OSNews

first thing I thought of was "badass mac BIOS" .. heh

I agree that Boch's BIOS code is not the greatest.

Then again, with the Intel-based MACs there is less variety of hardware to emulate.

So I think this emulation code with some tweaks in the end would work better than the regular Boch's code.

My only problem is that I don't trust Bochs' BIOS emulation code. It has problems with many OSes, especially with OSes like OS/2 or BeOS. It works so-so with Linux and XP, but if other OSes don't like it too much it means that there are remaining bugs in it or the solution is not complete. Hopefully the Bochs BIOS code gets more rich as time goes by and so BAMBIOS becomes more solid.

I don't think BIOS is the problem. OS/2 has problems running in many VMs, including VMWare (which is using PhoenixBIOS - a commercial BIOS implementation). OS/2 had been (in)famous for using undocumented instructions - e.g. a 286-specific version of LOADALL which made it break on 386s. I'd guess that problems with OS/2 are more related to CPU and MMU emulation than to BIOS.
What is 'BIOS emulation code'?

I've read "framebuffer" somewhere in their presentation. S'that mean we'll have slow-as-hell graphics?

Now that's good
Oh well - the short answer is no. Without the "framebuffer" you wouldn't be having any graphics at all (even on MacOS X).
I'll try to answer what you probably really meant: BAMBIOS will need a VGA BIOS - basically an interface for displaying graphics at a few common resolutions (320x240x8, 640x480x4, etc.). Windows is using the VGA BIOS in safe mode; as soon as you install a driver for your video card, the VGA BIOS isn't being used anymore. And BTW - using the framebuffer is in fact the only sensible way to implement a VGA BIOS, not to mention that it's also the fastest.

It's basically exactly like USB. Apple led the way, then five years later it became common-place on PCs. If you want to blame anyone, blame Microsoft for their failure to support contemporary (not new) hardware after six years spent developing Vista.

That's not really true. It's Microsoft who is dealing the cards here. No motherboard vendor will release a motherboard to retail stores which won't boot Windows; their customers wouldn't switch to Linux, but just return the motherboard for a refund.
Apple's hardware is not only 'new' but also in some ways 'weird' - it doesn't have a feature which it basically should have, as BIOS compatibility is part of EFI. Microsoft doesn't have to support every weird x86 based motherboard out there.

This is a chicken and egg problem. No motherboard vendor will want to drop legacy support if Microsoft continues to prolong the life of BIOS. With Vista, they could have forced this transition to finally leave it behind. If Microsoft finally did this, motherboard vendors would now have incentive to drop legacy support. This in turn would emphasize other OS' that rely on legacy booting methods to update.

I also don't see anything weird about the Intel based Mac hardware. The Compatibility Support Module (aka BIOS compatibility) is an OPTIONAL part of EFI (refer to the 2nd paragraph).

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

Apple had no need to include it in their hardware because they chose the legacy free route to use a more modern firmware implementation which offered a better transition from OpenFirmware.

By also leaving a solution open to a third party vendor, Apple can also absolve itself from support related issues but also opens up another niche market for anyone capable enough to fill that role.

Users who don't need this ability won't have to be bothered with this while those who could make use of it will understand the delineation of responsibility when they install it.

"at all the lame and weak-ass attempts to circumvent their machines and run Windows. "

wtf? What makes you think there is a concerted effort to stop people running windows?

They should have used chips totally incompatible with x86: chipset with different programming interface, e.g. not using ports, just memory mapped IO: 100% of OSes would simply not work. Going further: not using existing PCI interface which uses in/out instructions. They should also remove 8086 comcrapability from CPUs.

...and they should have put a big red sticker inside the case with stern words on it :-).

Aww, someone doesn't like Apple's new Kool-aid flavour.

Interesting idea, but "IBM researchers Singh, Smith & Reed are developing *in their free time*". So, perhaps this isn't actually an IBM plot (yet?).

"Funny how IBM, the company that no longer makes apple CPU's, are working on cracking the Mactel computers."

Well,

if it works, instead of purchasing two Intel CPUs you would need to get only one.

Maybe they are already waiting for a paycheck from intel too, to develop their idea more. Longer and harder.

Edited 2006-03-14 10:00

I think, this depend on ATI or intel windows drivers. If they use graphics card BIOS and if this graphics card BIOS is not present on MAC then yes, only VGA can be used.

Um no, Apple just went with the most advanced technology currently available. BIOS is a legacy monstrosity that Intel has been trying to shift for some time now. EFI is the way forward. Microsoft had been working on adding EFI support to Vista, but scrapped it due to time contraints: it'll appear in the 64-bit (read: server) versions later.

It's basically exactly like USB. Apple led the way, then five years later it became common-place on PCs. If you want to blame anyone, blame Microsoft for their failure to support contemporary (not new) hardware after six years spent developing Vista.

I understand that EFI is vastly superior to BIOS, so I certainly don't "blame" Apple for not supporting old technology.

As I said, however, I do think that it would have been good marketing for Apple to support older OS. Firstly, becuase Windows users would start to buy Apple hardware, and then because they would start to use Apple software.

> If you want to blame anyone, blame Microsoft for their failure to support contemporary (not new) hardware after six years spent developing Vista

I thought Microsoft had made it clear that they wait for the hardware to show up, then try to engineer to the actual hardware, quirks and all, rather than some notional spec and initial seed hardware. Which is reasonable, I guess, given the expense of trying to do driver-du-jour on a deployed base that size (particularly when the user base does not expect to be using driver disks during installation, by and large).

There's been test hardware lying around for developers to use for years now: how else could Apple have switched their computers so fast? Thanks to Apple there is now consumer hardware available as well.

EFI might have been a "notional spec and initial seed hardware" three or four years ago, but that certainly isn't the case now.

Until Apple started releasing MacTels, I'd think you'd be hard pressed to find an X86 MB using EFI, so maybe it's true, maybe they were waiting for broader acceptance from hardware manufacturers, not to mention, as far as marketshare goes, a mactel is still not a common config

PS: It's current possible to run Windows on a Mac on a virtual machine. The options are QEmu (which is quite slow) or VMWare running on a copy of Linux installed on the Mac (which is meant to be pretty fast).

That latter option is a bit awkward, but I think I heard somewhere that VMWare are working on porting their product to Mac OS X. Unfortunately Microsoft are a lot more cagey about their plans (if any) to port VirtualPC to Intel.

I am sure these are great solutions for occasional Windows use. However, I don't think that these products are yet mature enough to host a business critical Windows installation 24x7. Perhaps, as you say, when VMWare runs natively on Mac OS X we might consider it.

I am sure these are great solutions for occasional Windows use. However, I don't think that these products are yet mature enough to host a business critical Windows installation 24x7. Perhaps, as you say, when VMWare runs natively on Mac OS X we might consider it.

This could be true if Apple used totally custom hardware. But Apple uses an Intel Chipset and an off-the-shelf graphics card, which means that as soon as the drivers for these devices get loaded by Windows (or Linux) the hardware will work just as well as in a 'real' PC.
You're right - nobody (or hardly anybody) will use Apple+Windows to host a business critical solution, but the problem will be more about official support than maturity.

apple just did not go 100% XP compatible because

a) they don't want half of the world to install XP and get support questions
b) they don't want to be blamed for starting a war againt PC manufacterors and/or Microsoft.

You may be right.

Consider, however, that

a) Other hardware vendors don't seem to have a problem supporting users running XP.

b) The war is already being fought.

Perhaps, however, Apple feel that the time is not right.

Apple make a really nice OS so that people will buy their nice computers. Going the extra mile to allow Windows to boot on a Mac doesn't benefit Apple at all. Unless they want to make money from supporting Windows but I don't think Apple want to do that. They are content selling their OS, Computers, iPods and music/podacsts/movies/whatever else on iTunes.

If OS-X and Apple hardware are the be-all and end-all, then why the mad rush to run Windows?

It's a "mad rush" only among OS enthusiasts, aka geeks. And of course it's mirrored by the attempts to get OS X working on non-Apple PCs.

Some people want to be able to run Windows on a Mac 'just because'.

Other people want to run Windows on a Mac so that they can use Mac OS X and then Windows for games/work/whatever without having to buy an extra machine.