Jump to content

Vista can run on FAT32

AirmanPika

By AirmanPika,
in Boot Camp

 Share
117 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

ynniv
ynniv
Posted
Posted

Hey guys, long time lurker, first time poster. Keep up the good work! I don't have an Intel Mac yet, but I'm watching the Windows-on-Mac progress eagerly.

 

AirmanPika said that people are booting Windows XP, but lack video drivers. This would imply that you're 95% of the way there, if only you could prove that your system is actually booting. Luckily for everyone, people run Windows headless all the time - in server farms. The simple solution to accessing Windows in this fashion is to run VNC or Remote Desktop. I wanted to attach a screenshot of a headless (no video card) Windows XP install, but my PC motherboards won't POST without one. I know that Windows 2003 Server will run Terminal Services with no video card, and web searches have turned up people running Windows XP in the same fashion. Note that no video card is a very different situation than no monitor - the OS cannot initialize any graphics services with no video card. I think that running with no video card drivers will be somewhere in between the two - fortunately, Windows XP Remote Desktop works in either situation.

 

Remote Desktop: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/m...ableremote.mspx

VNC: http://www.realvnc.com/gettingstarted.html#3

 

Both of them have Mac, Windows, and Linux clients (showing Mac):

 

Remote Desktop: http://www.microsoft.com/mac/otherproducts...tedesktopclient

VNC: http://www.geekspiff.com/software/cotvnc/

 

At this point, you could take screenshots of your work (unfortunately, they wouldn't have the authentic look of monitor photographs) and have an easier environmet for experimenting with drivers.

 

Cheers!

- Vinny

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AirmanPika
AirmanPika
Posted
  • Author
Posted

Well semi booting Vista NOT XP, XP kinda sorta tried to load once on my iMac but I haven't been able to reproduce whenever I did and I'm sure it would have never made it far as there is no CSM. Vista really just needs the video issue fixed. Also with vista the best I or anyone else seems to have gotten is to get the installer loaded minus the video. Noone had gotten a full install booted yet (always locks up or reboots)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AirmanPika
AirmanPika
Posted
  • Author
Posted

OK well I had no luck with the EDI device settings. Just ended up with black screens and so on. Anyway while browsing the web on UGA stuff I found an MS article that mentions that UGA is NOT going to be supported in the initial Longhorn runtime and that a UGA/VGA solution was needed. Maybe I'm not understanding the video section as half of this is nonsense to me anyway but it might explain why the latest Vista builds still don't seem to support UGA

 

http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/8...17_WinHEC05.ppt

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mk14
mk14
Posted
Posted
AirmanPika said that people are booting Windows XP, but lack video drivers. This would imply that you're 95% of the way there, if only you could prove that your system is actually booting. Luckily for everyone, people run Windows headless all the time - in server farms. The simple solution to accessing Windows in this fashion is to run VNC or Remote Desktop. I wanted to attach a screenshot of a headless (no video card) Windows XP install, but my PC motherboards won't POST without one. I know that Windows 2003 Server will run Terminal Services with no video card, and web searches have turned up people running Windows XP in the same fashion. Note that no video card is a very different situation than no monitor - the OS cannot initialize any graphics services with no video card. I think that running with no video card drivers will be somewhere in between the two - fortunately, Windows XP Remote Desktop works in either situation.

Are you sure that the setup when booted from CD already loads the TCP/IP stack and starts RDC?

I've seen this done in Linux, VNC added to load right into the init files, but I don't think Windows supports anything similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chiefsalami
chiefsalami
Posted
Posted
ondering if this is oversimplyfying but...

 

ati has a beta vista driver out for the x1600xt.....so.....what if you installed that driver on the pc and then transferred vista to the imac. would that driver load then? just something i thought of.

I looked at this, and these are Windows-only drivers. I did not see anything there that could be used in the EFI shell in order to install Windows in the first place. The only alternative may be to install it on some other machine, copy the files over to the Mac, and somehow use this driver to boot from the already-installed Windows partition. However, just getting Windows to boot in this manner is tough enough... nevermind the graphics issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ynniv
ynniv
Posted
Posted
Are you sure that the setup when booted from CD already loads the TCP/IP stack and starts RDC?

I've seen this done in Linux, VNC added to load right into the init files, but I don't think Windows supports anything similar.

 

Ah, no. You'll need an installed version of Windows, not an installer CD. You may be able to rewrite the install CD using nLite, but thats beyond me. Oh well, my hopes have been dashed...

 

I think that some people claimed to boot Windows Something off of an external USB drive - that would provide an environment capable of Remote Desktop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sarf
Sarf
Posted
Posted
Already been discussed but hopefully we are already past that thanks to the amount of EFI already in (and hopefully to stay in) vista. Just makes things harder to get started initially though.

 

I don't think M$ will leave EFI bootloader in Vista if they don't support it.

 

Q: Is't possible the not use EFI from Microsoft if we use Elilo

 

EDIT: just found in the forum about rEFIT, this look to be the answer to my question...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
modicr
modicr
Posted
Posted

Hello!

 

I've visited http://www.ntfs.com/ and

it is outdated: http://www.ntfs.com/winfs_why.htm

 

A traditional file system, such as FAT or NTFS, has its contents organized in a hierarchal directory structure and is relatively slow in searching the content by particular attributes. If you organize your pictures in folders “by Dates” – there would be no way to access them “by Persons”, “by Events” etc… You are to use third party custom software like Adobe PhotoAlbum © to perform this task.

 

WinFS overcomes the hierarchy and "flattens" the storage of individual files (i.e. there is no "hierarchy" based on directory and file names), and it enables searching for items by their attributes (like date the photograph was taken, who or what is in the picture, what camera was used to take the picture, etc).

 

WinFS also extends this idea beyond the kinds of information that have been traditionally stored as files on a file system. WinFS can understand any arbitrary set of data, such as a "Photo" or an "Email" or a "Calendar". Applications today must store these kinds of information in their own custom database; if other applications want to gain access to this information, it's quite a lot of work because there is no application-neutral storage mechanism for this kind of information.

 

IMHO section titled "Why there will be no WinFS?" is missing: :D

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/008200606301022.htm

 

But a more likely explanation is this: Microsoft delivered a working beta of WinFS last August, and it sank like a stone. The WinFS team made a four blog posts in the first five months of this year, attracting a total of 36 comments. Microsoft also has a WinFS newsgroup on Usenet with few users. WinFS is a technology without any traction. Under the circumstances, giving it to the database guys looks like the right thing to do.

 

Cheers, Roman

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...