs to be turned into a different set of machine language instructions.
Porting apps Windows -> Mac OS X is still a very complex process, because all the OS services are different, the kernel is different, filesytstem is different etc.
The only hurdles that have been eliminated by the Intel switch are the same tiny ones that Mac developers had to jump to get from PPC to Intel. The big ones are all still there.
Here’s an article that I actually emailed its author about:
http://overclockers.com/tips00899
I told him about EFI and advised him to do his homework before flinging poop.
Even if it can’t boot Windows, EFI only or whatever, could an Intel-Mac boot into Linux?
There is no way to beat Microsoft in the desktop market without making OS X available to all x86 architecture.
“There is no way to beat Microsoft in the desktop market without making OS X available to all x86 architecture.”
Steve has said over and over that Apple isn’t trying to beat Microsoft in the OS market.Apple just wants to increase its market share a few points. It would be a big mistake for Apple to try and go for more than that in the forseeable future.
The infrastructure in place in the business world for Windows is formidable. Apple has the best OS, but the best isn’t always the most popular. Being the best comes at a price.
Apple maintains its tight integration of hardware and software by NOT allowing other hardware to run OS X.
1) I’m sure you can’t insert a Windows XP disk into a Mac and let it install. The OS would eject the disk.
2) I’m sure you couldn’t boot to the CD because the EFI would tell you it is not properly formatted for Apple bootup.
3) If you can’t install the disk when you are logged in or do it from bootup, how can you install a new OS?
4) You can’t format the Windows XP disk into a Mac friendly format (because it’s illegal). You can’t change the filesystem to one that is Windows friendly at bootup. You also can’t change the EFI to accept a different type of OS!
5) So how in the world could you ever install another OS in parallel with Mac OS X that isn’t something like Linux. And Linux sucks!
before EFI, apple computers used Open Firmware. Not BIOS, as it seems like this writer implies. PC computers use BIOS
MacDude: get over yourself. Your FUD and extensive doom and gloom don’t play well here. You are just another Windoze Fanboy… how sad that you hide behind a Mac Minded moniker. Vista will no more close the gap between OS X and it’s predecessors than any previous version of Windows did (with maybe the exception of ’95 and that is only because prior iterations were so severely unusable). Only winfans/Mac-haters see it that way. And for the record I have never personally met a Windoze switcher i.e. someone who went from the Mac to ‘Doze because after trying it they just preferred ‘Doze. Not once. I’m sure they exist. But the greater majority of people who try the Mac for more than 15 minutes love it. You’re entitled to your opinion but don’t confuse opinion with reality.
Games you say (well, actually others have said it)? So what… most people don’t go to work to play games. If they do then I would suggest that they do their paper route not on their bikes but as a passengers in their Mommy’s car so they can play their PSP in between delivery throws.
Third party software? I hope you’re not talking about sh!tty little programs like another weather/stock watcher or something else you can easily do with a widget (as an aside I’ve never had a widget bring my system down like any of the hundred or so tray utilities I’ve used on ‘Doze). If you’re talking about WordPerfect or other variants (read altnernatives) to major productivity tools/apps well there’s enough of that on the Mac to get just about any job done that puts food on your table. And if not, well, VPC seems to handle most of that stuff pretty well. And if VPC doesn’t work then use ‘Doze at your own risk and only where necessary (that list is tiny indeed from my experience and we’re talking about everything from retail to research to broadcasting to medicine).
The only way a dual booting Mac hurts the future of the Mac is if viruses frequently wipe out a Mac’s drives while running in Vista. Then the unknowing will most likely blame Apple for not protecting them from ‘Doze vulnerabilities and their credibility will be hurt. That’s something I’ve been saying since the first Intel announcement.
And Billy boy doesn’t need to “ALLOW” anything. Some things are beyond even his control (though I’m sure most WinFans can’t see that). Last I checked he’s been trying like hell to unseat the iTMS/iPod experience with his own brand of entertainment experience. Not many people are buying it. And maybe they won’t ever. I’m the last person to underestimate the tenacity and perserverance of MS. But I am also the last person to discount Steve’s. He’s grown up. Now it’s time for the rest of the computing world. (and it’s already started : }
MacDude wrote:
“BECASUE THATS WERE ALL THE THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE IS”
How many relevant third-party apps are PC only? iLife and Mac Office (for better or worse) are very strong selling points.
“Eventually Mac users will just use Vista out of neccessity.”
My sister just switched TO Mac FROM Windows out of necessity. She couldn’t handle all of Windows’ problems anymore. I bet it’d be a safe to say she isn’t alone.
“we are history with a dual booting Mactel.”
Dual-booting is too much of a hassle to become mainstream. If I were a switcher, I’d just keep my old PC for the Windows stuff I still had to do.
“How many relevant third-party apps are PC only?”
Sigh. Sometimes I wonder why I even try to educate some people. Item: sometime last year I was speaking with an IT tech from a rather large german company and asked him about their migration from Windows 2000 to Windows XP, especially regarding their application testing and certification process for the new OS. Would any of you like to take a guess at how many individual applications they had to test and certify? Come on, be brave. The answer: 11,000 individual apps. And all of them Windows-only. Try recompiling all of that to work on OS X.
Please. Get a clue.
lets look at this from a windows users point of view…now they can have a mac that runs the os that they are used to and keep their software investment. it must feeel good
Super Tim – I was well aware that PPC Macs use Open Firmware (I’m a long time Mac user), but discussing Open Firmware in relation to booting Windows on an Intel Mac would be irrelevant, because Open Firmware has never been used on the Intel platform and never will be. Now Macs are essentially standard PCs, the comparison is with other standard PCs – not PPC Macs!
The ultimate strategy to beat Windows:
1. Mactel.
2. Mac OS X on Dell and HP.
3. Mac OS X on any PC out there.
4. Fully open Mac OS X. As Linux is.
5. Free Mac OS X. As Linux is.
Consequences: Windows and Linux are history!
“Come on, be brave. The answer: 11,000 individual apps.”
The question stands: How many of them are relevant?
Sure, those apps may be critical FOR ONE CUSTOMER. They’re probably custom-built in-house apps. And that company likely buys mass volumes of the lowest-cost PC hardware they can find. For now they’re well outside of Apple’s market.
I’m talking about the consumer market. How many relevant PC-only apps are there that have no non-PC equivalent? Sure there are many thousands of titles, hell even home-improvement stores sell PC apps now. But so what. Better to have the top titles than thousands of also-rans.