Home > Windows > Microsoft Bombshell: No EFI Support for Windows Vista

Microsoft Bombshell: No EFI Support for Windows Vista

  Submitted by danwarne Windows 114 Comments

Microsoft revealed today that it will not support EFI booting for Windows Vista on its launch. The news will be a shock for owners of Intel Macs who had hoped they would be able to dual-boot between Windows Vista and OS X. Intel Macs only support booting via EFI.

About The Author

Eugenia Loli

Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.

Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli

114 Comments

  1. 2006-03-10 1:31 am
    Eugenia Loli

    Well, that sucks. I was waiting to get a 64-bit MacBook Pro (these should be out within a year from now), but the idea was to also multi-boot Windows and Linux on it as well as OSX. Now, this kinda sours my plans.

    Edited 2006-03-10 01:32

    • 2006-03-10 3:17 am
      Beryllium

      Well, not entirely – you can still boot linux.

      …

      Mwuahahahahhahahahhahahhhahahahahahahahahahahahah! ;)

      But seriously, *wipes away a tear* I think I’m going to hold off on buying a laptop until Vista comes out and just get a regular Core Duo lappie. None of that overpriced Apple stuff – I’ve only used it a few times, and I’ve not been impressed with it (but a few minutes can hardly be enough time to “wow”). I might even hold off until Vista SP1, so I can get the latest and greatest hardware at the time.

      • 2006-03-10 8:47 am
        Kroc Silver Supporter

        Hahaha! ;) But, seriously, The MacBook Pro is not overpriced.

        • 2006-03-10 7:30 pm
          Jed

          Hahaha! ;) But, seriously, The MacBook Pro is not overpriced.

          Yeah it is, like all of Apple’s products. ;)

    • 2006-03-10 4:43 pm
      Dark_Knight

      Eugenia,

      If I recally correctly Intel will be releasing Merom by September of this year, not 2007. So unless laptop manufacturers such as HP, Dell, Apple, etc have other plans we should see Core Duo laptops supporting EMT64 later this year.

      As for lack of EFI support this may be due to motherboard manufacturers not all agreeing with EFI implementation over using BIOS. When I was looking over soon to be released laptops such as the HP NX9420 on review sites like http://www.notebookreview.com/ unless I’m mistaken I haven’t seen a single one mention support for EFI. So while it appears EFI motherboards will be sparse consumers using EFI may appreciate using just their current system OS or using a Linux distribution that supports EFI. They may be also possibly able to run Windows Vista with an emulator if they really need to.

      Reference:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_Microarchitecture

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Firmware_Interface

      • 2006-03-10 5:46 pm
        Ronald Vos

        It might actually mean that notebooks will come without Windows tax, if the notebooks are released without there being Windows support. I’d love to see that, as it’s nigh impossible to get a Windows-less notebook here in Europe.

        It will probably mean notebooks will either not be released or loaded with BIOS backwards compatible firmware.

    • 2006-03-10 6:21 pm
      Edward

      mac users are all bitchey about MS not letting it boot on Mac. Oh well someone will hack it.

    • 2006-03-10 7:22 pm
      somebody

      this is why they won’t support EFI. Strange way to put it out that MS needs to get a clue, just because they are ensuring bigger proffit to them selves.

      Look from their perspective (they are out to make money not to please Eugenia and few others)

      1. you (and few others) were waiting to get a MacBook Pro to multi-boot Windows and Linux on it as well as OSX

      – Well, now you won’t. Which one will you choose? In any case, generaly looking, 99% of people will decide for Windows compatible machine and not OSX compatible. Meaning MS wins what they wanted

      2. By supporting EFI, they would automaticaly introduce competitor to them self. Remember, Joe User could look if OSX is adequate for his job or not. Now, they just excluded one, because Joe User won’t be able to see OSX.

      As well, as for your plans:)

      1. Apple said they won’t do anything against booting Windows on the same machine. They never said they will do something to enable that option. Meaning, they just evaded any additional work and retained their face.

      2. MS is for sure not interested to enable Joe User to compare between OSX and Windows. They just don’t need to support EFI, and that is it.

      3. You were really naive if you even though about different outcome. (all the moded down comments of mine when I was predicting this outcome in the past were not for nothing, it seems)

      p.s. One could only expect that Apple would start moving from EFI to BIOS in future to ensure them self bigger sales. This EFI trick will cost them quite a few of planned proffit. But, I’m sure MS already has plans for that too.

  2. 2006-03-10 1:34 am
    Adurbe

    this was a conscious decision on MS’s part. They dont WANT it to be easy to swap OS!

    • 2006-03-10 1:37 am
      Eugenia Loli

      Well, I guess VMWare will have to do then. The word has it that VMWare is porting their client as we speak. Even if Microsoft won’t create a universal binary for their VirtualPC for Macs anymore (it is not yet decided at MS what they want to do with their Mac client), there is VMWare coming.

      • 2006-03-10 1:55 am
        xioztzu

        The QEMU project is about to get virtualization going on x86 Macs that will save you the cost of VMWare if you like to compute on the cheap.

        http://qemu.dad-answers.com/viewtopic.php?t=930&sid=9aefe663f39cb46…

        • 2006-03-10 2:14 am
          Eugenia Loli

          No, thank you. Quemu or Bochs don’t even come close to the speed and ease of use of VMWare of VPC. I will stay with the solutions that really work, for now.

          • 2006-03-10 2:37 am
            archiesteel

            And, with experimental 3D support progressing quickly, VMWare becomes even more attractive…

          • 2006-03-10 7:42 am
            RenatoRam

            Not to mention the fact that VMWare is free (as in beer). Both the player (for one-off, desktop use), and the Server (useful to setup a couple of VMs to do network/server testing on a regular basis).

            OSX is already pretty much POSIX compliant (linux software have run on it for ages, after recompilation and some tweaks for PPC). Now that the machines are simple intel VMWare will be ported from linux in a snap.

            If the “native gtk” project gains steam they could be only a recompile away. Otherwise they’d need to rewrite the UI (I don’t think they’d require an X server).

        • 2006-03-10 2:56 pm
          DeadFishMan

          The QEMU project is about to get virtualization going on x86 Macs that will save you the cost of VMWare if you like to compute on the cheap.

  • 2006-03-10 5:28 pm
    xioztzu

    I think their point of not needing modification to work on the Intel Macs, it mostly valid. From what I saw the Mac QEMU developers made the universal binary conversion quite quickly.

    What will take time is the porting of the x86 processor virtualization code to the Intel Mac. Virtualization of x86 was not possible before the switch to Intel so this will be a new project. Remember, QEMU for the Mac is only an emulator at this point.

    Does anyone know where I can find an official announcement for VMWare for Mac?

  • 2006-03-10 5:37 pm
    crispoe

    There is no official announcement for vmware for the mac.

  • 2006-03-10 2:10 am
    DevL

    Excellent news. VMware on the Mac will be a nice addition.

  • 2006-03-10 6:21 pm
    powerdroid

    Eugenia

    Do you have any contacts at VMWare that would allow you to interview them and perhaps get more information regarding their plans for OSX? It would be great to know their roadmap or possible beta testing opportunities.

    pd

  • 2006-03-10 3:12 am
    ronaldst

    Why would MS have go out of their way, aka costs, to support some feature that only 1 hardware vendor, a non-OEM BTW, is gonna have?

    • 2006-03-10 4:30 am
      jamesrdorn

      Because EFI is a fix to the aging old BIOS.

      The only reason why OEMs do not have EFI is because MS has not bothered to write an OS loader to use it.

      Becides, Apple really wins out of this, all they have to do is release a utility or firmware update for EFI to support BIOS the BIOS compatiblity layer that it currently has dissabled.

  • 2006-03-10 1:09 pm
    BryanFeeney

    Um, why? What’s wrong with selling Windows to Mac users. If anything I’d say the whole prospect would get an evil chuckle out of Ballmer.

    What’s weird is that Intel is really pushing EFI as a successor to BIOS, which an increasing number of people feel is well behind the times.

    If anything, I’d say time-contraints were the problem. They probably were still seeing bugs, and so just ditched support so they could roll out the product by the end of the year.

    It’s disappointing, but Microsoft has always lagged in implementing support for new hardware in the past, like USB.

  • 2006-03-10 1:38 am
    Splinter

    They remove the new fangled file systems, the EFI support and a pile of other stuff.

    So what DO we get for all our money?

    • 2006-03-10 3:19 am
      Beryllium

      The cheapest way to (legally) acquire Vista is through bundling, so the answer to your question is:

      A shiny new hard drive, soon to be cleaned and reinstalled with something 21st-century.

      • 2006-03-10 9:05 pm
        Mellin

        Don’t upgrade the motherboard or you’ll have to pay for vista again

        • 2006-03-10 9:40 pm
          sappyvcv

          If you buy OEM, yes.

    • 2006-03-10 10:19 am
      Angel--Fr@gzill@

      !!!

      “They remove the new fangled file systems, the EFI support and a pile of other stuff.

      So what DO we get for all our money?”

      ————————-

      Not much actually, but is has been like that since 20 years ago…

      Still, people kept on buying their stuff instead of better software options from other companies.

      ———–

      I am not sure what DO you get, yourself, for your money…

      BUT, I’m sure they DO not get nothing of my MONEY !!!

      Angel–Fr@gzill@

      !!!!

    • 2006-03-10 10:51 am
      NxStY

      Well at least their TCPA/DRM stuff is innovative. ;)

    • 2006-03-10 7:07 pm
      sappyvcv

      Did they ever say they were going to support EFI? If not, then they have not “removed” support for it, and WinFS still remains the only thing they’ve really “removed”.

  • 2006-03-10 1:47 am
    StevenHatfield

    This doesn’t surprise me at all.

    Vista is not much more than just WinXP Service Pack 4 with a change in the GUI layer to make it look more like Mac OS X.

    Bill Gates probably still has a Macintosh on his desktop…

    • 2006-03-10 2:47 am
      BluenoseJake

      I guess you don’t know much about Vista, it is much more than just a SP for XP, try reading up on it

      • 2006-03-10 3:15 am
        Nathan O.

        Honest question:

        Really, what *are* the new features of Vista? I can’t keep track of which ones are really going in and which ones have already fallen off the list.

        They’ve got the new interface, the sidebar, … I know they’ve got more, I just can’t think of them.

        • 2006-03-10 3:21 am
          Beryllium

          They completely rewrote several subsystems. Total, balls-to-the-wall, ground-up rewrites.

          The stuff geeks have been clamouring for.

          But now, because of how long that took, all the other stuff they promised will either be released incrementally after launch, or via a service pack. I don’t think they’ve outright canned any of the announced features, I think it’s just a matter of time.

          • 2006-03-10 4:06 pm
            Nathan O.

            So… Win32 is finally being replaced?

          • 2006-03-10 7:20 pm
            sappyvcv

            WinFX is meant as a replacement, yes.

            However, they aren’t going to phase out support for Win32 anytime soon.

        • 2006-03-10 4:56 am
          sappyvcv

          WinFX: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinFX

          Windows Presentation Foundation (the powerhouse behind accelerated graphics display AND the awesome XAML stuff that third party devs will gobble up)

          Those are 2 big things. There are tons more new things. If you are unable to read crap besides slashdot and desktoplinux.org which says otherwise, oh well. Don’t use Vista then, no one will care.

          • 2006-03-10 5:28 am
            ronaldst

            Open sauce fanatics are really sensitive. They must never been offended by reality.

          • 2006-03-10 9:18 am
            dylansmrjones

            Except that Vista ships without WinFX. It’s however going to come in some years. But WinFX will not make it this year. And you know that.

            So that one is off.

            [edit: fixed typo]

            Edited 2006-03-10 09:18

          • 2006-03-10 12:52 pm
            sappyvcv

            No, that’s Win[i]FS[i] buddy.

            Get your facts straight.

      • 2006-03-10 7:51 am
        grrr

        “I guess you don’t know much about Vista, it is much more than just a SP for XP, try reading up on it”

        Yes read all the ms commercials than you really know ;-).

        • 2006-03-10 7:12 pm
          sappyvcv

          Then read slashdot and they’ll clue you in on reality.

          Right? right??

          • 2006-03-10 11:31 pm
            grrr

            Yes that is right /. is the most useful and objective resource you can imagine.

    • 2006-03-10 3:12 am
      Maciek

      Why the hell was this comment moderated up to the maximum? Are you all really that clueless, or just hopelessly biased against Windows?

      • 2006-03-10 3:17 am
        ronaldst

        It’s the open sauce fanatics’ work. I wish OSNews would just remove the vote points. It clearly not working out.

        Edited 2006-03-10 03:27

        • 2006-03-10 3:39 am
          Soulbender

          Good thing there arent any equally moronic closed sauce fanatics here.

          Oh wait…

          • 2006-03-10 3:43 am
            ronaldst

            Judging by the vote abuse that’s been going for a while now on OSNews and slashdot… *wink*

          • 2006-03-10 8:41 am
            Soulbender

            Yeah, I’ve noticed this recent influx of MS fanbois and their vote abuse. It’s quite disturbing.

            Is there some kind of brainwashing going on here?

          • 2006-03-10 2:05 pm
            ronaldst

            You must not read /. much. All the comments point to the open sauce loonies. If they’d leave and went back to /., we’d just be bothered by the regular cheap bastards. ;)

          • 2006-03-10 6:12 pm
            BluenoseJake

            Yeah, that’s it, it’s just the MS fanboys that are abusing the vote system…….what colour is the sky in your world?

          • 2006-03-10 7:52 pm
            vitae

            Honestly, all this sympathy for Microsoft. It’s not enough that they’re one of the world’s richest corporations or that they control around 90% of the desktop market? Some of you feel sorry for them because they’re being “picked on”? You’ve got to be kidding. MS execs buying cars, mansions, god knows what else at your expense, and you feel sorry for them. The jokes on you. If you all think MS gets such a bad rap here, Slashdot and other places, why don’t you all confine yourselves to the MS forums where they do nothin but sing in praise of BILL.

          • 2006-03-10 9:40 pm
            sappyvcv

            What? Who feels “sorry” for them? No one said they feel sorry.

            It sounds like you’re jealous of MS anyway.

            “Wahh they have tons of money who cares what happens to them!”

          • 2006-03-11 1:22 am
            BluenoseJake

            Actually, if you read the parent posting to which I was replying to, I was commenting on the fact that “Soulbender” had complained that “MS fanboys” were abusing the voting system, I was not defending anybody. I was just trying to state that all the “groups” present on osnews seem to abuse it. Please read the entire post, and it’s parent before critizing the post. And another thing, I currently run Windows, Ubuntu and FreeBSD, I tend to use what works best for me for a particular task, I am not a Fanboy, per se, unless you call me a fan of reality, but alot of people here wouldn’t recognize that

            Edited 2006-03-11 01:30

          • 2006-03-11 8:05 am
            Soulbender

            “.what colour is the sky in your world?”

            Whatever color humor and irony has. Apparently your sky has neither of those.

            Edited 2006-03-11 08:06

          • 2006-03-11 8:03 pm
            BluenoseJake

            I guess I didn’t recognize the humour, hidden amongst the dry, utterly devoid of emotional content statement that you made

          • 2006-03-10 7:08 pm
            altair

            Judging by the vote abuse that’s been going for a while now on OSNews and slashdot… *wink*

            That is the reason that I did not want a voting system added to osnews. It leads to only the biggest groups views from being heard. Luckily it is nowhere near the level that slashdot is at (just try to mention something good about windows on there).

    • 2006-03-10 4:31 pm
      gdanko

      Ain’t that the truth. I am sure Bill and Steve B both use MacBooks now. 🙂

  • 2006-03-10 2:02 am
    braddock

    EFI can be loaded with a BIOS compatability module (theoretically). The EFI issues does not even seem to be as large of an issue as the UGA (vs legacy VGA) issue.

    This problem WILL be solved by someone. It is actively being worked on, and some people are very close.

    When The Contest, now up to $12k, ( http://windowsxp.onmac.net/The%20Contest.html ) ends late this month, a lot of people may start sharing their information again and we could see some rapid cross-polination.

  • 2006-03-10 2:09 am
    nzjrs

    Not to play devils advocate but what if this was an intentional measure?

    Do you think owners of macbooks will be more pissed at apple for having EFI or at vista for not supporting it? It the answer is the former then maybe there is intent in microsofts decision

    The only reason I bring it because, c’mon microsoft has slipped launch dates for less than this!

    Either way linux is already there (http://times.usefulinc.com/2006/03/09-macbook)

    Yay!

    • 2006-03-10 2:29 am
      Celerate

      “Do you think owners of macbooks will be more pissed at apple for having EFI or at vista for not supporting it?”

      I don’t remember large groups of people being mad at Apple for choosing the power architecture even though that resulted in people not being able to run Windows natively after a certain build of NT. Apple never said their computers would run Windows, and people getting Macs in the hopes that they would were knowingly gambling on that expectation. While it is possible that people would be angry at Apple, I think it’s far more likely that most of the blame will land on Microsoft.

      • 2006-03-10 4:12 am
        nzjrs

        I don’t remember large groups of people being mad at Apple for choosing the power architecture even though that resulted in people not being able to run Windows natively after a certain build of NT.

        But this time its soooooo close. And yet still so far! 😉

    • 2006-03-10 11:36 am
      Manik

      By intentional I suppose you mean they could do it and decided not to ? I bet it’s intentional :

      – Apple says if people want to run Windows on the Mac then so be it, they won’t do anything against it.

      – Every analyst on the planet says : Wow ! If the Mac can run Windows natively then Apple’s market share will explode.

      – PC makers don’t like that one bit. Not sure Microsoft like it either. It’s difficult enough already…

      – Microsoft sings to Intel : No no no no no I say no, my answer is no (bis)

      You may come with your rod of operation, no no no no no consolation, grieve and pain etc… etc…

  • 2006-03-10 2:10 am
    JoeBuck

    Vista is going to be a limited, locked-down system. No one will be allowed to write device drivers for it without permission from Microsoft; drivers will have to be digitally signed with a Microsoft-approved key to run. They are going to support fewer devices, not more.

    The motivation, it appears, is to create a Hollywood-friendly platform. The next step is that high-definition video disks will only play on an approved Vista system. Macs can get in the club too if Steve Jobs agrees to ship similarly crippled systems and makes sure that no device can allow Hollywood’s precious bodily fluids to escape. If they play it right, they can try to force everyone to buy new hardware, because the older hardware will be blocked out of DRM paradise.

    • 2006-03-10 6:35 am
      timosa

      Macs can get in the club too if Steve Jobs agrees to ship similarly crippled systems and makes sure that no device can allow Hollywood’s precious bodily fluids to escape. If they play it right, they can try to force everyone to buy new hardware, because the older hardware will be blocked out of DRM paradise.

      Remember that not everyone needs Hollywood. Even if they do there are other hardware alternatives to play the Hollywood content than your only computer.

  • 2006-03-10 2:16 am
    DevL

    Personally I couldnt care less as I have no intentions to dual boot my future Intel Macs. Eugenias information on VMware being ported is much more of interest to me as it’ll enable me to run an instance of WindowsXP or Windows2003 on my Mac WHEN I need to support a client.

    Apart from gaming and educational needs, I think dual-booting is pretty pointless – virtualization is the ticket.

    That said, I’ve still got a tripple-booting Thinkpad X30 (Windows XP/Ubuntu Dapper Drake/PC-BSD). 🙂

  • 2006-03-10 2:17 am
    Dias

    That’s crap, I’ll buy a MacIntel only if it will boot WinVista because there are some programs that I can’t live without (Rhino/StudioTools).

    • 2006-03-10 6:46 am
      captrb

      the folks (and companies) behind the wine project may still provide an alternative to emulators. Not that I have anything against VMWare, I’ve had good experiences with their products.

      • 2006-03-10 7:28 pm
        somebody

        the folks (and companies) behind the wine project may still provide an alternative to emulators.

        Yeah, and we folks on Linux have been waiting for wine to just work, for how long now?

        I wouldn’t deploy wine based apps on linux, and for sure wouldn’t on OSX. Native is just more native.

        Funny seeing such optimistic Mac users:)

    • 2006-03-10 4:20 pm
      modmans2ndcoming

      uhhh….. VMWare will boot it.

      cripes, do you really think that dual booting is a better option than virtualization?

      • 2006-03-10 7:33 pm
        somebody

        cripes, do you really think that dual booting is a better option than virtualization?

        Yeah, it is. Native full speed is simply better than virtualized one. I’m using VMWare on Linux (my heart doesn’t allow me to have Windows installed as dual-boot for one and only Win app I need, VMWare is easier to transfer between my notebooks) for few years now, and all I can say is “Performance and restrictions are painfull”

  • 2006-03-10 2:32 am
    NeoX

    Oh well. Even though I am buying a intel mini, it is no big loss. If there really are not any systems out there that even use EFI, as we know there can’t be as they wouldn’t be able to use Windows at all, why bother with supporting it? Pushing the technology is cool and all but is this really what everyone is waiting for? Seems to me that if drivers are stored in flash ram and not part of the OS it might be more of a pain to troubleshoot and update drivers… Don’t really know much about it though, so just my 2 cents…

  • 2006-03-10 2:45 am
    skingers6894

    Apple promised that I could run Windows on my Mac! This sucks! Cast your mind back to the switch announcement and Steve Jobs said:

    “We aren’t really interested in Mac OS X any more. We are building a platform that will run Windows. This way you can get a cool looking machine and not be forced to run our OS. As you all know, this nonsense about low-power high-performace chips from Intel is nothing but a smokescreen. What we really want you to do is run Windows Vista, which will be much better than 10.5 anyway.”

    Oh hang on, that might have been a Dvorak article, I can’t remember now…

  • 2006-03-10 2:57 am
    orion

    Personally it doesn’t surprise me. Why would Microsoft want to give Apple any business? Apple may sell hardware, but they also sell an OS along with that hardware. It’s better for Microsoft if less people buy Macs.

    I don’t think there’s any reason to be upset about this. Apple doesn’t want people running Windows on their boxes anyway. If a Mac can boot Windows, then that’ll take away from the “special” quality of the Macs. Now that they run Intel x86 hardware, they have to make their hardware special one way or another.

    The only people running Windows on MacIntels will be us brave computer geeks willing to go the extra mile. And really Apple could care less about us. Same with Microsoft. At the end of the day, it’s all about business.

    Both Microsoft and Apple have good business reasons for not making it easy for their products to be compatible.

    • 2006-03-10 3:27 am
      DittoBox

      Spot on. Your post really made me think. Neither Apple nor Microsoft want OS X to run on generic PCs, or for Vista/XP to run on Macs.

      For us geeks/hackers (not crackers) we live for choice. Just look at Linux and some of the UNIXs.

      For the vast majority of users, which is what most businesses target, choice isn’t something they want, instead they want it to “just work”. Software Business is in many cases “anti-choice”. Either by nature or by some insidious business model this is the way things work, if they can reduce choice to their products (and maybe their “friends”) they stand to profit most. Capitalisim 101.

      The two companies –Apple and MS– are simply epitomizing the entire software industry in this situation, because removing choice is what works best for their short-term bottom line. As much as the vast majority of us hate this, as you pointed out: there’s no reason to be upset, this is just the way things are.

      And can someone with votes mod parent up? ;)

      • 2006-03-10 1:05 pm
        halfmanhalfamazing

        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^For the vast majority of users, which is what most businesses target, choice isn’t something they want, instead they want it to “just work”. Software Business is in many cases “anti-choice”. Either by nature or by some insidious business model this is the way things work, if they can reduce choice to their products (and maybe their “friends”) they stand to profit most. Capitalisim 101.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

        You shouldn’t be giving “capitalism 101” lessons, you don’t know what it is.

        Competition is one of the core components that makes capitalism so effective. Reducing choice in the manner you describe is what would be found in the corporatist, or socialist model. Both of these models have alot of back-room deals and cronyism at their core. It’s all about power…………………………..

        • 2006-03-10 4:25 pm
          modmans2ndcoming

          interestingly, unregulated capitolism ends up in monopolies… thus eliminating the consumer’s choice.

          Capitolism is about efficent use of resources using revenue as a regulation mechanism, pruning off the weaker companies in favor of the most competative company. IT is not about providing good service, or quality service, infact, as competition falls off due to capitolistic preasures, service goes into the toilet.

          • 2006-03-19 2:47 pm
            halfmanhalfamazing

            ^^^^^^^^^^^interestingly, unregulated capitolism ends up in monopolies^^^^^^^^^^^^^

            Did you mean like Intel/AMD? Yeah, I know Intel still has 99%….. Oh wait. That’s right AMD is kicking the crap out of Intel. My bad. That Opteron of theirs is better than anything Intel has.

            You know who regulated Intel? Consumers.

            ^^^^^^^^^^^^Capitolism is about efficent use of resources using revenue as a regulation mechanism, pruning off the weaker companies in favor of the most competative company.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

            No it’s not. Capitalism is an economic system based on individual rights. What you stated is the lion/gazelle aspect of it, there’s alot more you’re missing.

            ^^^^^^^^^^IT is not about providing good service^^^^^^^^^

            Systems don’t provide good service. People and their businesses do.

            ^^^^^^^^^as competition falls off due to capitolistic preasures, service goes into the toilet.^^^^^^^^^^^

            It’s just the opposite. People are going to go to your shop if the service is good because the service in my shop is crappy.

            Capitalism in this aspect is all about providing good service. If I don’t start providing good service I go out of business.

            Why did Walmart become the bigdog? Kmart’s service is crap. Target is ok, but not as good. And price helps too.

    • 2006-03-10 3:31 am
      alcibiades

      “I don’t think there’s any reason to be upset about this. Apple doesn’t want people running Windows on their boxes anyway.”

      This wonderfully exemplifies Apple’s and its users’ terminal confusion about whose box it is.

      I really do not care for a supplier who cares so much about what I run on my box, and who also has the confused idea, echoed in the choice of words in this post, that maybe, though I have bought it, it might still be his.

      Edited 2006-03-10 03:33

      • 2006-03-10 3:32 am
        brianDoodz

        Microsoft’s not ready. Plain and simple. No conspiracy here.

        • 2006-03-10 4:18 am
          Tyr.

          Microsoft’s not ready. Plain and simple. No conspiracy here.

          That’s what I thought given microsofts past attemps at trying to implement intel specs. Only this time there are already machines out there that actually work so people will notice and call them on it if it turns out their implementation is broken.

          And so they go back to 80s technology, let’s spin it and call it an awesome amount of backwards compatibility instead of an inability to move with the times.

          Come on over to the other side Windows users, all the cool kids are doing it ( http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/03/03 )

          • 2006-03-10 4:24 am
            thavith_osn

            I like the cartoons 🙂

  • 2006-03-10 3:23 am
    brianDoodz

    Go to 45.54 in the .mp3 from the article:

    http://www.apcstart.com/images/idf2006/vista.mp3

    Someone with a really valid point “chimes” in…. classic! As if to say “EFI, no problem!”

    • 2006-03-10 3:44 pm
      Ronald Vos

      Go to 45.54 in the .mp3 from the article:

      http://www.apcstart.com/images/idf2006/vista.mp3

      Someone with a really valid point “chimes” in…. classic! As if to say “EFI, no problem!”

      Interesting quote from the speaker in there, in response to the question wether it is going to boot on the Mac mini that was present in the room:

      Well, I don’t know what the architecture is..

      If it’s 64 bit, it should be no problem. If it’s 32 bit, it’s going to be more tricky. It’s possible, but we’re really focussing on 64 bit.

  • 2006-03-10 3:54 am
    thavith_osn

    …for the article in the next couple of days where we hear from an MS spokesperson that EFI will be supported…

    I’ve noticed this trend on OSNews lately…

    😉

  • 2006-03-10 4:00 am
    Brendan

    AFAIK, all Itanium based computers boot with EFI.

    Microsoft has a version of Windows XP for the Itanium – I assume it wouldn’t be too hard for them to merge their EFI support from this version into an 80×86 OS.

    OS X is (AFAIK) mostly portable code, and could probably be ported to Itanium very easily.

    Can we have some conspiracy theories based on this please?

    I’ll start – what if Microsoft, Apple and Intel secretly agreed to shift the IT industry from 80×86 to Itanium in the next 5 years? Microsoft would gain (no need to worry about legacy hardware or figuring out how to convince people to buy Vista’s successor), Intel would gain (no need to worry about AMD), and MS/Intel could make it sound good to Apple by offering continued software for OS X (MS Office, etc) and discounted hardware (to make it easier for Apple to compete with white box suppliers).

    Actually this make sense – mutual benefits for the companies involved, and the consumers are forced into upgrading (more benefits for the companies involved). It’d be $$$ for all.

    Sorry – couldn’t help myself… 🙂

    • 2006-03-10 7:01 am
      DevL

      “Can we have some conspiracy theories based on this please?”

      Sure. 🙂

      “I’ll start – what if Microsoft, Apple and Intel secretly agreed to shift the IT industry from 80×86 to Itanium in the next 5 years?”

      Here’s another (more fact than theory though): any company agreeing on anything with Microsoft is doomed. The evil empire will embrace, extend and extinguish as has been proven time and again.

    • 2006-03-10 7:50 am
      n4cer

      what if Microsoft, Apple and Intel secretly agreed to shift the IT industry from 80×86 to Itanium in the next 5 years? Microsoft would gain (no need to worry about legacy hardware or figuring out how to convince people to buy Vista’s successor), Intel would gain (no need to worry about AMD), and MS/Intel could make it sound good to Apple by offering continued software for OS X (MS Office, etc) and discounted hardware (to make it easier for Apple to compete with white box suppliers).

      The problem with your theory is that MS dropped IA64 client support and only supports IA64 on the server (and not all Server SKUs at that), and they support, and are moving almost exclusively to x64 client and server products.

      They are also supporting UEFI on x64, just not x86. I’m guessing a lack of UEFI hardware from vendors other than Intel currently is one reason why they are not supporting it at RTM for the client.

  • 2006-03-10 4:02 am
    Nex6

    well,

    first like others said, there is a huge anount of rewriiten code in vista. in addition to, bitlocker for ful volume encryption, video drivers not in the kernel.

    low rights frame work (IE 7 uses it)

    there is so much stuff under the hood thats new its mind boggling. so to say vista is xp + is really silly

    -Nex6

  • 2006-03-10 6:22 am
    Matt24

    I like it, running windows on a Mac is an abomination anyway.

  • 2006-03-10 7:25 am
    evert

    will reactos support efi?

    that would do 🙂

    http://www.reactos.org/

  • 2006-03-10 7:54 am
    vinterbleg

    Ok, I may just be dumb, but wouldn’t it simply require a modified boot loader to do the trick?

    An alternative way could be to dual-boot a Linux distribution running Wine. That would give you most games and applications at near-native speed, without virtualisation.

    – Simon

  • 2006-03-10 9:18 am
    th3rmite

    Crossover Office is actively being ported over to OSx86. They even have a working prototype but they just haven’t settled on a release date yet.

  • 2006-03-10 9:19 am
    postmodern

    What about (Linux|*BSD|OSX) with WINE?

    Edited 2006-03-10 09:20

  • 2006-03-10 9:37 am
    kramii

    1) Microsoft support EFI -> people buy Mac intending to dual-boot -> people switch to OSX because they like it -> loss of business for Microsoft.

    2) MS support EFI -> people buy Mac intending to dual-boot -> software vendors write more applications that run on both Windows and Mac -> less tie-in to Microsoft -> loss of business for Microsoft.

    If you were Microsoft, what would you do?

  • 2006-03-10 9:48 am
    jlarocco

    Vista is going to be a limited, locked-down system. No one will be allowed to write device drivers for it without permission from Microsoft; drivers will have to be digitally signed with a Microsoft-approved key to run. They are going to support fewer devices, not more.

    It’s kind of sad, actually. If Windows 95, 98, Me, 2000, XP, and 2003 are any indication, the default installation of Vista will be more locked down against the end user than it will be against random script kiddies on the internet.

    I know, they’re working on it. But they’ve been saying that since the release of 98 was supposed to be more secure than 95. At this point, I’ll believe it when I see it.

  • 2006-03-10 9:52 am
    proforma

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista

    Here is all the information in detail about Vista. Please read the entire thing and get educated.

    EFI is already supported by the booting process with the new booter. The thing is that they are not adding EFI for Windows Vista at launch. It will be available shortly after.

    It will work only with 64-bit CPU and OS. So you have a 64-bit CPU, 64-bit EFI and 64-bit Vista OS.

    EFI will not work with 32-bit systems in mind, only 64-bit and that is the way it should be.

    Vista Server which comes out in late first quarter 2007 and EFI will be built in and this OS will only be 64-bit, there will be no 32-bit version.

    If you want a 32-bit version of Windows Server you will want to use Windows 2003 Server.

    • 2006-03-11 8:09 pm
      siki_miki

      Well it’s bad that they don’t support EFI out ot box with first release of Vista because migration path will be much harder for vendors, resulting in less adoptance of EFI. Someone must start producing it and IHV’s won’t without proper OS support (yes, there is linux, but windows what everyone still uses).

      Microsoft is too much shortsighted. It doesn’t take much effort to support damn EFI and they even had it for servers already.

  • 2006-03-10 11:10 am
    netpython

    And again something is skipped.It is perhaps another obscure aproach to marketing.In the beginning the sky whas the limit and MS seemed to go for gold (on paper).

    Media-MS-Harware/Software:A rat race milking the unaware.

  • 2006-03-10 11:32 am
    rx182

    Blame Apple, not Microsoft. It’s all Apple’s fault after all. If they made MacOSX working on a standard current (read: CURRENT) x86 architecture there would be no problem.

    Now most of you, lamers, trolls, are bashing Microsoft once again for something completely out of control. If you dislike Microsoft that much, why not use only your crappy limited OSX and Linux? Because you need Windows to run your applications? Because the people who wrote the applications you’re using targeted Windows at the first place because all other alternatives (MacOSX, Linux) were not viable solutions?

    Come back to reality. Most people are not over-zealous and just use Windows for so many damn good reasons that the market for such thing (Dualboot Mactel) is so small. Who, after all, is stupid enought to buy a Mactel and then buy Windows? If you plan to use Windows, because OSX and its applications base is too limited, well just buy a standard x86 computer with Windows (it comes with most OEM eh!). You don’t need OSX really, like the IPOD, it’s just so much advertised that you kinda believe it’s good, but it’s not.

    Microsoft are doing what they should here. You, lamers, trolls, want Microsoft to be the good puppy when Apple insists on doing everything to lock their users on their platform? LOL.

    And anyway, for those who keep bashing Vista. Let me remember you that even XP is more viable than OSX and Linux put together. Vista will just make the difference even larger. Can’t want to see OSX and Linux go back to where they started.

    • 2006-03-10 1:34 pm
      Manik

      Insults, scorn and idiocies aside, I’ll remind you that EFI has been announced a long time ago as a replacement for BIOS (and a big amelioration), with the benediction of Microsoft. If I remember correctly, Microsoft said it would support EFI, and just changed its mind…

    • 2006-03-10 2:09 pm
      ronaldst

      Good post.

      When Vista hits the streets, all these pathetic whiners and trolls will be the first to buy it. ;)

      • 2006-03-10 3:36 pm
        GStepper

        “When Vista hits the streets, all these pathetic whiners and trolls will be the first to buy it. ;) ”

        LOL

        When Vista hits the streets any other major OS – understand Mac OS X, Linux, xBSD among others – will be far more reliable, flexible, mature and efficient than Vista. (not to talk of direct/indirect costs implied: pricey licenses, hardware replacement…)

        Microsoft will surely enforce it’s market share (that has NOTHING to do with product quality) but from the technological point of view, they’ll stay far behind others , just as they did for more than 20 years…

        Microsoft zealots are so fun !!! ;)

        • 2006-03-10 4:05 pm
          ronaldst

          Hello, OSS “SOS” loonie ;)

          Here’s another dose of reality for you wackos: When Vista hits the streets, Linux’s last chance for the desktop will be gone. And MacOSX will still be a very small percentage of the PC market. Things won’t change much… lol

          I predict press headlines like “2007 is the year of Linux on the desktop” and in 2008, etc…

        • 2006-03-10 7:18 pm
          sappyvcv

          Can I borrow your crystal ball?

  • 2006-03-10 1:32 pm
    fithisux

    Linux boots and IBM is not renewing VISTA licences. And yes, PPC is coming at speed. I am tired with all these Win$$$ discussions.

    • 2006-03-10 6:16 pm
      BluenoseJake

      It’s a site about Operating systems, what the hell do you want to read about? If you are tired of articles about a particular OS, just don’t read them

  • 2006-03-10 1:36 pm
    happycamper

    that’s fine with the progression of the mac os X, Windows vista is not needed.

  • 2006-03-10 1:41 pm
    ameasures

    What ever the rights and wrongs of all this; I think it will have various interesting effects.

    Shutting down and restarting is a slow and awkward way to switch operating systems and not well suited to doing cross-platform work.

    I expect DARWINE (etc) will get more developer energy behind it and virtualisation technologies in general will grow in importance.

    Not having the choice of Windows (Vista or XP) as the host operating system to virtualize on top of; is a loss of choice. Not a choice that many folk will go for.

    A prime issue with virtualization involves the associated performance overhead which is more of an issue with laptops than desktops.

    My expectation that multi core chip systems will enhance performance to the extent that many will find them entirely acceptable to run a couple of operating systems concurrently.

  • 2006-03-10 1:51 pm
    Ronald Vos

    Wasn’t it so that Apple recently agreed with Microsoft that Apple wouldn’t do *anything* to prevent Windows from running on Macs, in exchange for having Microsoft keep producing Microsoft Office for another few years?

    Then why would Microsoft turn around and ‘fudge’ up having EFI support ready if it was so important to them? Unless they wanted to mislead Apple for some reason of course, but that seems too odd to be true.

    The only thing I can think of is that they discovered they made an error and adding in EFI support correctly would take too long (and they will add it shortly after), OR Microsoft wants to throw a wrench in Apple’s early launch. (Or my memory has gone down the futz)

    Remember that as it stands Microsoft is selling as much copies of Windows to Mac users as it was before, but that there’s a real threat of having people switch permanently.

    Edited 2006-03-10 13:53

  • 2006-03-10 2:11 pm
    RMSe17

    MS said there will not be EFI support in final version, does anyone know if there was EFI support, however buggy it may be, in any of the builds until now?

  • 2006-03-10 3:31 pm
    crispoe

    I believe we will see a virtualization layer in Leopard that will allow us to run Windows programs. Have you noticed that many apps (Office 2007) look like they were built to run visually in OS X? It wouldn’t surprise me if MS was helping with this.

    I don’t think you will see vmware until late 2007 anyways. VMWare seems still confused by the demand of the product. I don’t think its high on the priority list unfortunately- which is crazy. Perhaps they believe we will just run the windows version on OS X.

  • 2006-03-10 3:37 pm
    crispoe

    Microsoft may release Windows Vista for OS X. Whats one more version. I think they have like 6 or 7 packages anyways.

  • 2006-03-10 3:42 pm
    sp29

    Vista isn’t nothing must more than a hacked(re-engineered) Mac look on XP, a crappy one at that too!

    Edited 2006-03-10 15:43

  • 2006-03-10 6:28 pm
    aaron

    I’m not botherd about windows running on a Mac as there is a wide choice of PCs. But not implementing seems to make Microsoft stuck in the past.

    What was the point of MS stating that new hardware would be needed to get the best features out of Vista and at the same time not support EFI.

    Motherboard manufacturs might show more instrest when uefi.org get some momentum.