Submitted by Computer Guru has a theoretical solution to the Intel-Macs-Won’t-Boot-Windows problem. All you need, according to him, is a set of Acronis applications, a clean install of Windows XP on another computer, Vista boot files, bcdedit, a Windows Vista DVD, and of course an Intel Mac. Please note that all of his ideas are pure theory, as he does not own a MacBook Pro or Intel iMac. Someone who does should try to verify this.
Assumption is the mother of all f* ups
What I’ve found with making assumptions when trying to fix something Windows related is that there’s always something you didn’t expect popping up from under the abstractions you took for granted.
The comments have some pointers as to why this probably won’t work.
I’m however curious: *does* the EFI shipped with the mactels have a BIOS compatible mode like required?
It’s interesting to note that Microsoft made a deal with Apple: in exchange for continuing Microsoft Office for the Mac for 5 more years, Apple would do nothing to prevent Windows from booting from their new hardware.
Which Windows version was however not noted.
As far as I’m aware, the BIOS compatibility layer is less a mode and more a copy of the standard Phoenix BIOS (etc.) that EFI basically runs in emulation. Think less Wine, more VMware.
Thus, for the new Macs to have a BIOS compatibility layer, Apple would have had to pay one of the BIOS manufacturers for a license, and further, they would have had to include an option to enable it, since you certainly don’t want the BIOS running by default, and the way it works, it’s either running or not, and if it’s running then you have most of the downsides that come from having BIOS in the first place.
Apple has always been about making clean breaks, and this is no different. Apple did not in fact include a BIOS compatibility layer, because they created a system from the ground up that supported EFI. Having BIOS would have been more expensive and almost useless.
“Apple would have had to pay one of the BIOS manufacturers for a license”
This is totally wrong…there is a csm included in the intel specification provided by ami. Go here to learn about using a csm with efi: http://www.intel.com/technology/framework/overview4.htm perhaps even download the code and boot into it (if you have an intel imac, in fact you can even if you dont)
Also there is nothing indicating that by enabling/using a csm it must be used instead of efi…can i ask where you got this information from?
I doubt there would have been too much of a cost to implement a csm, when you look at volume this would have had a miniscule impact on the bottom line. You will probably find other reasons why there is no csm as yet.
Er, how exactly am I wrong? I made two points:
* The CSM is a distinct mode from regular EFI operation that has to be enabled.
* Implementing a CSM would cost money.
A typical CSM is approximately 60 KB (~38KB compressed) of firmware that is specific to each Participating Vendor and is based on that Vendor’s latest BIOS code base.
…For legacy boot the Framework initializes the platform’s silicon and executes EFI drivers. Then control is transferred to the CSM, which supports the legacy OS boot.
(These both come straight from the page you linked to.)
In other words, the CSM is basically AMI/Phoenix/whatever BIOS rewritten to use EFI driver calls instead of direct hardware calls. While this does not specifically say that CSM mode needs to be switched on, I don’t see any other way that EFI could detect a “legacy boot”.
Does this mean Framework-based BIOS from AMI or Insyde will be free?
No. BIOS companies offer tested, supported, royalty-bearing products based on the Framework. There is nothing in BSD license that forces these products to be free.
I download the code and I buy all my silicon from Intel. Can’t I make a free BIOS replacement?
No more easily than you could write a complete one from scratch now. Intel is making drivers generally available to the PC community available through AMI and Insyde as part of their complete product offerings. These offerings include required functionality, backward compatibility, testing and support and will continue to be royalty-bearing. An example of this is the CSM that is available from participating BIOS vendors that provides legacy support.
So, for Apple to license a CSM from any existing BIOS manufacturer, as they surely licensed their EFI implementation from Intel, would in all likelihood be more expensive.
Now, you could ask why Apple didn’t write the CSM themselves, to which I can answer… who knows? Maybe they don’t currently employ anyone who would know how, and don’t want to hire someone just for this job. Maybe they’ve decided to just let Intel handle the firmware (and processors, and motherboard) and otherwise bug off. Who knows.
If the Windows Vista DVD can boot a MacBook, why not just try and install Windows Vista?
Possibly because it’s a potentially unstable beta version, and isn’t necessarily as honed as Windows XP.
The problem is the step “Boot Vista DVD on MacBook”. If it were possible, it’d be done by now. It’s not possible because the Mac’s EFI software does not support booting off UDF, only HFS (or something along those lines). If you were to make the disc compatible with the Mac, then Vista wouldn’t understand it.
Catch-22.
umm…. CDs and DVDs do not use HFS file systems.
Is that a fact? Someone should tell Roxio. Toast seems to think my Mac formatted CDs and DVDs are using the HFS+ file system.
Actually, AFAIK, Toast supports a dual OS format called “hybrid”. This is both ISO9660 and HFS compatible… ISTR all it does is write two partition tables – one for Mac and one for ISO9660, but certainly, it would seem to be an option. However, windows would still have to understand the position it was in at boot time. This is probably where it’d fall down.
Mac CDs/DVDs do.
This time the clue was free, but next time I’ll have to charge $14.99.
That illustrates just about the only thing I miss from DOS/Win9x: the ability to simply do format /s c:, copy the win98 folder to the drive, then boot DOS and start setup.exe that way.
You’ve got that right. 🙁
nobody have installed macos X (not beta) on a pc?
Just some thoughts.
I think its the MBR thats stopping Windonws (And other boots disks)form loading.
On the mac forums there was a thread about has MacOS would not install on an external drives.In the end it was because of the partition table. As long as you use the GUID partition table format you can boot.
Maybe if GRUB is updated this will fix the problem for all OSes as UEFI maybe the next standard in few years.
More info here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUID_Partition_Table
And here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_boot_record
Edited 2006-01-29 21:36
>If you were to make the disc compatible with the Mac, then Vista wouldn’t understand it.
Why ? I remember the time when dual-format CDRoms came with magazines: HFS+ISO/Joliet.
Isn’t it possible to make a dual-format DVD with Vista on the UDF side, and Vista BootFiles only on the HFS side ?
That way you could boot off the CD as HFS will contain Vista boot files and then start installation of Vista as the UDF part will contain Vista installation files…
Leo.
Edited 2006-01-29 22:18
…he would buy an iMac and collect the bounty.
<a href=”http://winxponmac.com/The%20Contest.html“>
Edited 2006-01-29 22:40
Sometimes a person can believe in something without having the time or money to invest in it. A year ago I was telling people that I believed Apple stock was going to take off. They were doing everything right, and I thought they had a few aces up their sleeves. I also thought that Google stock would be great to buy in their IPO. If I had put a significant amount of money in either stock, I would have collected a boat-load (I would have sold either by this point). Unfortunately, I didn’t have cash on hand, and I didn’t feel like it would be wise to float a loan to play the stock market even though I stood to gain quite a bit in hind-sight.
I bet this guy doesn’t have the time or money to invest in the possibility that he might be right.
…why are we bothering to listen to this guy?
We all know Apple patented a way to secure software to hardware, has anyone told this story yet?
We all know Apple patented a way to secure software to hardware, has anyone told this story yet?
Requiring certain hardware to run certain software doesn’t preclude other software from running on that hardware.
Yet another article. I’m sorry, but once again – all of these 100 articles a day about the Intel iMacs are starting to just get plain annoying. Sure, put an article on here that tells us someone has done it, but in the mean time – I’m sure the whole world knows that people want to get XP running on an iMac for whatever reason.
I agree, I’m tired of this XP on Mactel buisness.
I don’t want Mac’s to boot Windows, it will seriously weaken the adoption of Mac OS X and developers will just insist Mac users boot into Windows instead of compiling a X version of their programs.
I used a PC the other day, a very long time since I did, and I was extremely shocked at the poor quality of the Windows OS and the Dell PC. (a mouse with a ball still?)
I don’t want to use that sort of computer, I’m rather comfortable with my quality rig.
http://homepage.mac.com/hogfish/.Pictures/mysetup.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/hogfish/PhotoAlbum2.html
“I don’t want Mac’s to boot Windows, it will seriously weaken the adoption of Mac OS X and developers will just insist Mac users boot into Windows instead of compiling a X version of their programs.”
I believe you have that backwards. If Apple can make a machine that can run the major players (OSX, Windows, Linux), then it will become the must have machine for developers. OSX will continue to be the second choice platform for developers just because of market share, but it will drastically reduce the cost of entering that market because they only have to buy one machine (and a copy of Windows) instead of two machines. You’re likely to see many more small software developers supporting OSX if Apple can make that happen. I think they did themselves a terrible disservice by making it as hard as it is.
All this might be great for the developer and geeks like us, however it doesn’t seem like Apple cares about developers. (Releasing the Intel line 6 months earlier without telling developers.) Apple cares about the consumer running OSX in the living room next to the shiny iPod.
We will see a hacked version of OSX running on regular hardware (oops it does already) before you see Windows XP running on an Intel MAC. All this money donated could be used for a real cause. Just my 2 canadian cent.
Edited 2006-01-30 15:23
I’ll never understand why Mac users post pictures of their computer. Hello! They all look the same!
They don’t all have a big huge silver box next to the desk 😉
Just kidding. But what about the setup around the computer, the desk and surroundings and how they compliment the look of the computer? And what is that big silver box on the floor next to the desk?
Don’t let that rayiner troll get you down, yoru rig rocks and I for one am glad mac user’s put pics of their machines on the net. They are powerful, elegant, and well-designed. Let’s show them off.
Spend your time on something you value instead.
How do you think it makes the people who are interested in this feel when they have to wade through your complaints about something you claim not care about?
blah blah blah blah about macintel
is why anybody would want to install Windows on a Mac (or anything else for that matter).
I guess if you wanted to because that’s what you were familiar with, fine, but then why buy a Mac? Just buy a PC and be done with it.
I don’t mean this as a flame or anything. Obviously, I don’t like Windows much, but even if that weren’t the case, I still can’t understand the desire to run Windows on a Mac.
People moving from Windows PCs to Macs still want to be able to play their old games, and even existing Mac users will probably want to have access to the much wider array of Windows games out there. Especially considering the very decent graphics cards Apple tends to stock their systems with, this seems like the top reason to run Windows on a Macintel.
well you could say its the games. But the Mac has an ever so increasing range of games being developed for it. Sure they maybe a bit lagged behind at the moment but in some ways that is a great quality filter. Also at the moment it useally means all the flopped games don’t make it. Their are only a few good games out there. However as the mac increases market share so will the amount of games. Once that happens then why run XP or whatever?
Im a mac user and have used Linux, BSD, XP,2003 etc and i can honestly say Apple’s OS is superb. With XP its true why would anybody want to run it. To tell you the truth this whole Windows on Mac blah blah is nothing more than who can be the first coolest uber hacker to get it working then they can claim the fame and said i did it. Once this is done this whole novety idea of running Windows on the mac will die down. Sure there maybe some weirdos who want to run a poorer made system (IMHO) than a better qaulity one but that is up to them. Wouldnt it be easier at the moment just to get Linux running on it? Surely some distro out their is making support as we speak for it. But the whole point of buying a Mac is for Mac OS X. Yes its nice to have several OS but it comes quite annoying with reboots. What we need is a master OS with something like VMWARE or pref some freeware app able to run others. Like OS X as the master OS and Linux and Windows ran on top or something now that would make more sense! Give it up, the days of restarting are going out the Window.
well you could say its the games. But the Mac has an ever so increasing range of games being developed for it.
It’s still the games people will do it for. And of course all the software for which there are no Mac equivalents. Stuff people need to use for their work for example.
“Sure there maybe some weirdos who want to run a poorer made system (IMHO) than a better qaulity one…”
The whole problem in a nutshell. They, and they are 95% of the world, don’t think it is inferior, and they are not weirdos. Now, you don’t have to share their preferences and tastes. But you really should stop calling people weird just because they have different tastes. They are no more weird than you are.
Maybe less?
“The whole problem in a nutshell. They, and they are 95% of the world, don’t think it is inferior, and they are not weirdos. Now, you don’t have to share their preferences and tastes. But you really should stop calling people weird just because they have different tastes. They are no more weird than you are.
Maybe less?”
Sorry you completely misunderstood my comments. And part my fault. I meant that why would anybody buy a nice new slick Apple hardware with OS X and then dual boot with Windows. You could argue the hardware is nice but if you shop around i suppose you can find a good deal. Yes you can argue for software, at the moment (accept for Games) their is always an equivelent software on OS X. The only downside is it cost money to re-train staff. But when the major apps run on both platforms Windows will be in trouble. I dont see Microsoft rushing Database accross to OS X, because they know, and we know, when they do why would we need their OS accept for games? That why people like Filemaker and even OOo have grab this chance. By the term “wierdo” its not what it means face value. Again my fault since cross naturality dialects dont translate over the internet in terms of slang. I meant people who just go and buy all that kit for just Windows just seems a waste of money.. but that my viewpoint. I am not calling these people weird or inferior in anyway. I both use Windows and OS X. Next time i will rephrase my wording their sorry for confusion.
There is nothing wrong with diff OSes. We could argue the reason the 90+% adoption of Windows is more like by default than rather choice. And yes they are not aware of the alternatives but its people like Apple who are making people aware. I am all for a multi-OS enviorement i think any company whether Microsoft, Apple or any Linux distro that shuts it self off for their own way is in grave danger. We are in a multi-OS culture and untill the next big OS comes and takes over thats the way it will be. We need OSes to talk to each other. The reason Apple are so “we do windows connections” on their site is because of that fact. When you get OSes or even websites that lock out the alternatives that is discremantion.
But what i argue is we need to move away from the lets reboot OS model and lets run it in one enviorement. The days of restarting is vanishing thats why emulators are coming popular. Until then we do need to put up with restarts. but again that is preference and more in the future than now.
So i agree with your comments and sorry for using slang on the site that was an error on my part.
Edited 2006-01-30 15:49
I’m not sure anyone intends to have xp/linux/osx dual booting on a mac become common. After all, it’s completely unsupported by apple etc.
Yes, geeks (meant in the most positive of ways, I consider myself one as well) will indeed work to accomplish this goal.
It’s in the name of fun, education, being able to accomplish something which seems nearly impossible at first. It’s the challenge and the reward (Being able to boot nearly any OS on your computer) that’s attractive.
I doubt many users will even know when this task has been accomplished, nor are they likely to care.
Perhaps things may change a bit when Vista is released- it may install and boot flawlessly. Until then, this is a challenge that excites many.
Maybe we’ll all learn something in the process?
“Maybe we’ll all learn something in the process?”
Totally agree, nothing wrong with in the name of fun and education and for novety value. But the average Joe on the street doesnt care about “oh i run 5 or so OSes on my computer.” he or she will say 1) what an OS? 2)aint that very impratical 3)why?
In geek culture its perfectly normal. But the rest of the 90% of uses want a computer they turn on, login and get to work. they want an OS that gets out of their way and helps when its needed. Gone are the days where you need to read a big fact UNIX manual to use your computer. For those who want to let them do it. But for the majority of people don’t burden them with something they couldnt care less with. Anybody today making an OS for consumers needs to know this. Some of us Linux/BSD people may mock people for having a simple to use OS. But not everybody wants to learn the guts of computers. they dont wont it. They want a box they turn on and check their email on.
So totally agree. Let us geeks do are little window hacks and let everybody else carry on in their work.
Edited 2006-01-30 16:42
“They, and they are 95% of the world, don’t think it is inferior, and they are not weirdos. Now, you don’t have to share their preferences and tastes.”
I really don’t think most Windows users use Windows as a matter of taste. I guess I just have a hard time believing that 95% of all computer useres have bad taste.
I think they use it because they think they can’t afford a Mac, or they think a Mac doesn’t have good software, or they think their cousin Mervin cna help them with their Windows set up but not with a Mac, or they think they want to run games.
In the world of politics, it was called false consciousness. It was the inexplicable inability of the proletariat to understand that their interests really were best served by the Party. Instead, they were misled by capitalist propaganda about elections. In a similar way, they failed to understand that the liquidation of anti-party elements was going to bring the dictatorship of the proletariat closer than ever, even if a few counter revolutionary members of the proletariat had to be…sacrificed.
The explanation is not that they do not know what’s good for them, but that, right or wrong, they have chosen something different. The issue is to learn from it.
Sometimes you don’t have a choice. I make my money from work on and with a specific Windows software application (I write the documenation for it and provide user support) but for my private work and pleasure I much prefer Mac and OS X.
At the moment I’m forced to use a Windows laptop because having two laptops would be impractical. A Mac laptop that was both fast enough and able to run both is exactly what I need. Actually, it would be even better if I could virtualize Windows natively and reliably, so that I could switch between it and OS X without having to reboot — that would be really ideal and much more practical than any other solution.
Indeed, I couldn’t care less for dual booting (the only reason would be games and you don’t use a laptop as a gaming rig), but virtualization is much more intersting to me. I too access to Windows XP to cater for my clients and I’m not to thrilled about Virtual PC (interestingly, the only apps I’ve personally ever seen causing major problems on Mac OS X are Microsoft apps, well that and badly coded games of course).
QEMU with an x86 accellerator or preferably VMWare would be nice to have. Som form of built in virtualization in Leopard (10.5) would be ideal.
One good reason to dual boot is to run applications that don’t run on OS X Intel. Remember, Rosetta doesn’t emulate anything that embeds Java. That means applications like Matlab and OpenOffice won’t run properly in Rosetta. Having Windows around to run such apps would be rather useful.
One good reason to dual boot is to run applications that don’t run on OS X Intel. Remember, Rosetta doesn’t emulate anything that embeds Java. That means applications like Matlab and OpenOffice won’t run properly in Rosetta. Having Windows around to run such apps would be rather useful.
As both those apps are available for Linux and Fedora is likely to be available long before booting windows is possible and easy, why not dual boot Linux ?
Better yet, stick to powerpc macs for another 6 months until the apps are ported. Dual booting just to run a few apps is a pain I can do without.
You make a good point that Fedora will likely run on them soon, but I think you’re off regarding ports. I don’t forsee apps like Matlab being ported for quite awhile yet, simply because the Mac is a minor market, and The Mathworks’s attention to the platform hasn’t exactly been steller.
I am looking for a block diagram for the latest iMac Intel motherboard (MA199LL or MA200LL), which shows all major IC’s and their part numbers.
Anyone who disassembles an Intel iMac could create this diagram in about 5 minutes. Is this info available on the net?
Some people on here might wonder why dual boot. Well I can tell you for one I will not buy one of the new apple’s until I know for a fact they will dual boot windows. Why? Well I am a software developer who develops software target at the military. Most military computers run windows, so I want the capability of developing and testing on Windows, bit on the other hand I prefer MacOSX over WinXP for everyday use. Me personnaly I can’t wait until VMware and Wine are ported to the new platform.
This guy NeoSmart is not very impressive. His comments on what is needed to boot Windows on a Mac are pure conjecture and not worth reading. His comments on the Intel cpu and motherboard are not much better.
“Intel makes the chips. 100% of them. Nothing on it is made by Mac. Maybe programmed by Mac, but not made by Mac.”
I assume he means Apple since I don’t of any company by the name of “Mac”.
“So Apple uses boards made by Intel. Not even customized Intel boards, because that was their gripe with IBM. Apple just doesn’t have enough demand for them to give them customized chips.”
Intel boards with Intel chips and Intel cpu’s. Apples gripe with IBM was that they could not get a G5 laptop out the door. Demand for desktop and server G5 chips is just fine.
“From what I have managed to gather the only Intel board with EFI support is the 945 chipset.”
Lets see a source on that. Your not exactly inspiring confidence with your other comments.