Will New Intel Macs Run Windows?

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

 

Windows XP pro 64 supported EFI.

I am talking about the proper names that Microsoft has given its products, not some names that each of us makes up for ourselves, so that in the end no one really knows what the other folks are in fact talking about.

Windows XP Professional x64 Edition

 

[...]

 

This version of Windows XP should not confused with the discontinued Microsoft Windows XP 64-bit Edition for IA-64 Intel Itanium processors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_Pr...nal_x64_Edition

What we do here in this thread is mixing it all up, two totally different processor architectures, AMD64/EMT64 and IA-64. Windows XP x64 IS NOT THE SAME AS Windows XP 64-bit. There have been postings on this forum claiming that Windows XP x64 supports EFI, which is SIMPLY WRONG. It was the 64-bit edition that supported EFI. I think we have to set the records straight on this.

Hi all!

Hah! It seems that just like everyone else, I am experiencing acute angst about my prospects of ever running XP on my new iMac (which is displacing my desktop in a few days hopefully, which is already strutting its stuff on ebay)

so to stave off the angst for a bit I will contribute this link about the CSM compatibility framework for BIOS under EFI:

ftp://download.intel.com/technology/frame...BiosCompS13.pdf

"Defining the CSM

Compatibility Support Module

For IA32 platform using the Framework

Provides “legacy support”

– Operating Systems that rely on BIOS

(i.e. current “PC compatible” OS)

– Loads traditional Option ROM (OPROM)

Based on “legacy BIOS” from IBV

– Implementation is not dictated by specification

CSM specification designed by Intel"

unfortunately the doc is old, but both the guys who drafted this doc are influential so if this came from them, there is a good chance it made it into production. Even more unfortunately, my poor economists brain is not capable of grasping the import of all these slides and flowcharts, so I will leave it up to you to distill this and let us know what it all means!

Dangit, thanks for the correct on the core duo - it had been my understanding that the yonah's did have Intel's VT. I'm kind of bummed to hear that they don't.

The linuxbios+bochs bios approach mentioned earlier is documented more here FYI:

http://linuxbios.org/index.php/ADLO

Regardless, it should be fun to get some of this new hardware and see what can be done.

i can't believe that nobody has been *trying* to boot from a Windows XP CD at MacWorld San Francisco!

then we would know wether Apple added legacy bios support, or not.

I'm sure that MS pressured Apple to allow XP to boot in exchange for 5 more years of Mac Office.

Apple wouldn't have bothered brining Microsoft on stage in they didn't think Mac Office was important for Mac users.

So Apple wants Mac Office 5 more years and Microsoft wants XP on MAC. Everybody's happy. Plus, WinXp on Macs would be a hidden marketing ploy to seal some deals.

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 :?

2ghz ? and why ? Core Duo is faster than dualcore pentium 4.

Btw, Mobile Pentium had always less Mhz than desktop processors.

I have read this article from Microsoft explaining the difference between GPT and MBR hard disks which are the key to EFI.

32 bit Windows XP will not boot from GPT disks and these are the only disks that will boot with the new Mac/Intel Processors

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/storage/GPT_FAQ.mspx

Windows XP Disk Support

15. Can the 32-bit version of Windows XP read, write, and boot from GPT disks?

No. The 32-bit version will see only the Protective MBR. The EE partition will not be mounted or otherwise exposed to application software.

This was in a previous section about 'Protective MBR'

10. Why does the GPT have a Protective MBR?

The Protective MBR protects GPT disks from previously released MBR disk tools such as Microsoft MS-DOS® FDISK or Microsoft Windows NT® Disk Administrator. These tools are not aware of GPT and do not know how to properly access a GPT disk. Legacy software that does not know about GPT interprets only the Protected MBR when it accesses a GPT disk. These tools will view a GPT disk as having a single encompassing (possibly unrecognized) partition by interpreting the Protected MBR, rather than mistaking the disk for one that is unpartitioned.

I know someone might say, who would want to run Windows XP 32 on a 64bit processor anyway.

It seems that Windows XP 64-bit will work fine and the EFI handles the dual boot process with any other OS which is EFI savvy, MacOSX, Linux etc...

I am sure someone is going to correct me.

Ho hum

Sorry, was trying to bring the thread back ON-TOPIC

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

They could way back in the day...

I remember this Mac at the school back in the day that booted into DOS when you pressed cmd+return... Then type win and you got Windows 3.1

Intel Core Duo is NOT 64bit. So it seems that Windows X64 can't run on it.

On the other side, I read a few weeks ago that GUID partition scheme should work for internal HDD... Actually I formatted my external Firewire/USB drive using GUID scheme "just to see" and i couldn't see it on Windows 2000. So i googled a bit, and found out that it was not supported for removable media

Are you sure about that?

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/storage/GPT_FAQ.mspx clearly states that 32bit windows will NOT support GPT.

oh yes, sorry, i mixed up.

so... {censored}! we're trapped.

Well, the french website Mac4ever.com claims that some of their readers managed to boot from a Windows XP CD.

http://www.mac4ever.com/news/21460/windows_sur_mac_le_point/ (in french)

It seems that Windows XP 64-bit will work fine and the EFI handles the dual boot process with any other OS which is EFI savvy, MacOSX, Linux etc...

Core Duo is 32-bit only, as has been said above. Plus, the (discontinued) EFI-ready Windows XP 64-bit edition only runs on IA-64 (Itanium), but NOT on 32-bit processors with the AMD64/EMT64 extensions like the upcoming 64-bit-enabled Core processors. You're mixing up Windows XP 64-bit edition with Windows XP x64 edition.

Well, the french website Mac4ever.com claims that some of their readers managed to boot from a Windows XP CD.

Hehe. That would make a very nice prank. Deleting OS X and replacing it with XP or (because it installs faster) a beta of Vista. Or, because this goes even quicker and has the same visual impact, booting up a Mac with a Windows live CD like WinPE/BartPE. GNUstep live CD would be fine, too.

Booting with a WinXP CD is obviously not the same as installing it. GPT can have nothing to do with CD boot.

Plus, VPC will be ported to a unibin, and that will definitely help on the speed front for Windows apps.

Did you actually hear this from MSFT people? I'm just wondering because it would seem to me that VPC is no longer needed, at least after Vista comes out.

first virtual machine announced for next month is iEmulator: see first news @ http://www.macwindows.com/

by the way, the fact that we may be able to boot from a CD should help booting windows, no?

about VPC: it's official. the microsoft girl said that on stage at the keynote. you can watch it on apple's website.

first virtual machine announced for next month is iEmulator: see first news @ http://www.macwindows.com/

Interesting, thanks.

by the way, the fact that we may be able to boot from a CD should help booting windows, no?

The interesting question is whether you can put both operating systems, XP and OS X (and Linux, and ...), on the same hard drive and multi-boot.

first virtual machine announced for next month is iEmulator: see first news @ http://www.macwindows.com/

 

by the way, the fact that we may be able to boot from a CD should help booting windows, no?

about VPC: it's official. the microsoft girl said that on stage at the keynote. you can watch it on apple's website.

Only 23$, that's a cool price.

BTW, it's based on QEMU.

about VPC: it's official. the microsoft girl said that on stage at the keynote. you can watch it on apple's website.

I watched that. She didn't mention anything about VPC (that I recall). That's what raised the red flags.

Ooops! My bad. Found this MacWindows:

Microsoft to pursue VPC for Intel Macs. January 11, 2006 -- Microsoft executives said yesterday that the current version of Virtual PC for Mac will not run in Rosetta on the Intel Macs. The company's Macintosh Business Unit, however, is committed to porting the emulator to the Intel Mac platform. Microsoft would not give a time frame, however, when it would release the product.

 

The Intel version of Virtual PC for Mac holds out the possibility of running Windows with native-performance on a Mac, with the ability to access graphics hardware, while being able to run both OS's at once and switch between operating systems on the fly. A source said that one of the performance bottlenecks of today's Virtual PC, the translation of PowerPC and Intel calls, could be discarded on the Intel Mac.

ability to access graphics hardware

Hmmm, probably I'm not really up to date, therefore my question: has there ever been a virtualisation software in existence that allows 3D-acceleration, or even the acceleration of video playback? I cannot remember anything. So that would mean while simple office productivity apps may work pretty well, no advanced video features, and no gaming. At least not with VPC or another virtualisation layer on non-VT-enabled CPUs like the current steppings of Core Duo.

I'm sure VMWARE will be able to use their Linux code base and port VMWARE on Mac Intel quite easily. We would be ironically be running Windows inside VMWARE and not the other way around.

first virtual machine announced for next month is iEmulator: see first news @ http://www.macwindows.com/

 

by the way, the fact that we may be able to boot from a CD should help booting windows, no?

about VPC: it's official. the microsoft girl said that on stage at the keynote. you can watch it on apple's website.

the iEmulator thing is good news. Obviously it won't be completely bug free and universal in terms of softwares it can run, but at least it tells us that people want to get this thing done. Such a marketing potential it's not even funny.

As far as VPC...looking at how slow Microsoft typically is, i wouldn't expect a release till next year. They took quite a bit of time when Apple released the G5 as well....I think it took them almost a year if I'm not mistaken.

VPC has a lot of code written in assembly. As such, I am wondering how much they can leverage directly from the windows version. Needless to say, this product is not that easy to re-write and publish.

If they are not able to leverage the existing code-base... then I would think that it will take much longer then 1 year. Just look at how long it took to get running on the G5.

If you ask me, Qemu will be the first to support the Intel Mac...

It already works well on Linux and Windows (running on each other). And it has a Mac development. All they have to do iis make an installer. Of course, this project is free, and won't have too many advanced options and is hard to use.

We can only hope that this project will be invigorated by the high demand and interest in this area...

By the way, this would be a great time for Opendarwine to take off - so if anyone is interested in this - I would highly recommend helping out there in any way possible.

But, the one question still remains - Will Apple allow us to dual boot Windows? It seems the answer is still uncertain. I hope someone finds out really soon! If not - couldn't you build a add-on to the Windows Installer - like through nLite or something. I have no Idea, but I'm just trying to look at all possible options.

KublaKhan

P.S. For those of you still responding to my first post - read my next post... Thanks. A short summary - I had forgotten that the proc. was dual core when I posted (hence breaking my arguments), and the only remaining questions for me before I purchase are - whether I will be able to dual boot Windows XP, and if I should wait and see if Apple will build HD-DVD or Bluray (I guess HD-DVD would be perferrable and easier to implement) drives into there MacBooks before the fall.

That's it.

Hmmm, probably I'm not really up to date, therefore my question: has there ever been a virtualisation software in existence that allows 3D-acceleration, or even the acceleration of video playback? I cannot remember anything.

Insignia's RealPC if i remember well. It dates back to... 1997 or so.

VPC has a lot of code written in assembly. As such, I am wondering how much they can leverage directly from the windows version. Needless to say, this product is not that easy to re-write and publish.

the assembly code is used to speed up CPU emulation on the current mac version.

there is NO cpu emulation in the Windows version of VPC, neither will be in OSX86 version.