Vista Update

[guilliamo]

Looks like Vista (at least the 32bit client) will not support EFI after all:

 

http://apcmag.com/apc/v3.nsf/0/E666E4A0A30...A25712C008166C4

 

I especially like this comment:

 

Quote

10/03/2006 12:32:31 PM | Jeff Lewis

No disrespect, but who cares that *Mac* users won't be able to boot Windows... this is a MUCH bigger issue.

 

BIOS is the last creaky part of the PC software system - a 25 year old relic that OSes like Linux basically do their best to get around.

 

While it's been hacked and cobbled together to make it work with new devices like USB external drives, the lack of a consistent, unified boot system is beginning to seriously compromise the ability to move PCs into the next generation.

 

Microsoft never seems to learn that they have to be leaders not followers in this domain. If MS doesn't build EFI booting in because there's not enough machines with EFI - then there won't be any new machines that use it because they won't have a way to boot! Chicken and egg!

 

The same lack of forward thinking has all but killed Bluetooth outside of Macs and cellphones. Microsoft could have taken the Bluetooth market for their own.

 

Even USB was an afterthought - TWICE - USB 1.1 didn't get added until Win98SE and then USB2 didn't get added until WinXPSP2.

End Quote

 

 

G

[livewireuk]

USB2 didn't get added until WinXPSP2./quote]

 

bollox

[randomblame]

thats good stuff! I love microsoft.

 

"It said its decision to 'reprioritise' EFI development to the server version of Windows was based on a lack of available desktop PCs with EFI support on the market."

 

wtf yeah that makes sense. No one has efi hardware because Windows doesnt fugin support it! You have to have software support first DUhhhh

 

Every day they drop another vista feature. There is absolutely nothing innovative new or usefull about the operating system, for being 6 years in development they should be VERY ashamed of themselves. This operating system is garbage, it's being pushed out the door early, and to get it out they've sacrificed every single good idea they had at the begening of the process. I think I'm gonna puke..

[schrepfler]

I didn't follow the entire thing (also bad audio) but as I understood it EFI will come along with the server release and with the 64bit wave of computers.

It's kind of funny, it's like they made a deal saying "you take your EFI side of the street, and I'll take my BIOS side of the street", and now everyone is just waiting to see who'll cross the street first and for the shooting to start.

One thing positive about this thing is that there's finally some cool hardware and software innovation going on, so I bet we'll see many new interesting things very soon now.

That said, I bet if someone asked really gently and pulled some strings I think a developer's CTP that boots from MacBook Pro's EFI could be custom built. In the end it's always about putting the right people, in the right room, at the right time.

Given that MS risks loosing some customers to MacOS until Vista ships, Vista booting on x86 Mac's might be a good strategic decision, so they might start preparing.

[Workplace Shell]

Given that MS risks loosing some customers to MacOS until Vista ships, Vista booting on x86 Mac's might be a good strategic decision, so they might start preparing.

Microsoft has ZERO vested interest in seeing Windows (XP/Vista/etc) running on an Intel based Mac either via dual boot or virtualization under OS X because that Mac hardware sale means marketshare penetration for Apple. Microsoft would prefer to lose any revenue stream from an individual license of Vista because they do not want their customers using and maybe potentially liking what Apple has to offer in Mac OS X. Instead, they would prefer to have customers purchase a Vista-preloaded systems from a hardware solutions partner and lock Apple out from being a contender period.

 

Microsoft is fully aware that Vista will require the larger market of average general consumers (not the DIY'ers who are a small fraction of the market) to go through a hardware upgrade cycle. Microsoft is fully aware that IF Intel Macs can be made to either dual boot or run Windows under virtualization in Mac OS X long before Vista is released, that there will be sufficient time for the average consumer to learn of that choice which might be an attractive option for some. It presents a rare opportunity for Apple to potentially gain marketshare and longer term mindshare. Microsoft does not want that scenario and will likely pull out all the stops in putting up as much roadblocks as possible. They've done it before and will do it again.

 

Therefore, it is becoming clearer why MS back pedaled on their original blurb at Macworld SF (albeit by MacBU general manager Roz Ho who probably got overruled at a higher level) that "Microsoft would be working to bring Virtual PC to Intel Mac's" (paraphrased) to a few days later saying "they were waiting to receive the new Mac's in order to better evaluate Virtual PC for Intel-Mac and that they would be working with Apple to figure out the best way to bring the technology to Intel-based Macs" which is a bunch of baloney because they already have the core virtualization technology in their VPC for Windows product (which is completely unlike the emulation technology in VPC for PPC-Mac product).

 

Sitting on VPC and pulling EFI support from Vista makes sense from MS' point of view as they do not want to give any advantage to Apple before Vista can be released. Some of this smacks of the chess game Microsoft played with IBM back with OS/2 2.0. One can look back at history to see how they sometimes shrewdly let their competitors be partly responsible for the outcome. I'm a former OS/2 2.x user who witnessed some of the fallout after OS/2 1.3 (ended up switching to the Mac in 1994). One of the original OS/2 ISV's Stardock Systems still maintains a brief blurb about the different things that sealed OS/2's fate

 

http://www.stardock.com/stardock/articles/os2_birthday.html

 

and

 

http://www.stardock.com/stardock/art_os2past.html You can read these and search A9/Google for other OS/2 vendors/users accounts to see that the above is fairly factual. Microsoft rhetoric and FUD should also be ensuing over the course of the year and it would not surprise me if they also end up announcing there will be no VPC for Intel-Mac's or modifying in the future their Windows EULA. I'm sure Apple also knows this sort of opportunity does not happen very often and they would be foolish to not attempt to take advantage of it.

 

However, things aren't too promising even on that front as an Apple engineer at IDF said highly unlikely nor do they seem keen to be of any assistance. In lieu of some 3rd party company like VMware stepping up to the plate, it looks more and more like it will be up to the opensource community or maybe even new startups to develop solutions for both dual boot (a CSM module) and virtualization.

[schrepfler]

I don't agree with your assessment. A Apple Mac is just another box they can sell their products to. I will not coment on the FUD stuff, I personally don't see MS as the "evil-doers" for quite some time.

What I was trying to imply was that Apple and MS have a secret agreement, you don't try to sell MacOS on normal Intel boxes and we'll continue to develop Office and won't put pressure on you (THAT would be evil).