Will New Intel Macs Run Windows?

Since old macs didn't run Windows anyway, there is no problem with this move. And, as noted, Vista will support EFI so most likely it'll be a possibility. Plus, VPC will be ported to a unibin, and that will definitely help on the speed front for Windows apps.

 

It may be possible to get around the EFI part, it depends on if the OS uses it for more than just the boot process or not I guess. It uses GPT instead of MBR as well, but maybe something like grub could get around that problem.

we'll need to wait and see what happens. we probably won't get a more clear answer until people receive their iMacs next week and have had time to poke around and play around with it

Since old macs didn't run Windows anyway, there is no problem with this move.

No, you're wrong, cyrana, they did, with VirtualPC (or competing products, like GuestPC etc.). But currently there is no VirtualPC version for Intel Macs in circulation! And I haven't seen any announcements of upcoming virtualisation software for Intel Macs yet. This is really a bit funny, you could run Windows on PowerPC Macs, but obviously you can't on the new Intel Macs, at least not from the beginning.

must we see that it is not the right way to have any futur OsX system working on our special Mactel ?

can us in future update our Firmwar... (ooups excuse me) BIOS ?

on PPC mac, theres in an Open Firmware (Apple key - ALT - O - F at startup).

Have Apple implemented it in Macintel ?

 

we have some questions without the appropriate answer, let see what's happen...

I'll just quote a reply in below's thread:

 

"As reported in various sites, EFI does have some kind of compatibility layer to allow support for legacy operating systems that, to a certain extent, rely on BIOS information. This means EFI has full compatibility with Windows XP and Linux among others"

 

And from Wikipedia:

 

"EFI is slated to incorporate both ACPI and SMBIOS functionality which should help keep development costs and OS compatibility issues to a minimum."

I'll just quote a reply in below's thread:

 

"As reported in various sites, EFI does have some kind of compatibility layer to allow support for legacy operating systems that, to a certain extent, rely on BIOS information. This means EFI has full compatibility with Windows XP and Linux among others"

 

And from Wikipedia:

 

"EFI is slated to incorporate both ACPI and SMBIOS functionality which should help keep development costs and OS compatibility issues to a minimum."

The matter in question for me is: can EFI- and non-EFI-enabled operating systems be mixed on the same hard drive in a multi-boot environment? If I decide to install Windows, I surely do not want to delete OS X altogether.

I have a few questions regarding the Intel Switch. First and foremost will Mac dual boot with Windows. This is very important to me - if I want to switch I want to be able to fall back on Windows apps I can't get for Mac (alot on my list of most used apps).

If someone could answer that question - quickly and knowledgeably I'm guessing I wouldn't be the only person happy.

 

Also, why did Apple not release laptops with faster processors? I really wanted to get an Intel chip that was over 2 Ghz. If I'm updating my computer I want something faster - not about the same speed! How well will this laptops decode 1080p HD movies once they become available... the list goes on.

 

And finally, will Apple release notebooks with dual 64 bit chips this year? This would be the ultimate computer upgrade for me (since 64 bit seems to be the next step in computing).

 

In retrospect, I do have to say that the updates to Apples product line have almost beaten Windows to the punch for a few things - mainly easy, instant, picture editing. But, Windows still seems to have the most choice in hardware (especially faster, more customizable hardware), will have a very nice design (with very readable type - especially for reading on screen), will have full T.V. support built in and tells me about what time the next release will be out (with better estimates every quarter). If that weren't enough... I don't have to wait for a P.C. that will satisfy my basic desires because Engadget told me about the new Toshiba Qosimo coming out March. So, Apple will satisfy my most basic computer needs very beautifully and quickly, but when I want something more than what I have... a faster notebook... T.V. support... the programs I use on a regular basis (which mostly happen to be free or open source)... Apple seems to turn a blind eye and tell me what I supposedly want, and tell me to buy it instead of a Vista ready laptop with a T.V. tuner and with faster dual core processors or 64 bit support.

 

Uhmm, Apple I hope you know I'm willing to pay the price for all of this... (oops, I forgot that point too! Apple is way over priced for all you get - 2,500 dollars for a 1.8 Ghz laptop? You kidding me! I can get a better deal from Dell, HP, and Toshiba - with more features to boot!)... and I think I'm not the only one. Apple is just asking for people to pirate and hack their OS! It won't be me... Although it's awfully tempting.

 

Am I the only person who feels that Apple isn't taking a big enough step here? With all the hype I was sure I would be pleasantly suprised by Apple (especially on the T.V. tuner base). If Apple would at least have added a T.V. tuner with Frontrow T.V. support, or made a notebook with a chip over 2 Ghz my order would be placed - dual booting Windows support, or not.

 

Sorry Apple - maybe next time. Hopefully that's before March - June...

 

KublaKhan

 

P.S. Sorry about the Apple bashing, but my brother's got an Apple (only half a year old), and it doesn't seem worth the step without being either faster or having a T.V. tuner built in. As well as having full support for dual-booting Windows. I've got to set standards for myself before I spend my money - is that so bad :?

The matter in question for me is: can EFI- and non-EFI-enabled operating systems be mixed on the same hard drive in a multi-boot environment? If I decide to install Windows, I surely do not want to delete OS X altogether.

 

True, there isn't room for a second hard drive in either an imac or a macbook pro.

 

By the way... if they called it the macbook (mac + notebook), why not the mactop (mac + laptop)?

 

maybe macbooks are pro and mactops will be for kids?

 

 

LoL

True, there isn't room for a second hard drive in either an imac or a macbook pro.

 

By the way... if they called it the macbook (mac + notebook), why not the mactop (mac + laptop)?

 

maybe macbooks are pro and mactops will be for kids?

LoL

 

there's room for an external hard-drive

KublaKhan, I am by no means intending any flames, but are you really that blind as not to be able to read the specs and prices of the various Duo systems? When you do an exact to exact... or even a stock config with equal prices comparison, it is clear as clear can ever be that Apple offers more value... even before talking OS and such.

 

The most perfect example is comparing the new Apple MacBook Pro against the Dell Inspiron 9400. I just cannot say anything more... the fact is fact... opinion aside... Apple is a better value.

 

As far as the processor speed goes.... these are portables machines. As such there will always be a balance between consumption of power and proliferation of power. Anyone needing serious juice is not going to be using a notebook and/or should not be using a notebook. Otherwise, these new little babies (from any manufacture) are going to be more then enough for 99% of what any user will need.

 

The problem with speed in notebooks has not been the CPU (for a while now). The problem is the IO. With the move towards PCI-x, SATA and the killing of legacy (oops... not from anyone but Apple)... these will move faster then you have ever moved before.

No, you're wrong, cyrana, they did, with VirtualPC (or competing products, like GuestPC etc.). But currently there is no VirtualPC version for Intel Macs in circulation! And I haven't seen any announcements of upcoming virtualisation software for Intel Macs yet. This is really a bit funny, you could run Windows on PowerPC Macs, but obviously you can't on the new Intel Macs, at least not from the beginning.

Oh come on, I hope you know I meant in the literal sense of a dual-boot.

 

The MBU is commited to unibins, so I am sure it'll happen.

I have a few questions regarding the Intel Switch. First and foremost will Mac dual boot with Windows

Perhaps we'll know for sure in about a few weeks or even days.

 

Also, why did Apple not release laptops with faster processors? I really wanted to get an Intel chip that was over 2 Ghz.

If you really want a notebook (and NOT a desktop replacement of sorts, or a portable workstation), these three things (not necessarily in that order) are of prime priority: 1. Weight. 2. Dimensions. 3. Battery Lifetime, which all adds up to portability (funnily, nobody here has commented on the fact that Apple DOES NOT SAY A SINGLE WORD about the battery runtime of the new NOTEBOOK!). If you're whining about a few hundred MHz with processors in the GHz range, you're certainly not the target customer for a notebook.

 

And finally, will Apple release notebooks with dual 64 bit chips this year?

Dual dual-core chips? You mean a MacBook Pro Quad? Joking aside... ;-) Yes, I would suspect that we will see 64-bit-enabled powerbooks this year or early at the beginning of next year.

 

This would be the ultimate computer upgrade for me (since 64 bit seems to be the next step in computing).

May seem so, but it isn't.

 

(with very readable type - especially for reading on screen),

Sorry, I don't get you.

 

I don't have to wait for a P.C. that will satisfy my basic desires because Engadget told me about the new Toshiba Qosimo coming out March.

The Qosimo is not a notebook, but a rather large portable home entertainment system, or, as Toshiba likes to have it: "a revolution in portable AV entertainment".

 

Uhmm, Apple I hope you know I'm willing to pay the price for all of this... (oops, I forgot that point too! Apple is way over priced for all you get - 2,500 dollars for a 1.8 Ghz laptop? You kidding me!

It is neither a desktop replacement, nor a portable home entertainment system, nor a laptop: it is a high-quality notebook computer. High-quality notebook computers are expensive, regardless of the manufacturer, be it Dell, HP, Lenovo/IBM, or Apple.

 

I can get a better deal from Dell, HP, and Toshiba - with more features to boot!)

Hardly. The MacBook Pro is expensive, but so are the competitors, perhaps even a bit more. The follow-ups of the iBook will be less expensive, so you might have to wait for them.

 

Apple is just asking for people to pirate and hack their OS!

They're unique. That is the price you have to pay.

 

there's room for an external hard-drive

The best Firewire 400 and USB 2.0 bridge chips usually max out at about 25 to 30 MB/s. Using a drive in such an external enclosure as a boot device won't be fun.

 

Oh come on, I hope you know I meant in the literal sense of a dual-boot.

I know, I know cyrana...

 

But as I said: ain't that funny? At least in the beginning (provided that booting from external media does not work) the Intel Macs could probably be the first ones since a very long time that won't be able to run any kind of Windows, be it in emulation, virtual or native mode.

 

KublaiKhan,

 

Also, why did Apple not release laptops with faster processors? I really wanted to get an Intel chip that was over 2 Ghz. If I'm updating my computer I want something faster - not about the same speed! How well will this laptops decode 1080p HD movies once they become available... the list goes on.

 

From memory, the fastest Yonah chip is 2ghz, so how are they going to release something faster than that when intel hasn't even released it? From your post i feel like you're nitpicking here, I don't think you're be satisfy if apple sold you a dual core notebook at ibook prices!

 

Engadget told me about the new Toshiba Qosimo coming out March. So, Apple will satisfy my most basic computer needs very beautifully and quickly, but when I want something more than what I have... a faster notebook... T.V. support... the programs I use on a regular basis (which mostly happen to be free or open source)... Apple seems to turn a blind eye and tell me what I supposedly want, and tell me to buy it instead of a Vista ready laptop with a T.V. tuner and with faster dual core processors or 64 bit support.

 

The only thing I can see the Qosimo has and the macbook doesn't is the built in TVtuner and you'll STILL be stuck using Windows. If you need to watch tv on your laptop that badly, you can always get a macbook and an eyetv for it. But hey, if you want to carry 8lbs of laptop with less than 3hrs of battery with you, be my guest.

 

Also, what kind of opensource software can't you get on fink?

 

Uhmm, Apple I hope you know I'm willing to pay the price for all of this... (oops, I forgot that point too! Apple is way over priced for all you get - 2,500 dollars for a 1.8 Ghz laptop? You kidding me! I can get a better deal from Dell, HP, and Toshiba - with more features to boot!)... and I think I'm not the only one. Apple is just asking for people to pirate and hack their OS! It won't be me... Although it's awfully tempting.

 

It's a pro laptop used for highend work with a pricetag appropriate for that kind of machine, get over it. For example, these machine will be lapped up by architects, filmmakers, pro photographers. its main purpose is not media centre type tasks like watching/recording tv, although it can do that as well. As for being overpriced, that argument has already been debunked in another post, but to recap that post, the 'premium' for this highend laptop is around 200-300 if you configure Dell/Gateway etc to similar specs, and that's not factoring in the superior engineering/look/material of the macbook as well as the ability to natively boot osx. If you don't care about styling or booting osx troublefree, then yeah, you should get yourself a pc and be done with it. By the way, Dell, HP and toshiba also sells highend laptop for similar price, so your argument don't even make sense that much.

 

They're not asking anyone to pirate their OS. Your desire for OSX is a want, not a need. If you want OSX, get a mac, simple. If you can't afford it, wait for a macmini or an ibook.

 

P.S. Sorry about the Apple bashing, but my brother's got an Apple (only half a year old), and it doesn't seem worth the step without being either faster or having a T.V. tuner built in. As well as having full support for dual-booting Windows. I've got to set standards for myself before I spend my money - is that so bad :?

 

Uh...what? Today's Macbook announcement has already address that, it IS faster and it CAN use windows, maybe dualboot, maybe via virtualPC. 90% of people who WILL buy the macbook don't need a tvtuner in it, and it's by no means a negative against the machine. It just doesn't fulfil your very specific needs. Sure it's Ok to set standards for yourself, but don't come apple bashing just because your needs aren't fulfilled 100%, the world don't revolve around you.

No one seems to know.This betanews article seems to think that they won’t, due to the EFI (see below article). But Apple, as they’ve always said, won’t prohibit people from installing Windows on their Mac. From an MSNBC article:

 

“That’s fine with us. We don’t mind,” Schiller said. “If there are people who love our hardware but are forced to put up with a Windows world, then that’s OK.”

“Any new machines that are on the market that run Windows are great,” said Scott Erickson, director of product management and marketing for Microsoft’s Mac business unit.

 

So what do you think? Has Apple effectively shut out Windows installation until Vista ships? Is this a mistake or a smart move?

 

If Apple really has shut out Vista, which i hope isn't the case, i think that would be a huge mistake. If i can dual Boot LEGIT copies of Vista and OS X on the same machine and not have to worry about waiting for someone to crack programs and updates so i can keep running it, i would be more, than ever before, willing to buy a new mac computer. I've been using hacked versions of os x for the last 3 monthes and im sick of it! no driver support, i cant run a lot of good programs, and more importantly NO QE or CI!!! I also highly doubt MS will use EFI in Vista to keep it off of mac computers because they arent a hardware company.

They've not shut out Vista, dponmac. XP is another matter...

I wouldn't suprised by Phil Schiller's comments if they included the CSM layer.

I guess I blew up about the Intel Mac because it didn't have as many options as I would have liked - I mean Intel announced higher proc. speeds! And, I am a student - so I'm just carrying around a notebook from class to class (usually with a powersource nearby) portability is my main concern in a notebook (I really liked the 1 inch thickness...), as long as the battery life is over 2 to 2.5 hours.

I now see that I was wrong about the proc. speed now (the products are still not out by the other companies - using dual cores).

The only thing I need to know now is whether I will be able to dual boot Windows.

Another thing that would be very nice to know -if anyone can say for certian- is whether Apple will include a Blu-ray or HD-DVD drive in future notebooks (that would delay my purchase).

 

Other than that - as long as it dual boots Windows without problem -consider me a MacBook Pro user (the name is too long - am I right?).

 

By the way,

 

QUOTE(KublaKhan @ Jan 11 2006, 11:14 PM)

(with very readable type - especially for reading on screen),

 

Sorry, I don't get you.

 

Vista will have new type faces specifically engineered for easy readability onscreen - I do a lot of work on the PC.

 

And fungi, can you post me a link to eyetv... thanks.

 

Also, what kind of opensource software can't you get on fink?

 

It's mostly freeware - RoughDraft (free alternative to Final Draft),

And, I want to dual boot Windows mostly because of the Nero Recode (I'm a video maniac) and Games too (I admit it - it's so much nicer to play a game and alt +tab back to work -consoles are more stable - but cost to much - to much room, can't take em with you all the time, blah, blah, blah...) As you can probably tell, my creative genius (yet to be proven to be a genius) likes the Mac, but also likes quite a few things on the P.C. as well. I could list a whole bunch of progs. but I don't have the time - just listed the most important ones to me.

 

 

Man, there are a lot of Mac lovers here! Can't I complain when all the hype doesn't turn out right (I was soo exited!). Oh well, it's all over now. Thanks for all the good arguments! You guys sure know your stuff!

 

I'll probably wait till June-July before ordering a Mac - just to make sure I'm not a few months short of some great new Mac... I wonder if Steve can at least hint as to what I can expect before the Fall...

 

Thanks again for all the info,

 

KublaKhan

It's all speculation until we get our hands on production hardware... but:

 

ELILO boots linux on ia32 (x86) already. http://elilo.sf.net

 

ftp://download.intel.com/technology/efi/d...DF04EFIS003.pdf

 

Mentions that EFI still supports BIOS for ia32.

 

With regard to lack of MBR (EFI replaces this with GPT), MBR stubs for legacy OS's are nested within GPT (GUID Partition Table) for OS's which aren't aware of GPT, but it's questionable whether this could be taken advantage of (say have a stub MBR within a GPT which is actually legitimate?). More on that here in the Legacy MBR section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUID_Partition_Table

 

Older Windows won't be retrofitted to use EFI, but the mentions of EFI using BIOS make me wonder if there might not be options similar to how LinuxBIOS uses a bochs' BIOS in order to boot Win2k, OpenBSD, etc. for such systems which are unaware of LinuxBIOS in particular.

 

Again, this all speculation until we get hardware - but judging by what you can read, I'm guessing that maybe XP/etc. will be runnable on EFI.

 

There are also a lot of other good papers on this sort of stuff (though not OSX specificlally, mostly talking about windows & linux using EFI) found here:

 

http://developer.intel.com/technology/efi/efi.htm

 

I don't really like the betanews article making assertions when it is still speculative at this point, of course they may be right; but until they're sitting in front of the machine trying it themselves, it's not too useful, then again neither is my response necessarily.

 

At any rate, a bigger question for me is... will Xen 3.0 run on these systems, and will OSX & XP be loadable through Xen (particularly OSX, since xensource already claims that unmodified XP runs on Xen as long as the underlying hardware has hardware virtualization [and from what I've read the Intel Duo Core/yonah has hardware VT]).

it's not too useful, then again neither is my response necessarily.

No, it is, it is... Thanks for your input and welcome to the forum!

 

(particularly OSX, since xensource already claims that unmodified XP runs on Xen as long as the underlying hardware has hardware virtualization [and from what I've read the Intel Duo Core/yonah has hardware VT]).

No, unfortunately not. The first steppings of Core Duo do not feature VT. It may be already present in the core, but it isn't activated yet.

@KublaKahn

You are focusing only on single core speeds and not things like the size of the L2 cache, the speed of the fsb, having dual cores, and performance per watt. You can have a fast clock speed but if it is hindered by a narrow bottleneck what's the point? Performance aside and slightly off topic, Yonah was built using 65-nanometer process — resulting in transistors so small, you could fit a hundred inside a single human cell. (Pulled from the MacBook Pro site) to me thats quite amazing, but it isn't the processor that makes a Mac a Mac. Also regaurding TV support, Id suggest making a dedicated PVR out of spare parts rather than trying to factor TV capturing into your next computer purchase.

 

Oh yeah, Steve said that the screen on the MBP is as bright and vivid as Apple's cinema displays which are IMO very high quality. By the way a 20-inch Apple display sells for $800.

Edited January 12, 2006 by johnniecarcinogen

Current versions of Windows can't run on EFI. As far as I know, it has different hardware calls, different from BIOS. I don't see any reason for porting vista to run on EFI other than Macs, as EFI is currently only used in Itanium systems...which are rather rare.

Current versions of Windows can't run on EFI. As far as I know, it has different hardware calls, different from BIOS. I don't see any reason for porting vista to run on EFI other than Macs, as EFI is currently only used in Itanium systems...which are rather rare.

Windows XP X64 supports EFI (did they kill it off though). But anyway, I don't see them backporting EFI and GPT into XP just so it can be installed on a few macs. They'll just have Vista work.

Current versions of Windows can't run on EFI. As far as I know, it has different hardware calls, different from BIOS. I don't see any reason for porting vista to run on EFI other than Macs, as EFI is currently only used in Itanium systems...which are rather rare.

 

I'm pretty sure Windows XP Pro 64 does but thats irrelevant, i know.

 

I could be wrong, but the way I view EFI is as the successor to BIOS with 'legacy support'. So even though XP doesn't support EFI, EFI may support XP. If there is any legacy support at all it will be to support XP. Intel or anyother company would not spend the money on developing something like 'legacy OS support' unless it was desired by the market base. Last i heard XP is quite predominant and EFI claimed legacy OS (BIOS dependant) support.

Arghhh. It's becoming increasingly difficult for me to follow these discussions, which is in part caused by the twisted terminology we're using here. So let's become clear:

 

* "Windows XP Professional x64 Edition" is the version for CPUs with the IA-32 instruction set plus 64-bit extensions, otherwise known as EMT64 or AMD64. This version relies on BIOS.

 

* "Windows XP Professional 64-bit Edition is the (discontinued) version for CPUs with the IA-64 instruction set (Intel Itanium). This version relies on EFI.

 

I'd be happy if we could all stick to this proper nomenclature in the future when talking about this subject.

wow, thanks terry! (mr. gma9**) so hows this for nomenclature?:

 

Windows XP pro 64 supported EFI.

Edited January 12, 2006 by johnniecarcinogen