Jump to content

Apple's EFI choice


29 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Did Apple choose EFI to

 

1) Prevent XP from running on Apple H/W

2) Prevent OSX86 from running on Non-Apple H/W

3) Was convinced by Intel that BIOS was dead

4) All of the above

 

I personally think that they shot themselves in the foot. BIOS is old legacy stuff but it doesn't really affect performance and it works.

 

1) There seems to be huge demand for people who want to run both OS on the same H/W. In my opinion, this would significantly increase Apple H/W sales. But it might send the wrong message to developpers. I am still waiting for this to happen before buying a MacBook. For me and many others, weither we like it or not, XP is part of life.

 

2) Maxxuss took care of that point. In fact this seems to have caused the opposite effect. The only way to run both on the same H/W is to do it illegally on non-Apple H/W. That's a shame.

 

3) Intel has been pushing EFI for years with little interest from no one. Microsoft doesn't like EFI because it allows for non-OS dependent drivers. Maybe Apple got a discount on CPUs if they used EFI.

 

It was announced that Vista won't support EFI 32 bits. So say goodbuy to Vista on Macs for now. Virtualization is now the only possible option but there's no solution to that either yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did Apple choose EFI to

 

1) Prevent XP from running on Apple H/W

2) Prevent OSX86 from running on Non-Apple H/W

3) Was convinced by Intel that BIOS was dead

 

1) Apple consider their os to be superior, while they may be right atm, they neglect the fact that what, 95% of the x86 market is Windows.

2) Yeah. That's when MAxxuss patches come in handy. Same reason people use no-cd patches for their legally bought games, because the cd-protections slow down performance, in fact sometimes even prevent the cd-rom from playing in certain cd/dvd hardware.

3) the biggest joke indeed is the announcement that Vista will not support EFI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Apple consider their os to be superior, while they may be right atm, they neglect the fact that what, 95% of the x86 market is Windows.

2) Yeah. That's when MAxxuss patches come in handy. Same reason people use no-cd patches for their legally bought games, because the cd-protections slow down performance, in fact sometimes even prevent the cd-rom from playing in certain cd/dvd hardware.

3) the biggest joke indeed is the announcement that Vista will not support EFI.

 

 

Well, I'm not sure what the strategy was, but it's backfiring. A BIOS based Mac would not have cost them more,

was already working (on the dev kit), would not have made a difference to the users and would have been compatible with the rest of the World. It would have been a killer product. Only Apple could sell you something that runs both and no one else. Even with EFI, they could have put in the BIOS compatibility. It would have future-proofed the Mac at the same time.

 

If the OS is superior, let it free and stop looking so insecure Apple. They cannot afford the arrogance with 6% market share and Vista on its way. The head of Apple development called Windows a "legacy" OS but it commands 95% of the market. I"m cheering for the Mac, but Apple isn't helping. The iPod (An awesome product ) success has gone to their head.

 

Of course, Apple isn't in the business of pleasing me, but from what I see, I'm not the only one who thinks this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well lets look at the two key players here - on one had you have Apple, who always lead the way in terms of integrating bleeding edge technology (scsi, firewire, efi, expresscard) and you have microsoft who always drag their feet when it comes to implementing support for new technology (usb being a good example)

 

Intel's oppion of EFI makes no nevermind since they are dependent on software developers to support it. I'm guessing apple has just realised EFI is a far superior method of implementing device drivers and keeping it out of the OS, and in a few years microsoft will realise this and start supporting it on windows (probably as if it's a brand new idea)

 

I doubt it has much to do with windows or osx86 and is purely a result of the way both companies work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with 0uch!p0tat0. I don't believe Apple chose EFI for any reason other than believing that it's the way forward and they may as well implement it now, in a new line of systems, as have to consider it later.

 

EFI is another interesting example of the syphon effect of technology. In a syphon, not much happens until there is sufficient fluid to reach the top of the system. It's there, building up, but it's not obvious unless you look for it. When it reaches a certain point there is a massive outrush which continues until the original source is exhausted. (Example - most domestic toilets use a controlled syphon principle) So it is with technology. Slowly a new idea/architecture/concept builds up until there's a certain pressure, then suddenly everyone adopts it and it goes on until it has exhausted its innovation. At that point a new concept, which has been slowly building in the background, takes over. Witness PCI over ISA, PCIe over AGP, USB over UART and so on.

 

Ouch! is right. Apple has always been fond of adopting new things early. And I bet Microsoft will be there in the not-too-distant future. As Ouch! said, they'll claim to have invented it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh cmon efi is only used at boot , the only reason is to try to screw people trying to run osx on generic hardware , 10.4.4/5 are full of pathetic cpuid checks and low level crappage like that. I'm really happy that m$ rised the middle finger and it's not supporting efi with 32bit vista

 

p.s if apple reason wasn't just to try to screw people they could have included the bios compatibility module.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh cmon efi is only used at boot , the only reason is to try to screw people trying to run osx on generic hardware , 10.4.4/5 are full of pathetic cpuid checks and low level crappage like that. I'm really happy that m$ rised the middle finger and it's not supporting efi with 32bit vista

 

p.s if apple reason wasn't just to try to screw people they could have included the bios compatibility module.

 

 

I agree. BIOS is still around after all these years because it works and there's no pressing need to change it since it's for boot-strapping only. I don't see an advantage of EFI since some things are on your HD. What happens when your HD is toast. How hard is it to recover?

 

The industry has usually followed Intel when they felt it made sense (AGP, USB, PCIe). But EFI is not one of them. I guess the hard part is to get MS to agree. MS really has no advantage to support EFI.

 

The irony is:

 

1) Apple says that they won't try to stop people from running Windows on Macs

No one has achieved this yet.

 

2) Apple says that they won't allow OSX from running on plain vanilla X86 hardware.

Well, we all know the rest of the story.

 

So, the opposite effect has happened.

 

What I find very strange is why didn't they release an EFI based development kit? They existed then. That certainly would have prevented people from hacking it. Did they really think their OS protection was un-hackable? Did they underestimate the talent of people like Maxxuss and many others here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh cmon efi is only used at boot , the only reason is to try to screw people trying to run osx on generic hardware , 10.4.4/5 are full of pathetic cpuid checks and low level crappage like that. I'm really happy that m$ rised the middle finger and it's not supporting efi with 32bit vista

 

p.s if apple reason wasn't just to try to screw people they could have included the bios compatibility module.

 

I partly agree with myzar. While it is true that Apple implements new technology, the cpuids and other restrictive implementations lead to the inference that Apple did not want OS X running on Dells. To claim that Apple used EFI only (or even primarily) because it's superior to bios isn't taking all factors into consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I partly agree with myzar. While it is true that Apple implements new technology, the cpuids and other restrictive implementations lead to the inference that Apple did not want OS X running on Dells. To claim that Apple used EFI only (or even primarily) because it's superior to bios isn't taking all factors into consideration.

 

and they didn't want xp or vista running either you can see that from the lack of the comp module

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and they didn't want xp or vista running either you can see that from the lack of the comp module

I'm no EFI expert but I agree with myzar. from the intel EFI site:

EFI drivers are single threaded and simply have to support those features that are needed to boot the OS or set up and manage the platform...a practical implementation of the Framework on a desktop PC platform, including drivers and a CSM (see below), fits in only 512 KB of flash memory.
they purposely left out the compatibility module not because of space but for some other reason...

 

http://www.intel.com/technology/framework/overview4.htm

 

EDIT: perhaps oneday we'll be able to flash the EFI on macs with an EFI with the CSM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I beleve that the main reason why Apple is so unwilling to let people run OSX on regular PC hardware is mainly because of the deal they made with MS. The 5 year contract on Office that is. MS doesn't develop much for, say, Linux do they? If Apple would have released OSX for x86 without any protection they would simply have no Office for Mac. And hence no Office-users on their sytems. Regardless of Apples efforts with iWork it would simply not be an alternative to buy Mac for most pro users. The irony is - which has been stated before - that you, thanks to Maxxuss, can run OS X and all its apps on a regular PC but not XP on Mac. Now, sales-wise, wouldn't Apple have sold more models with the ability to run XP too? And would MS have bothered? Nope. Why would they? The more XP-licencees the merrier. I really don't get it. The way this scenario turns out is simply depressing. And, yes of course, I am one of those suckers that bought Apples garbage about not preventing anyone from running Win on the Duos (at leastt until Universal apps arrive). A design-pro and a VST-freak forced into running e.g. Adobe CS2 on a system (on my shiny MacBook Pro 2.0 with Rosetta) comparable to my former PowerbookTi (550Mhz). Don't get me wrong - the MacBook is great (for everything else but pro-stuff), but it could have been my dream, a computer able to run all software I wanted - regardless of OS. Thanks to Maxuuss this dream has come true, on my $500 Shuttle that is. But not on my $2500 MacBook Pro. Pity. Pity. Pity. And, yes, I am very disappointed. Indeed.

 

/kentfinell :pirate2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

**** new development ****

 

"As it pertains to Intel Macs running EFI, at this time Windows will not support native EFI boot until these systems have 64-bit capable processors. Windows XP will boot under EFI when a Compatibility Support Module (CSM) is present," Microsoft said via a statement Friday.

 

http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft_...Macs/1142024270

 

or is it Apple just adopting 'new tech' since they aren't dubious? appearently ms is calling their bluff.

MS says that Apple didn't include the CSM~! And until they do only 64 bit intel macs can run windows... HAHA.

 

I personally think this is huge reguarding dual booting on macs. Funny this topic started today and the MS statement was published today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason apple didn't include a CSM module wasn't to prevent windows from running, they just didn't need it. Why bother wasting development time on a piece of software that's only going to benefit microsoft's sales. It doesn't make any sense of apple to develop CSM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason apple didn't include a CSM module wasn't to prevent windows from running, they just didn't need it. Why bother wasting development time on a piece of software that's only going to benefit microsoft's sales. It doesn't make any sense of apple to develop CSM.

 

yeah same for m$ why waste time developing efi vista booting on a 32bit processor when the only pc with this weird combination is assembled by apple

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I beleve that the main reason why Apple is so unwilling to let people run OSX on regular PC hardware is mainly because of the deal they made with MS. The 5 year contract on Office that is. MS doesn't develop much for, say, Linux do they? If Apple would have released OSX for x86 without any protection they would simply have no Office for Mac. And hence no Office-users on their sytems. Regardless of Apples efforts with iWork it would simply not be an alternative to buy Mac for most pro users. The irony is - which has been stated before - that you, thanks to Maxxuss, can run OS X and all its apps on a regular PC but not XP on Mac. Now, sales-wise, wouldn't Apple have sold more models with the ability to run XP too? And would MS have bothered? Nope. Why would they? The more XP-licencees the merrier. I really don't get it. The way this scenario turns out is simply depressing. And, yes of course, I am one of those suckers that bought Apples garbage about not preventing anyone from running Win on the Duos (at leastt until Universal apps arrive). A design-pro and a VST-freak forced into running e.g. Adobe CS2 on a system (on my shiny MacBook Pro 2.0 with Rosetta) comparable to my former PowerbookTi (550Mhz). Don't get me wrong - the MacBook is great (for everything else but pro-stuff), but it could have been my dream, a computer able to run all software I wanted - regardless of OS. Thanks to Maxuuss this dream has come true, on my $500 Shuttle that is. But not on my $2500 MacBook Pro. Pity. Pity. Pity. And, yes, I am very disappointed. Indeed.

 

/kentfinell :D

 

If Apple doesn't convince Adobe to release native Apps soon, Apple will actually lose sales to XP just so people can run Photoshop. Why invest in a G5 PowerMac now? If I was a graphics shop, I wouldn't invest any money in a dead-end PowerMac G5. Apple says so themselves now - G5 is {censored}!

 

The person that mentioned that there's a deal between MS and Apple to prevent OSX86 from running on plain PC has it bang on I think. The effort Apple made to prevent this was very weak. I don't want to take away any credit from Maxxuss - but modern encryption is virtually unbreakable these days. It only took a few weeks.

 

Did Apple purposely make the OSX86 easily hackable? It surprised me from Apple who are supposed to be technically superior. No one has been able to hack the Microsoft WMA DRM yet after a few years of trying.

 

However, if such a deal was struck, it would be an anti-trust issue.

 

So far Apple's strategy will:

 

1) Sell less hardware to people who wanted dual-boot

2) Sell less software to people who are willing to pay a license for OSX86 on plain PC. The marginal cost of an extra license is close to $0 for Apple. More likely about $15-$20 if you include theoretical support costs and IP licenses imbeded in it.

 

I've read a report from a Wall Street analyst that said that Apple would rapidly gain market share if they made their Macs - windows bootable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason apple didn't include a CSM module wasn't to prevent windows from running, they just didn't need it. Why bother wasting development time on a piece of software that's only going to benefit microsoft's sales. It doesn't make any sense of apple to develop CSM.

You sound like you think Apple made the mobo/efi in macs. Apple didnt develope EFI, intel did years ago with a CSM from the start, Apple left it out. In November 2003, Gateway introduced the Gateway 610 Media Center and was the first consumer-oriented computer system to use EFI. And it booted XP.

 

Intel and MS worked to develop EFI thats why MS mentioned Apple 'leaving out' the CSM in the link in my earlier post. Read it all 2003: http://news.com.com/2100-1008-5131787.html

 

But Apple is cutting edge and MS will try to take claim? So quick to make assumptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason apple didn't include a CSM module wasn't to prevent windows from running, they just didn't need it. Why bother wasting development time on a piece of software that's only going to benefit microsoft's sales. It doesn't make any sense of apple to develop CSM.

Well, the fact that Apple would EASILY sell more computers if they included the CSM. I would buy an Apple laptop in a heartbeat if I could just pop in an XP/Vista install disc and have a nice dual boot set up. Apple knows this but they don't want to admit that allowing use of a competitors product, Windows, will help drive their sales. It's ridiculous but it's their choice, however once Merom comes out we can install XP 64. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well your post is 100% correct hopefully we will be able to push apple out of the hardware business soon. Just boycott any pc assembled by apple

 

I certainly hope that Apple doesn't get pushed out of the H/W business. They're the only once that bring a little style to computers.

 

Had they actually added the CSM, their computers would be worth more for little cost to them.

 

They would be the ONLY manufacturer that sells a machine that runs XP AND OSX86 perfectly and legally. My fear is that some PC manufacturers will start selling H/W copies of the Mac Internals knowing that people will buy them to run hacked versions of OSX86 without saying so.

 

I really don't understand why Apple can't see the potential. I know that the purists will say "Why load windows" but most people live in the other world also - not by choice. The CSM leaves the customer a choice . You could still run your H/W without XP if you chose to.

 

But then again, giving people "choices" has never been one of Apple's strength.

 

All I'm hoping for is that there's some type of super duper Apple virtualization product coming down the pipe. Maybe that's why the CSM isn't there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah same for m$ why waste time developing efi vista booting on a 32bit processor when the only pc with this weird combination is assembled by apple

 

This isn't true. Gateway, for example, makes 32 bit machines with EFI.

 

Your ignorance is showing. Apple is using EFI because they only use top end technologies. EFI is much much more modern than BIOS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...