Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Rolling Bones · Jan 16, 2006, 07:07 PM

Intel Macs May Boot Windows XP After All.

http://www.apcmag.com/apc/v3.nsf/0/6...2570F50012430B

I think this would be cool...no?

Cubeoid · Jan 16, 2006, 07:21 PM

No.

MM-o4 · Jan 16, 2006, 07:25 PM

yes

Cubeoid · Jan 16, 2006, 07:39 PM

oh oh.. we seem to be at non-agreement here.

alligator · Jan 16, 2006, 08:14 PM

Of course it would be cool, this means we have a justification for using an Mac at work!

Kerrigan · Jan 16, 2006, 08:18 PM

I hope that the intelmacs can run Vista without any hiccups. I know that the dual core is supposed to be amazing (4 times faster! wooo!) but it is still just a notebook chip, and I bet vista is gonna have some beefy system requirements in order to use all of its eye candy.

mduell · Jan 16, 2006, 08:38 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

I hope that the intelmacs can run Vista without any hiccups. I know that the dual core is supposed to be amazing (4 times faster! wooo!) but it is still just a notebook chip, and I bet vista is gonna have some beefy system requirements in order to use all of its eye candy.

Yonah/Core Duo is not "just a notebook" chip. Intel puts it at the top of their list of desktop chips.
I think it will run Vista great, since my single core Pentium M runs the beta quite well.

Kerrigan · Jan 16, 2006, 08:47 PM

I did not know that, that's cool.

goMac · Jan 16, 2006, 08:52 PM

Reports are saying Windows MCE 2005 does have EFI support, and there is an EFI directory on the CD.

Surprised no one has looked to see if Startup Disk sees the Windows CD. Also it needs to be figured out how to get into the EFI console to force it to boot on non-Mac discs.

It also looks like the startup form CD key has changed on the Intel Macs from C to D.

jay3ld · Jan 16, 2006, 08:54 PM

wouldn't this mean that virtual pc would no longer be needed? with a dual boot of xp or os x we are token care of.

jasonsRX7 · Jan 16, 2006, 09:13 PM

Originally Posted by jay3ld

wouldn't this mean that virtual pc would no longer be needed? with a dual boot of xp or os x we are token care of.

It would still be nice to run a windows VM (or multiple VMs) within OS X without having to reboot. Remember that VMs will be much faster now that there won't be any processor emulation, since they are x86 based OS's running on native hardware.

I for one an hoping of a port of VMware to OS X86. Mainly because VMware is far superior to Virtual PC but also because I am a VMTN subscriber and would get it for free

MM-o4 · Jan 16, 2006, 09:49 PM

having a laptop that can run ANYTHING (almost) is the shizzznit.

MM

besson3c · Jan 17, 2006, 01:50 AM

Originally Posted by jasonsRX7

It would still be nice to run a windows VM (or multiple VMs) within OS X without having to reboot. Remember that VMs will be much faster now that there won't be any processor emulation, since they are x86 based OS's running on native hardware.

I for one an hoping of a port of VMware to OS X86. Mainly because VMware is far superior to Virtual PC but also because I am a VMTN subscriber and would get it for free

I'm for a WINE, Xen, or some other OSS solution

shabbasuraj · Jan 17, 2006, 02:13 AM

no.....

TheoCryst · Jan 17, 2006, 02:37 AM

Woo, exciting. I recently switched (12" iBook G4) so this won't immediately affect me, but my (hopefully) future Intel iMac will be happy.

And yes, I still hope that there is either a new version of VirtualPC or a Mac version of VMWare... I used to use VMWare extensively on my Windows box. Sometimes it's just easier to have a virtual machine than it is to make a separate partition and have to reboot every time you need it.

Chuckit · Jan 17, 2006, 02:51 AM

That article is just wishful thinking. Seriously. Basically, it's saying, "Yeah, Apple said it wasn't going to support Windows on its machines. And users say they can't install Windows on the machines. But we think Apple has specifically designed the machines to support Windows. Why? Because it would be cool, and Microsoft hasn't specifically denied it."

Great use of facts there.

jay3ld · Jan 17, 2006, 08:22 PM

from what you guys are saying since we wouldn't need to emulate the x86 since we got the intel chip that a program could be made that would run in the background and only a menubar item to change its settings and you could run exe without even having to start up vpc or an emulator.

jasonsRX7 · Jan 17, 2006, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by jay3ld

from what you guys are saying since we wouldn't need to emulate the x86 since we got the intel chip that a program could be made that would run in the background and only a menubar item to change its settings and you could run exe without even having to start up vpc or an emulator.

Maybe with Wine, but with virtualization software like VMware or Virtual PC you'd still be running an OS within a virtual machine, you just wouldn't be emulating a different processor to do it.

besson3c · Jan 17, 2006, 09:29 PM

Originally Posted by jay3ld

from what you guys are saying since we wouldn't need to emulate the x86 since we got the intel chip that a program could be made that would run in the background and only a menubar item to change its settings and you could run exe without even having to start up vpc or an emulator.

huh?

jasonsRX7 · Jan 17, 2006, 09:37 PM

He's talking about executing Windows apps without having to run Windows within a virtual machine. Here jay, read up on this. Maybe it'll get ported to OS X.

http://www.winehq.com/

TomR · Jan 20, 2006, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by Rolling Bones

Intel Macs May Boot Windows XP After All.

http://www.apcmag.com/apc/v3.nsf/0/6...2570F50012430B

I think this would be cool...no?

No. What would be the point??? Buy a Mac and use Windows?????????????

I don't get it.

Tom

jasonsRX7 · Jan 20, 2006, 08:31 PM

The point would be that you could use both.

hayesk · Jan 20, 2006, 08:52 PM

I would rather run Windows apps (if I absolutely needed to) in a window on MacOS X at near full speed, than dual boot a real version of Windows.

Dual-booting is a stupid waste of time. A better use of time would be to get VMWare or Wine to work on MacOS X.

spatterson · Jan 20, 2006, 10:57 PM

I switched because I don't like Windows... that should answer your question. Of course I don't want it to run windows!

besson3c · Jan 20, 2006, 11:57 PM

Check out how fast Wine is being developed:

http://www.winehq.com

I'm really thinking that Apple is or will be getting in on this. I'm impressed. This really would be the best option, providing it is technologically sound.

Kr0nos · Jan 21, 2006, 12:16 AM

Absofu<kinglutely NOT!

Why in the world would anybody want to run Windows anymore? OS X has a lot more features, is more stable, less (actually almost NO) viruses, worms, trojans and has by far better applications.

I would much rather see OS X run on other Intel based computers.

besson3c · Jan 21, 2006, 12:23 AM

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Absofu<kinglutely NOT!

Why in the world would anybody want to run Windows anymore? OS X has a lot more features, is more stable, less (actually almost NO) viruses, worms, trojans and has by far better applications.

I would much rather see OS X run on other Intel based computers.

How many times is this question going to be asked?

1) To test pages in IE6
2) To run specialized Windows-only software
3) Supporting people
4) Screenshots for documentation
5) Application compatibility testing
6) Games

euchomai · Jan 21, 2006, 12:29 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

How many times is this question going to be asked?

1) To test pages in IE6
2) To run specialized Windows-only software
3) Supporting people
4) Screenshots for documentation
5) Application compatibility testing
6) Games

I agree with you about reasons for windows. I think that people are confused that some of us work on our computers and don't just use them to surf the internet and email people.

If you can make a tool even better, why not do it?

Kr0nos · Jan 21, 2006, 12:30 AM

>> 1) To test pages in IE6

Who fu<king cares anymore? Get Firefox, period. And if I.E. 6 is really such a big issue, call your grandma and have her test the site.

euchomai · Jan 21, 2006, 12:32 AM

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

>> 1) To test pages in IE6

Who fu<king cares anymore? Get Firefox, period. And if I.E. 6 is really such a big issue, call your grandma and have her test the site.

IE 6 is a big issue, a HUGE percentage of people still use this! You don't design a website for you and your computer geek buddies. If you want to make money and get your name out there you have to supply the code to the most used web browser.

Honestly, what are you not getting?

besson3c · Jan 21, 2006, 12:32 AM

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

>> 1) To test pages in IE6

Who fu<king cares anymore? Get Firefox, period. And if I.E. 6 is really such a big issue, call your grandma and have her test the site.

Are you a web developer? Probably not, from the sounds of things. Too many people are still using IE 6, unfortunately, to simply ignore this population.

Believe me, it's not like I like the browser.

Kr0nos · Jan 21, 2006, 12:33 AM

Originally Posted by euchomai

I think that people are confused that some of us work on our computers and don't just use them to surf the internet and email people.

I've been "working" on my (Apple) computers since 1992, and the only time I was forced to use Windows boxes was when some employer was too cheap to invest in Macs.

Kr0nos · Jan 21, 2006, 12:38 AM

Originally Posted by euchomai

IE 6 is a big issue, a HUGE percentage of people still use this!

So what? If you design a page according to W3C standards and it looks good in Firefox, it should run on any browser out there. And if IE doesn't render code correctly, I'll give it some thought wether I should alter the site or not depending on my target group.

Where's the problem?

besson3c · Jan 21, 2006, 12:39 AM

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

I've been "working" on my (Apple) computers since 1992, and the only time I was forced to use Windows boxes was when some employer was too cheap to invest in Macs.

That's great. Many aren't as fortunate as you, did that occur to you?

Kr0nos · Jan 21, 2006, 12:43 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Too many people are still using IE 6, unfortunately, to simply ignore this population.

That's just the point, you're not "ignoring" the issue if you don't specifically design your sites to run in I.E.

I sure as hell don't feel the need to run Windows, just because Microsoft produces shitty software.

besson3c · Jan 21, 2006, 12:43 AM

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

So what? If you design a page according to W3C standards and it looks good in Firefox, it should run on any browser out there. And if IE doesn't render code correctly, I'll give it some thought wether I should alter the site or not depending on my target group.

Where's the problem?

The problem is that you are wrong. There are many W3C compliant sites that don't look the same in IE 6, IE 6 has several CSS quirks that require special care.

If your target group doesn't include the 70%+ people using IE 6, then I wouldn't want you designing my site.

besson3c · Jan 21, 2006, 12:45 AM

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

That's just the point, you're not "ignoring" the issue if you don't specifically design your sites to run in I.E.

I sure as hell don't feel the need to run Windows, just because Microsoft produces shitty software.

Whatever. Your attitude is extremely naive, but your mind seems to be made up.

Kr0nos · Jan 21, 2006, 12:49 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

That's great. Many aren't as fortunate as you, did that occur to you?

Believe me, their choices had less to do with "fortune" than with ignorance, complacency and greed.

besson3c · Jan 21, 2006, 12:50 AM

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Believe me, their choices had less to do with "fortune" than with ignorance, complacency and greed.

Whatever, that still doesn't change the fact that Windows machines exist in our computing infrastructure.

Kr0nos · Jan 21, 2006, 12:56 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

There are many W3C compliant sites that don't look the same in IE 6...

Yes, they don't look the "same", but that doesn't (necessarily) mean I have to code my site specifically for IE. 98% of the code will still be the same. The question is wether I'm going to fix the 2% which will make it render the way I want it to in IE.

Originally Posted by besson3c

If your target group doesn't include the 70%+ people using IE 6, then I wouldn't want you designing my site.

This sentence doesn't make any sense at all. My target group either uses IE (to a certain degree) or not. We're not talking about "excluding" anybody here, - we're talking about software that wasn't programmed standard compliant.

Spliffdaddy · Jan 21, 2006, 12:57 AM

The only 'standard' that matters is the one most widely adopted.

Kr0nos · Jan 21, 2006, 01:06 AM

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

The only 'standard' that matters is the one most widely adopted.

Says the Windows troll.

besson3c · Jan 21, 2006, 01:07 AM

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Yes, they don't look the "same", but that doesn't (necessarily) mean I have to code my site specifically for IE. 98% of the code will still be the same. The question is wether I'm going to fix the 2% which will make it render the way I want it to in IE.

No. There are very key differences in CSS interpretation between IE 6 and other browsers. For instance, IE 6 doesn't recognize border-spacing, and text-align defaults are different. If you are not aware of these differences, your pages will look like ass in IE 6. A good web designer needs to know how to work with the limitations of IE 6, period. In most cases, there are well-documented work-arounds.

This sentence doesn't make any sense at all. My target group either uses IE (to a certain degree) or not. We're not talking about "excluding" anybody here, - we're talking about software that wasn't programmed standrad compliant.

There is no reasons why the site can't be standards complaint, and have some additional CSS in place to deal with IE 6. Like I said, if the page looks like ass in IE 6, you have not designed a site to satisfaction.

Spliffdaddy · Jan 21, 2006, 01:07 AM

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Says the Windows troll.

It's *all* x86 now.

We won.

Get used to it.

besson3c · Jan 21, 2006, 01:09 AM

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

The only 'standard' that matters is the one most widely adopted.

Don't agree with that, this is a very Windows-centric attitude.

besson3c · Jan 21, 2006, 01:09 AM

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

It's *all* x86 now.

We won.

Get used to it.

Care to explain? There is more to a computer than its hardware.

Spliffdaddy · Jan 21, 2006, 01:10 AM

Well, hey, betamax is a standard, too.

Spliffdaddy · Jan 21, 2006, 01:11 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Care to explain? There is more to a computer than its hardware.

you're right.

there are some zeroes and ones, as well.

besson3c · Jan 21, 2006, 01:12 AM

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Well, hey, betamax is a standard, too.

No, betamax was a competing format.

A standard is an agreed upon, non-proprietary, open format.

Kr0nos · Jan 21, 2006, 01:14 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

In most cases, there are well-documented work-arounds.

Yes, that's what I was talking about. Like I said, most of the code will still be the same. And if my target audience is largely Firefox or Mac based, I'm going to be less inclined to adress those issues.

Originally Posted by besson3c

There is no reasons why the site can't be standards complaint, and have some additional CSS in place to deal with IE 6.

I never said it couldn't, - I just don't see the reason why I would need to run IE on my machine in order to accomplish this.