XP won't Run on Intel-based Macs

[IlllI]

for anyone interested: Text

 

[halfadder]

I give it a month before someone makes a workaround. All that's needed is enough of a bootloader to get Windows started. My guess is the first hacks will be like the original BeOS-on-Mac booters, where you launched a program from within MacOS that kickstarted a BeOS boot. True dual booting will probably come later.

Another possibility is an updated VirtualPC (since these new Macs are actually using standard PC CPUs and chipsets) and/or more work on the Mac port of Wine to run Windows apps right inside Mac OS X without booting into another OS.

 

[IlllI]

but would using VirtualPC/emulation make it run kind of slow ?

 

[halfadder]

Virtual PC on PowerPC G4/G5 is only slow because it has to emulate an Intel Pentium CPU. Every single instruction has to be translated into PowerPC instructions. Hardware calls to PC hardware have to be converted to work on the Mac hardware. It's a slow process.

Now compare this to the Windows version of Virtual PC that Microsoft sells. It lets you run multiple Virtual PCs inside your own PC. Just like VMware. This runs at almost full speed because no emulation is required.

Because the new Macs use PC hardware under the hood, it's now possible to combine the two concepts. It's now possible for Microsoft to make an Intel Mac version of Virtual PC that will run fast. No emulation or translation required because the new Macs use an Intel chipset with an Intel CPU and a standard ATI X1600 GPU. They might need help from Apple, however, to bypass Mac OS X in order access the hardware directly to allow features like full DirectX acceleration. Most of Mac OS X is open source as "Darwin", so they might be able to look at the sourcecode for that information.

 

[IlllI]

Originally posted by: halfadder
Virtual PC on PowerPC G4/G5 is only slow because it has to emulate an Intel Pentium CPU. Every single instruction has to be translated into PowerPC instructions. Hardware calls to PC hardware have to be converted to work on the Mac hardware. It's a slow process.

Now compare this to the Windows version of Virtual PC that Microsoft sells. It lets you run multiple Virtual PCs inside your own PC. Just like VMware. This runs at almost full speed because no emulation is required.

Because the new Macs use PC hardware under the hood, it's now possible to combine the two concepts. It's now possible for Microsoft to make an Intel Mac version of Virtual PC that will run fast. No emulation or translation required because the new Macs use an Intel chipset with an Intel CPU and a standard ATI X1600 GPU. They might need help from Apple, however, to bypass Mac OS X in order access the hardware directly to allow features like full DirectX acceleration. Most of Mac OS X is open source as "Darwin", so they might be able to look at the sourcecode for that information.

you sure know your stuff

 

[WackyDan]

Wrong... Emulation is still required, and performance is impacted. MSVPC and VMWare both create a virtual hardware layer. With very few exceptions, hardware native to the host PC isn't accessed directly, but rather through virtualized hardware within the MSVPC or VMWare app.

THe new on die virtuation engines/tech that both AMD and INtel are going to introduce will change some of that - boosting performance.

Oh.... and I'm VM Ware certified.

 

[IlllI]

Originally posted by: WackyDan
Wrong... Emulation is still required, and performance is impacted. MSVPC and VMWare both create a virtual hardware layer. With very few exceptions, hardware native to the host PC isn't accessed directly, but rather through virtualized hardware within the MSVPC or VMWare app.

THe new on die virtuation engines/tech that both AMD and INtel are going to introduce will change some of that - boosting performance.

Oh.... and I'm VM Ware certified.

how much of a performance hit might it be? generally speaking?

 

[thraxes]

Yes VM-Ware and Virtual PC do create an additional Hardware Abstraction Layer but the point is that VPC on the Macbook now doesn't have to do all the CPU consuming x86 ISA -> PPC ISA conversion so it will run much much faster than before, just not as fast as if it were native. Perhaps CEDEGA / Wine can now be ported to OSx, that would solve many of the gaming problems.

I wonder if a special Bootloader could emulate the bios calls of Windows XP so it could run without OS-X. Then again emulation always means performance hit, the only way Windows is gonna run natively is if the OS and its installer support EFI out of the box.

The only reason to do this though is for games really, I personally wouldn't need it and would probably be more than happy with the speed of a Windows running in a VM as I really only need it for Pspice and my Unis version of Codewarrior for programming microcontrollers with Assembler. All my other tasks such as shell scripting, C and Java coding are done with XCode, SubEthaedit and for script compatability to Linux machines (for which they are mostly for) I installed the GNU-Tools with fink to replace the equivalent BSD programmes. I love my mac, it does almost everything and for the rest there is Win and Linux .

 

[Wuzup101]

EFI can include compatability modules that allow booting of BIOS using OSes. If apple includes such compatability modules than it can be assumed that instaling windows (or linux) on a new intel mac won't be a major problem. I believe I explained this in the OS forum to the best of my ability, and form my somewhat limited knowledge. Basically the compatability modules were designed so that new motherboard makers wouldn't be limiting their customers to only certain operating systems.

 

[hopejr]

It's cool that apple is using the latest technology, where Microsoft is taking a while j/k

 

[WackyDan]

Originally posted by: hopejr
It's cool that apple is using the latest technology, where Microsoft is taking a while j/k

Heh... They didn't implement TPM until this INtel move, and even then they are not using it as intended. They haven't adopted fingerprint scanning or intergrated WAN. We'll see what their next refresh brings.

Hell, they even are making people buy external usb dial up modem dongles for $49 instead of integrating it. I travel 40+ weeks out of the year all over North America, and I still use dial up over half the time.

 

[Falloutboy]

there will be a work around i'm sure,

on another note, what are the chances that Wine is going to work on OS X I ready somewhere alot of linux stuff works unmodified in OSX

 

[chcarnage]

Originally posted by: WackyDan
Heh... They didn't implement TPM until this INtel move, and even then they are not using it as intended. They haven't adopted fingerprint scanning or intergrated WAN. We'll see what their next refresh brings.

Hell, they even are making people buy external usb dial up modem dongles for $49 instead of integrating it. I travel 40+ weeks out of the year all over North America, and I still use dial up over half the time.

Would you like them using TPM as intended?

You're right about finger print scanning but WLAN antennas (be it with or without the WLAN card) are integrated in every mac now.

Acoustic modems are a specific demand of the North American market, acoustic modem internet access isn't that widespread in Europe anymore and some European commentators have asked themselves for a long time why so much Apple hardware comes with an internal modem. But yes, sometimes Apple doesn't hesitate to drop old interfaces. No PS/2-equivalent to support here.

 

[Wuzup101]

There hasn't been PS/2 support on the Aluminum powerbooks either. They did drop firewire 800 which kinda sucks, but I have no problem with them dropping the dial up modem.

 

[WackyDan]

Originally posted by: chcarnage

Originally posted by: WackyDan
Heh... They didn't implement TPM until this INtel move, and even then they are not using it as intended. They haven't adopted fingerprint scanning or intergrated WAN. We'll see what their next refresh brings.

Hell, they even are making people buy external usb dial up modem dongles for $49 instead of integrating it. I travel 40+ weeks out of the year all over North America, and I still use dial up over half the time.

Would you like them using TPM as intended?

You're right about finger print scanning but WLAN antennas (be it with or without the WLAN card) are integrated in every mac now.

Acoustic modems are a specific demand of the North American market, acoustic modem internet access isn't that widespread in Europe anymore and some European commentators have asked themselves for a long time why so much Apple hardware comes with an internal modem. But yes, sometimes Apple doesn't hesitate to drop old interfaces. No PS/2-equivalent to support here.

WAN -Not WLAN/WiFI. WAN ie; Verizon, Sprint, Cingular. Just to clarify.

Also TPM as intended is for client security and authentication - not DRM type functions as many perceive it to be and as Apple IS using it for.

 

[piasabird]

Why would someone that bought a MAC want to run Windows?

 

[Liver]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Why would someone that bought a MAC want to run Windows?

For me, I would like all the nice aspects of OS X, but simple mobile gaming would suffer. If I can run the same Windows copy of a game on it, great! Then I could buy one copy of the game and use it where I was (notebook or desktop).

There are certain stock programs also. Granted, they exist on both platforms, but don't really want to spend the cash to get the same program on a different platform.

I think it may offer the best of both world, but will not be the best in either.

Liver