• This forum is for posting news stories or links from rumor sites. When you start a thread, please include a link to the site you're referencing.

    THIS IS NOT A FORUM TO ASK "WHAT IF?" TYPE QUESTIONS.

    THIS IS NOT A FORUM FOR ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW TO USE YOUR MAC OR SOFTWARE.

    This is a NEWS and RUMORS forum as the name implies. If your thread is neither of those things, then please find the appropriate forum to ask your question.

    If you don't have a link to a news story, do not post the thread here.

    If you don't follow these rules, then your post may be deleted.

No XP on intel Macs?

Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
670
Reaction score
23
Points
18
Location
Ceres, Ca
Your Mac's Specs
iPad 32 GB 3G
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29710

Basically says that Apple has made it next to impossible to install XP on their new machines, even while claiming that they have done nothing to prevent it. Kind of disapointing really, if true, I think Apple has shot themselves in the foot. Running windows in a VM is just to slow and not a very viable solution for people that absolutly have to run windows programs.
 
Joined
Jun 1, 2005
Messages
184
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Right, I thought I read somewhere that only XPx64 can run on the new intel macs, and Windows Vista will have full ability to run on the intel macs...I thought I also read somewhere that it was more of an issue for microsoft to make it compatible on the new macs and not the other way around? (Hence XPx64 and Vista have capatibility on the new intel macs, Windows didn't want to rewrite old code) Correct me if I'm wrong.

Smesh
 
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
1,229
Reaction score
75
Points
48
Your Mac's Specs
2.6GHz Core i7 15" MacBook Pro - 8GB DDR3 SDRAM - 750GB 7200 RPM HDD - GeForce 650M GT 1GB VRAM
dan828 said:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29710

Basically says that Apple has made it next to impossible to install XP on their new machines, even while claiming that they have done nothing to prevent it. Kind of disapointing really, if true, I think Apple has shot themselves in the foot. Running windows in a VM is just to slow and not a very viable solution for people that absolutly have to run windows programs.
Apple has done nothing to prevent this. Intel has by using EFI with the Core Duo. Vista will be made to run on Macs within a week of its release since it's EFI-compliant.
 
OP
dan828
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
670
Reaction score
23
Points
18
Location
Ceres, Ca
Your Mac's Specs
iPad 32 GB 3G
smeshy123 said:
Right, I thought I read somewhere that only XPx64 can run on the new intel macs, and Windows Vista will have full ability to run on the intel macs...I thought I also read somewhere that it was more of an issue for microsoft to make it compatible on the new macs and not the other way around? (Hence XPx64 and Vista have capatibility on the new intel macs, Windows didn't want to rewrite old code) Correct me if I'm wrong.

Smesh

Why would XPx64 run on the new macs? The new Intel chips aren't 64 bit. And thus far, no one has gotten any of the current iterations of Vista to run on a new mac. If you read the article you'd have seen that there seem to be some inherent incompatibilities with windows in it's current form with Apple's implementation of EFI.
 
OP
dan828
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
670
Reaction score
23
Points
18
Location
Ceres, Ca
Your Mac's Specs
iPad 32 GB 3G
Discerptor said:
Apple has done nothing to prevent this. Intel has by using EFI with the Core Duo. Vista will be made to run on Macs within a week of its release since it's EFI-compliant.

Core Duo's don't require EFI. There are several models of windows Core Duo laptops on the market that don't use it. And as I said above, current versions of Vista don't work on the intel Macs, the article suggested it might not be that easy to get even Vista working.
 
K

Kokopelli

Guest
1) EFI is superior in most every way to a traditional Bios, and
2) Intel would really like to see computer manufacturers use it.

It is quite possible Apple is took EFI as part of the deal with Intel.

Yes EFI does have the capability of providing the hooks that more traditional bootloaders are looking for but why would Apple go to the extra expense of doing that? Also without the heavier translation between CPU types VPC should be quite acceptable for most purposes, as could darwine and company.

Put another way I fail to see why it is unreasonable for Apple to not go to the expense of making it easy to install an OS that the company has no intention of ever supporting. Apple is in the business of selling Macs running OS X. (And iPods + ITMS)

When Vista comes out there is a pretty good chance that will install. I guess we will have to live with that unless someone clever comes up with a hack.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
12,455
Reaction score
604
Points
113
Location
PA
Your Mac's Specs
MacBook
dan828 said:
....Basically says that Apple has made it next to impossible to install XP on their new machines, even while claiming that they have done nothing to prevent it. Kind of disapointing really, if true, I think Apple has shot themselves in the foot.
I really don't see how that is... Like it has been said, Apple is in the business to make computers that run their OS... the one that they can support because it runs on the hardware setups that they design. To make it possible for their systems to run their primary competitor's software would make no sense. It would be like Whirlpool making a dishwasher that can use the exact same parts as a Maytag model. They are two companies in competition with each other.
dan828 said:
Running windows in a VM is just to slow and not a very viable solution for people that absolutly have to run windows programs.
I agree. But then again if you absolutely must run that many Windows programs, then a Mac is not going to be the best choice of computer for you. This is why there is choice. You don't have to use a Mac exclusively and you don't have to use a Windows machine exclusively. If you want to be the most productive and "on top" of things computer-wise, then it would be wise to have seperate machines, each running the OS they were designed to run. Why would anyone want to "switch" from one to the other and limit themselves to only one platform? When a person does "switch" and "ditch" another platform, that is a much better example of someone "shooting themself in the foot".
 
B

bfx

Guest
I agree. But then again if you absolutely must run that many Windows programs, then a Mac is not going to be the best choice of computer for you. This is why there is choice. You don't have to use a Mac exclusively and you don't have to use a Windows machine exclusively. If you want to be the most productive and "on top" of things computer-wise, then it would be wise to have seperate machines, each running the OS they were designed to run. Why would anyone want to "switch" from one to the other and limit themselves to only one platform? When a person does "switch" and "ditch" another platform, that is a much better example of someone "shooting themself in the foot".

Both well said and true. And as long as both Apple OS and Windows OS exist each will have strengths and weaknesses for those needing a wide range of apps to do their work efficiently.

Just use the best of each on seperate systems so one can be doing it's part of the projects while the other does it parts.

bfx
 
OP
dan828
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
670
Reaction score
23
Points
18
Location
Ceres, Ca
Your Mac's Specs
iPad 32 GB 3G
D3v1L80Y said:
I really don't see how that is... Like it has been said, Apple is in the business to make computers that run their OS... the one that they can support because it runs on the hardware setups that they design. To make it possible for their systems to run their primary competitor's software would make no sense. It would be like Whirlpool making a dishwasher that can use the exact same parts as a Maytag model. They are two companies in competition with each other. I agree. But then again if you absolutely must run that many Windows programs, then a Mac is not going to be the best choice of computer for you. This is why there is choice. You don't have to use a Mac exclusively and you don't have to use a Windows machine exclusively. If you want to be the most productive and "on top" of things computer-wise, then it would be wise to have separate machines, each running the OS they were designed to run. Why would anyone want to "switch" from one to the other and limit themselves to only one platform? When a person does "switch" and "ditch" another platform, that is a much better example of someone "shooting themself in the foot".

The thing is, dual booting systems exist right now, and they aren't made by Apple.

Hacked versions of OSX86 are all over the place (from bit torrents to the USENET, just about anyone can get a copy now). And people report using dead stock dells and HPs, not to mention custom built machines people have built from the ground up to ensure compatibility. Working versions of 10.4.5 have been installed and are successfully dual-booting with XP on the same machine.

As of now, if you want a dual booting machine for whatever reason, your choice is to buy non-apple hardware and pirate OSX, period. Many people are doing this and Apple isn't making a dime off of it. That's why I said Apple has shot themselves in the foot. I've been reading to forums at the osx86project.com website and many of the people there say they would buy OSX86 if they could or would purchase a mac if it would dual boot. But they can't.

Hey, that's Apple's choice, but I'd think it would be in their best interest to make it easier to run windows on their Intel machines. Had dual booting been possible, the laptops I just bought for people where I work would likely have been MacBooks, but as it isn't, there was no way I could justify the purchase.
 
Joined
Dec 16, 2005
Messages
37
Reaction score
0
Points
6
Location
Indiana
Your Mac's Specs
12" iBook 1.33
Scream all you want, but, I'd rather see OSX working on PCs. I have 5 Windows machines, mostly built from scratch. I'd love to be able to switch the family over to Tiger.....unfortunately the cost of new computers is out of the question. I love my iBook, I have been a serious Mac convert since I got it for Christmas.
 
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
749
Reaction score
6
Points
18
Your Mac's Specs
Powerbook G4/ 15.2"/ 1.67 ghz/ 2 gb RAM/ ATI Mobility Radeon 9700 (128 mb RAM)/ 100 gb hdd@ 5400 RPM
Ya, Apple is SOOOOOOOOO stupid for not allowing their biggest software competitor's flagship product to be able to work on their hardware... I mean, geez, what kind of buisness decision is that?
 
K

Kokopelli

Guest
dan828 said:
The thing is, dual booting systems exist right now, and they aren't made by Apple.

Hacked versions of OSX86 are all over the place (from bit torrents to the USENET, just about anyone can get a copy now). And people report using dead stock dells and HPs, not to mention custom built machines people have built from the ground up to ensure compatibility. Working versions of 10.4.5 have been installed and are successfully dual-booting with XP on the same machine.

As of now, if you want a dual booting machine for whatever reason, your choice is to buy non-apple hardware and pirate OSX, period. Many people are doing this and Apple isn't making a dime off of it. That's why I said Apple has shot themselves in the foot. I've been reading to forums at the osx86project.com website and many of the people there say they would buy OSX86 if they could or would purchase a mac if it would dual boot. But they can't.

Hey, that's Apple's choice, but I'd think it would be in their best interest to make it easier to run windows on their Intel machines. Had dual booting been possible, the laptops I just bought for people where I work would likely have been MacBooks, but as it isn't, there was no way I could justify the purchase.

Even if Apple made it easy to dual boot, I dount that would cut down on the piracy and installs on non-Apple hardware. Releasing a OS X retail copy might get a few of the pirates to buy a license, but I doubt very many. (It would still be an unlicensed copy on the non-Apple machine, but at least Apple will have gotten a little bit of money off them.) I have found people talk grand and noble intentions when they know their statements will never be realized.

Similarly the number of extra sales Apple would get by making MacBooks easily dual bootable is not significant I think. There would be a few, as in your case. But the majority of businesses would want the Operating System in use on the laptops to be supported by the manufacturer, which regardless of ease of install Apple would not do.

I do grant there would probably be an increase in sales of presonal machines, particularly in the college bound. I still find it unlikely that these sales would make it worth the significant effort of Apple building a compatibility layer that they would never use. In fact the building of it would be Mac going out of their way to ensure compatibility, which goes beyond "not trying to stop."
 
OP
dan828
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
670
Reaction score
23
Points
18
Location
Ceres, Ca
Your Mac's Specs
iPad 32 GB 3G
It's not that I'm upset or anything. I rarely get upset about computers. I like to play with them, and like both Macs and PCs. EFI can have legacy BIOS support-- it's already around and wouldn't have cost Apple much if at all to have put on their new computers. It'd have made it easy to install XP, and frankly I think it'd have made it much easier for people to justify buying a Mac to know that they could dual boot on a single machine. As for OSX on PCs, the furthest I'd expect Apple to go would be, we'll sell it to you and not try and break it with every update, but don't expect any support at all from us-- put it on non-apple hardware and you are on your own. They might loose some hardware sales, but then again, they might gain them because so many people would be exposed to their OS that they might want to go whole-hog and buy a fully supported Apple system. People buy name brand computers for the support they get, or because they don't have the technical expertise or desire to build their own. Most people want to buy a complete system and then not have to mess with it.
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2004
Messages
10,345
Reaction score
597
Points
113
Location
Margaritaville
Your Mac's Specs
3.4 Ghz i7 MacBook Pro (2015), iPad Pro (2014), iPhone Xs Max. Apple TV 4K
Apple has plans for Mac users to be able to run OSX, Windows and Linux simultaneously in the future. These would not be dual boot systems as much as multi-boot systems, being able to run all 3 OSs at once with the ability to switch between them without a reboot. As such, Vista and Linux will eventually run just fin on Macs.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2005
Messages
6,188
Reaction score
254
Points
83
Location
New Jersey
Your Mac's Specs
Mac Pro 8x3.0ghz 12gb ram 8800GT , MBP 2.16 2GB Ram 17 inch.
baggss said:
Apple has plans for Mac users to be able to run OSX, Windows and Linux simultaneously in the future. These would not be dual boot systems as much as multi-boot systems, being able to run all 3 OSs at once with the ability to switch between them without a reboot. As such, Vista and Linux will eventually run just fin on Macs.

What are your sources on that information, It sounds really ineresting, as I want to be able to run windows on my mac so that If I was to buy a mac intel laptop, I would not have to carry around two laptops and I can only carry one, Although in the future I still plan on having two desktop computers as it seams to be more organized that way.
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2004
Messages
10,345
Reaction score
597
Points
113
Location
Margaritaville
Your Mac's Specs
3.4 Ghz i7 MacBook Pro (2015), iPad Pro (2014), iPhone Xs Max. Apple TV 4K
THIS and THIS are the two most revealing articles.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2005
Messages
6,188
Reaction score
254
Points
83
Location
New Jersey
Your Mac's Specs
Mac Pro 8x3.0ghz 12gb ram 8800GT , MBP 2.16 2GB Ram 17 inch.
baggss said:
THIS and THIS are the two most revealing articles.

Thanks for the articles, very interesting.
 
Joined
Apr 8, 2005
Messages
472
Reaction score
23
Points
18
I got a Mac to get away from the windows environment, with that said where I work they have both, they both have a job to do and do it. I hope windows can never run on a Mac.. Who needs it?? I can do everything at work that a pc can do.
 
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
688
Reaction score
26
Points
28
Your Mac's Specs
iMac 17" Intel Core Duo 1.83GHz 512 MB Ram 128 vRAM 60GB HD
yeah the ONLY problem I've ever had with a mac is not being able to run Rome: Total War on it. But, I made that decision when I got the mac. I bought it knowingly, and I still have Windows machines to satisfy my need to kick Carthage's ***.
 

Shop Amazon


Shop for your Apple, Mac, iPhone and other computer products on Amazon.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Top