Jump to content

Another (possible) dual booting guide


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#21
Computer Guru

Computer Guru

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 112 posts
  • Location:Teh Great Middle East
  • Interests:Coding, Hacking, Cracking
Not true.
MS says they won't alter Vista to work on Mac.
Mac actually broke the EFI standards by removing MBR and BIOS backwards compatibility, which IS a requirement by the open firmware society.

Anyway, just because MS won't ALTER Vista to boot on Mac, that only means that we won't have a special Macintel Edition of Vista.. It does NOT mean that Vista won't work on it by default.

I'm an official MS Beta tester, I can tell you that MS is going balls-out standards, compliance, and security. w00t for progress, even if its years late

#22
mk14

mk14

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Location:Germany

Mac actually broke the EFI standards by removing MBR and BIOS backwards compatibility, which IS a requirement by the open firmware society.

Arguable. CSM and BIOS compatibility are something that is nice-to-have to boot legacy operating systems, but not necessary for EFI. Are you sure the specifications include this as a necessity?

Anyway, just because MS won't ALTER Vista to boot on Mac, that only means that we won't have a special Macintel Edition of Vista.. It does NOT mean that Vista won't work on it by default.

Did I say that Vista won't boot on Macs?

But if Vista will be standard-compliant (EFI and GPT compatible, not requiring CSM), it will run on the Intel-Macs.

#23
Computer Guru

Computer Guru

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 112 posts
  • Location:Teh Great Middle East
  • Interests:Coding, Hacking, Cracking
Right... (on count 2)

But on count one AFAIK Open Firmware does require at this time for a EFI system to ship as backwards CSM/BIOS compatible.

#24
crazymonkeypants

crazymonkeypants

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 69 posts
As best I can tell, Open Firmware aka IEEE.1275 has no such requirement.

http://playground.su.../1275/home.html

Nor does the Extensible Firmware Interface specification, currently at revision 1.1.0-001 and freely downloadable from Intel. To save you the effort (since reading doesn't appear to be your strong suit) here is a quote from the pertinent portion of the document:

1.7.1 Legacy Operating System Support
The EFI specification represents the preferred means for a shrink-wrap OS and firmware to
communicate during the Intel architecture platform boot process. However, choosing to make a
platform that complies with this specification in no way precludes a platform from also supporting
existing legacy OS binaries that have no knowledge of the EFI specification.
The EFI specification does not restrict a platform designer who chooses to support both the EFI
specification and a more traditional PC-AT boot infrastructure. If such a legacy infrastructure is
to be implemented it should be developed in accordance with existing industry practice that is
defined outside the scope of this specification. The choice of legacy operating systems that are
supported on any given platform is left to the manufacturer of that platform.



#25
BlueTrance

BlueTrance

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Anyone here ever thought that Microsoft would?
Anyway, for Vista to have full EFI compatibility it has to support booting from GPT disks and support the iMac's EFI. But Microsoft wouldn't be Microsoft if they would not ignore current standards and just implement what they like (like with Intenet Explorer's CSS compatibility :) ).


Let me remind you that if we can't boot XP (actually almost any OS) in our new Macs is because Apple hasn't completely implemented the standard EFI(i.e. CSM support and so on...). As you say, they have just implemented what they liked.

I'm not flaming Apple, but flaming MS because they *might* do something that Apple has done almost yesterday is sooo unfair.

#26
Computer Guru

Computer Guru

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 112 posts
  • Location:Teh Great Middle East
  • Interests:Coding, Hacking, Cracking
lol :)
That's putting it "fairly" I am sure... but nevertheless, I am confident that MS won't let us down.
It could be a surprise, you never know. It's definitely in their best interest.
Like I said before, it just means that MS won't be releasing a special Macintel version... but the same PC versions might end up working on Macintels....

Imagine: to do that MS needs to purchase Macintels :lol:





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

© 2014 InsanelyMac  |   News  |   Forum  |   Downloads  |   OSx86 Wiki  |   Mac Netbook  |   PHP hosting by CatN  |   Designed by Ed Gain  |   Logo by irfan  |   Privacy Policy