Philosophical Issues with Dual Booting

[jerbare]

(removed all my posts due to disagreement with the sale of "insanelymac")

[Swad]

jerbare-

 

Thanks for your comments. I don't want to get this thread too off track, but I will just say that we're committed to helping this thing along whether it's from this site or outside. I certainly don't have anything agianst the onmac site or people (Colin seems like a great guy), it's just that I was exploring the frustration that I and a few others had felt.

 

Hate to buzzkill and burst bubbles, but the work being done on the OSx86 community forum had already been done before it reached here (as shown by the timestamps in the Nakfull Propoganda comments). I posted my progress in both places because people here weren't keeping tabs @ Nak's site.

 

Yeah, I was actually just asking what happened if any group of people got it going - not just here.

 

I guess I was just hoping for more transparency with all people. Like the guy who made his own "CSM" - wouldn't it be cool if he would release that so that people here, Nak, onmac, and elsewhere could play around with it? That's the kind of transparency I'm hoping for.

 

But you raise excellent points. So that we can keep this thread on it's technical track, feel free to PM me if you have any more suggestions/points.

[AirmanPika]

I'm sorry but I can't agree here. Noone is demanding anything. We are looking for mutual solutions and after reconstructing what was done on NAK's site (sorry but all that was stated was what was done not how to do it) we started trying to take steps one level further. If someone has a partial solution but not the whole solution and is making no progress then they should share and let other experts try and determine whats needed as we have done here (and as maxxuss did with the first 10.4.4 patch i believe) . Now we have confirmed across multiple sources that to get Vista going we need the systems working in VGA mode (or a way to get UDF working in Vista which is probably something only MS can do right now) and that for XP to work we need a proper CSM/VGA solution. Now that we know this resources can be pumped into the specific areas needed instead of wasting time trying to get it going in other random ways.

 

Back on the subject after I get back from the gym I'll try a few of the suggestions passed along relating to the video and get back. Also I recall that error code mentioned earlier....I think it was a generic error code as I've seen it a few times before (like when the boot manager couldn't find the BCD file).

[Swad]

I understand and share your frustration, but people have to think about these things and stand up for the developers. And this is too important for a PM for the rest of the community not to see, because ultimately it involves everybody.

 

Indeed.

 

It is because of 'demanding users' and their complaints that make dedicated developers quit their respective 'scenes' and give up publicizing their hobbies and projects to begin with.

 

Demanding is one thing, but just asking for transparency is another. All I'm asking is that folks like narf explain to others what they did and how they did it so that they can reproduce the steps.

 

In narf2006's images you see they is able to bring up the Windows installer - and not even a very interesting portion of it (it's only the beginning portion that loads in all the drivers)... Don't you think if s/he was able to partition the disk or start a graphical installation that they would have posted images of that?

 

Nope. Later on in the post you talk about maxxuss, but extending that line of reasoning here - why post pictures at all? If the people who see them aren't going to do anything but drool over the pics and become more "demanding" what's the point? If transparency isn't important, then they really have no reason to do anything until they're done.

 

Having said that, my guess is that the installer doesn't get to a point that any user could 'play around with it'. What good is there in releasing something that any user can't do anything with? How can they possibly help (and what if you know what has to be done - or want to avoid the flood of troubleshooting people who aren't so technical to offer their help)?

 

The "good" is for the 1% of people who can do something with it, make progress, and then report on that so the first person can get farther, etc.

 

Think about it from the flipside - from Maxxuss' point of view.

 

Let's.

 

Anyone with a brain wouldn't dare poke and prod and beg and demand that Maxxuss release daily snapshots and updates and explainations of his work. How far did Maxxuss get in his first night of having 10.4.4? Did he get the kernel to stop rebooting due to its dependence on EFI? Did he know what would need to be done? Why would he give out something for people to 'play with' if he knew what work had to be done to make it work? What possible help would someone like you or me be able to offer by 'playing around with things' that don't let us do anything?

 

I mentioned this in my article on the subject, but we really should be talking more about the initial cracking of OSx86 than maxxuss' work. While he is highly skilled, he's really building on the shoulders of the giants of those who got it working initially. The point was that those guys couldn't do anything on their own, but together, they could. One person wrote a script, one person hacked this .kext, another had experience in ASM, etc. By sharing what they were doing they got it done. If they wouldn't have shared, nothing would have happened.

 

What right do we have to demand any persons work of them - especially when it is incomplete?

 

No, but perhaps the better question is, "When there are so many people waiting for this information (and could probably build on that success), should you release it?"

 

After all, why don't you just do the work yourself? Maxxuss and narf2006 have....

 

We all have different gifts. I have absolutely no idea how to do anything technical like that (I'm an advanced windows user and a novice at OS X, and someone else (shard) has to do most of the technical work to keep this site up and running!). My gift is coming up with ideas and bringing people together to foster a community. If I could, I would. Since I can't, I work to make sure Maxxuss and narf2006 have a place to talk, get help, and learn.

[settolo]

jerbare, I agree with you on some points. But.

 

Maxxuss' situation is really different.

Everybody knows who is working on that issue (Maxxuss), everybody knows that he is maybe the only one with the skills to do it.

If someone wants to give a contribute, he can ask him directly.

We know that Maxxuss will release his patch as soon as he's got it.

 

In this case we do not know anything (only that narf is working on it and that colin is in contact with maybe 2 teams also working).

 

We do not know if there is already some usefull and working thing. For exemple, maybe someone did something like rEFIt 2 weeks ago but did not release it. Someone did a new CSM with BIOS, but is not able to add UGA. Maybe someone did the opposite. Maybe someone is trying to develop a little OS (like Xen) between EFI and Windows. Maybe someone has got a debugging system, like the one which narf's photo seems to suggest. Maybe someone is already able to boot windows, but is not able to dualboot and is not saying anything.

We do not know anything. Why? I think the answer is: 12000 $.

 

I agree that is wasting time to tell everybody which is the status of the work everyday.

But I think that there are a lot of intermediate steps of working things before winning the contest.

I really hope that someone already did some of these steps and is keeping it for himself to get the pot. It would be really better than knowing that nobody done nothing yet, but it definitely slows down the process.

 

(sorry for my English)

[settolo]

Why isn't anyone else working with him on solutions?

I won't be surpised to discover that Maxxuss is working with someone else, giving help to him.

People are missing the point of the pot. The money is 100% fair. Without the reward it is very possible nobody would even be working on a solution.

I totally agree.

I'm sure a lot of people are hoping that, but maybe the money isn't slowing people down - It's writing the software...

If someone did a part of the job and someone else another part and they do not share their job, it will take more time.

I hope Colin is able to be a "catalyzer" to avoid those kind of things.

[WandaLust]

Amazing work by some people so far, we have come a long way.

 

I am sick off the same old comments let's get some action, stuff the money.

 

We need to create a CSM that is now obvious, unless anyone knows of a way to boot a bios chip as an external device (similar to a modded xbox affair).

 

How do we start with the CSM, I am sure if enough of us get our heads together and work on it then the achievement is worth more than the dollars...

 

I have played the EFI game and gotten to the black screen affair, but gotten it back again through the disconnection of hard drive.

 

We need to create a CSM which can load the XP bootloader from sector 1 of the bootable device (DVD) working in the same way as the standard bios. We then need to be able to support windows XP setup (presumably int 13 and 20h will be heavily involved...).

 

Someone out there has the abilities and skills maybe as a community we can do it.

 

Insyde H20 has an answer (perhaps) but can't get hold of the source or the exe for it.

 

Maybe they could open source ?

[amalgam]

...........

 

And the contest is over in just over three weeks... People need to be patient! Developing a CSM is no easy task. Only two companies in the WORLD provide CSM software for EFI - Insyde and American Megatrends. Not even Intel or Phoenix have developed their own!

 

Plus, we don't even know if we'll have a FREE solution when one has been completed. Who's to say that the developers fund their working with the prize money, but decide to turn a profit and package a product?

I'm sure a lot of people are hoping that, but maybe the money isn't slowing people down - It's writing the software...

 

There are several EFI implementations out there - especially in the server world. HP comes to mind - Emulex with its' fibre channel HBAs - however these two companies have been more prolific with regards to the specifics of how they implement EFI, so they make good resources for others getting interested.

 

Microsoft already does EFI for Itanium systems - always has AFAIK. There is no doubt in my mind, that if they wanted to, they could release a EFI ready - Intel/Mac ready version tomorrow. IF THEY WANTED TOO.

 

Like it or not, the reality is that the Intel/Mac platform is just too small a niche to attract many would-be hackers. Well Jiminy Crickets, THAT's what makes it fun.

 

However, as this thread shows, while there is much debating over the merits of a prize, or the expectations any of us should have, a spinoff thread with interested persons cranking on code and discussing their attempts has not appeared - as of yet anyways.

 

I have to agree with mashugly on his one, most important point - a cash prize actually seems to work as a dis-incentive. The rest of us realize that somebody some place with a whole lot more talent is gonna make it happen. May not be true - but that's the perception.

 

Heck, the whole reason behind my selecting Intel Brand motherboards for each of the Intel Macs I've built was just because they had TPM AND EFI capabilities. I knew that as soon as I got them all running, I'd be looking into a way to get an EFI implementaion for both Linux and Windows. Welp, Linux on EFI has already been managed, and I don't see the point any more of pursuing it for Windows. It IS going to happen, just not as likely to be as the result of a bunch of semi-noobs busting their skulls until they come up with a solution.

 

And an aside to mashugly - from the very first day of the Intel/Mac thing - when the thumb-drive copy showed up (mactelbase.tar) I've enjoyed listening and learning as others - most without any deep knowledge of the Mac Way Of Life fiddled & probed & hexed & stuck with it until they got results.

 

What I've enjoyed most in reading this forum is the comraderie so many have shown - kinda reminds me of the early days - days BEFORE Jobs & Wozniac had a product, and they too were just kids in a garage messing around with parts & ideas.

 

Ya put the money into the equation and it takes the fun of discovering out of it.

[Nja]

Like it or not, the reality is that the Intel/Mac platform is just too small a niche to attract many would-be hackers. Well Jiminy Crickets, THAT's what makes it fun.

 

True, but isn't the niche for PC users who want to install OS X also relatively small? Yet that project attracted one seemingly talented coder, namely maxxuss.

 

So what is the big difference with this challenge? BTW - this is more of a general question than a direct question.

 

Nick

[WandaLust]

We have the option to sit and wait until Apple do the decent thing (Update the EFI to support BIOS) which is looking about as remote as M$ updating XP to run on the MacIntel. Apple are making a big mistake in my opinion as they are losing a potential large market share. Still who's to say what goes on in their heads...

 

So the two main questions Are apple going to enable bios on the MacIntels ? (unlikely I think) or are M$ going to fix XP or even vista to run on MacIntel ? (Also unlikely).

 

M$ will stick with the PC markets ass they have domination there and it's unlikely that PC manafacturers will turn around to M$ and say we are not going to support BIOS anymore just EFI (at least not in the shorter term).

 

 

So that leaves the brave pioneers like us to try and cobble together something that could work. I am sure someone in the world has the abilities to write a CSM - I know on the face of it it looks incredibly difficult but "Never say Never".

 

I have an understanding as to what the BIOS does and I really think if we all get together and start throwing out ideas then we could nail this.

 

Personally I am a professional IT Architect and have worked on many coding projects.

 

I think we should establish some rules and regs, get together (something open source) and let's all see if we can't nail an EFI Bootloader.

 

So where do we start ? Who is interested in trying to get some code going ?

 

:pirate2:

[settolo]

Also very interesting (same link):

I can assure you that none of this effort would have been made were it not for the contest.

[oscho]

New pic from narf2006 with VGA working!

 

VGA working with XP

[Noved84]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32436196@N00/...in/photostream/

 

pretty incredible stuff

[rohde]

Good work. Very good work. They deserve the 12k if they get it to work fully.