[Xestrel]

Does OS X for Intel have a nice user-friendly boot loader for choosing between OS X and other installed operating systems (read linux and windows) or will is be some hacked-together thing?

-Xest

[ghporter]

So far as I've read, while Apple will not make it impossible to run other OSs, they aren't going to go out of their way to make it easy.

I'm more interested in the boot process itself; dumping OpenFirmware for an Intel-style BIOS would be a giant step backward, but I haven't seen anything that indicates exactly what direction they're going to take except that OpenFirmware is definitely out.

[Eug Wanker]

EFI seems the most likely.

[rickey939]

Wow, just reading "BIOS" above makes me cringe...yuck.

[Xestrel]

Well - that's too bad. I would imagine that a nice apple-branded switcher to make it easy to switch to OS X, so people don't go to do something in windows and stay there. Especially if the interface is so nice and clean that it 'advertises' OS X.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by ghporter

So far as I've read, while Apple will not make it impossible to run other OSs, they aren't going to go out of their way to make it easy.

I'm more interested in the boot process itself; dumping OpenFirmware for an Intel-style BIOS would be a giant step backward, but I haven't seen anything that indicates exactly what direction they're going to take except that OpenFirmware is definitely out.

If Apple doesn't provide a way, I'm sure someone will figure out how to make it work with grub.

Moving from a cryptic command line using an obscure programming language to a friendly menu driven user interface is backward? I guess the iPods should switch to a command line any day now.
It is kind of neat that you can solve the Tower of Hanoi problem in a computers firmware shell, but I have yet to see any compelling arguement as to why OpenFirmware is better than an IBM-compatible BIOS.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Xestrel

Well - that's too bad. I would imagine that a nice apple-branded switcher to make it easy to switch to OS X, so people don't go to do something in windows and stay there. Especially if the interface is so nice and clean that it 'advertises' OS X.

The machines will not come with Windows.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by mduell

Moving from a cryptic command line using an obscure programming language to a friendly menu driven user interface is backward? I guess the iPods should switch to a command line any day now.
It is kind of neat that you can solve the Tower of Hanoi problem in a computers firmware shell, but I have yet to see any compelling arguement as to why OpenFirmware is better than an IBM-compatible BIOS.

???? OpenFirmware is better because it's OPEN. Do you know how many different versions of IBM compatible BIOS are out there? Several for each different model of AMD or Intel motherboard. ALL are different-even between versions-and all of them are dependent on some really odd and arcane machinations that go on during the pre-boot and boot phase. Why should a computer have to count the RAM installed every time it boots? Why should it care how many drives are attached when it starts, especially since today many users depend on detachable drives for so much? And everything BIOS does is set until the next reboot-changes aren't generally allowed, and almost always have to wait until the next reboot to be implemented.

In contrast, OpenFirmware simply works. It has a set of processes to start, it tries to start one, succeeds or fails, and then moves on to the next one. No keyboard? No problem. (Many Windows machines still have a problem starting if no keyboard is detected.) Was there a CD burner last last boot that isn't there now? No problem! Oh wait! The burner is back, so start its driver! No problem!

And on top of all of that, OpenFirmware seems to be many times faster in getting to the OS than BIOS is. For that alone, I'd be sad to see Apple adopt BIOS as their startup method.

[Eug Wanker]

The point is moot anyways. As you said earlier, Open Firmware is deader than a doornail for Intel Macs.

Given that, EFI definitely looks like it's the #1 option on the list for 2006 Macs.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by mduell

It is kind of neat that you can solve the Tower of Hanoi problem in a computers firmware shell, but I have yet to see any compelling arguement as to why OpenFirmware is better than an IBM-compatible BIOS.

Boot up your computer, holding down the Option key. Assuming you have more than one bootable volume, you'll come to a nice graphical menu which allows you to boot your machine from any volume.

That is why OpenFirmware is better. You can do a reasonably friendly menu-driven interface off of plain BIOS, but you could never make the GUI-based bootloader I've just shown you. OpenFirmware can do more, and this is what makes it better.

[sushiism]

if it looks anything like this
http://www.3dnews.ru/documents/10127/4200-5.jpg
I'll be buying one of the last G5's and sticking with it for the next few years
keep it as close to the current one as possible with the excellent features such as firewire mode written into the system itself not tacked in with the os (basically do it the same way its currently done) I've personally seen Firewire mode has save about 5 macs even an ibook with a really messed up logic board and at the studio we got a g4 with a broken cd drive up and running again by using it as an external drive in another mac and installing osx via that.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by sushiism

if it looks anything like this
http://www.3dnews.ru/documents/10127/4200-5.jpg
I'll be buying one of the last G5's and sticking with it for the next few years
keep it as close to the current one as possible with the excellent features such as firewire mode written into the system itself not tacked in with the os (basically do it the same way its currently done) I've personally seen Firewire mode has save about 5 macs even an ibook with a really messed up logic board and at the studio we got a g4 with a broken cd drive up and running again by using it as an external drive in another mac and installing osx via that.

This is an EFI bootup.



Yeah, it's not pretty either, but I'm sure that Apple could do something much nicer and user friendly.

[SirCastor]

Wikipedia (fwiw) says this:

EFI also provides for a small shell environment. Rather than booting directly into a full OS, the EFI end user can boot to EFI shell. The EFI shell is an optional intermediate step in the booting process which can be used to run utilities and the like. EFI shell capabilities are very nearly that of MS-DOS 3.2, but with access to the entire map of installed memory. In that sense, it is similar to Open Firmware, the hardware-independent firmware used in PowerPC-based Apple Macintosh computers.

and If I may ask, why is Open Firmware gone? If it's hardware independant, and Apple's got Intel making specific MBs anyway, why can't they just say 'hey, use this instead of that.' ?

(I recognize that I know next to nothing about this kind of thing.)

[Eug Wanker]

and If I may ask, why is Open Firmware gone? If it's hardware independant, and Apple's got Intel making specific MBs anyway, why can't they just say 'hey, use this instead of that.' ?

EFI is Intel's baby. They probably heavily encouraged Apple to use it, and Apple agreed.

As long as it provides similar functionality in everyday practical use, they may as well use it.

I recognize that I know next to nothing about this kind of thing.

Same here. I just don't understand what this fascination is with Open Firmware, when EFI would provide similar functionality.

P.S. Here is Towers of Hanoi in EFI:

Code:
fs1:\> ls
Directory of: fs1:\

    06/12/04  05:11a             15,872  hanoi.efi
            1 File(s)    15,872 bytes
            0 Dir(s)

fs1:\> hanoi
usage: hanoi N
Exit status code: Invalid Parameter

fs1:\> hanoi 3
move 1 --> 3
move 1 --> 2
move 3 --> 2
move 1 --> 3
move 2 --> 1
move 2 --> 3
move 1 --> 3

EDIT:

It seems the [code] tag doesn't work properly. :hmm:
[edit: checked the "disable smilies" checkbox. --tooki]

[slugslugslug]

Originally Posted by SirCastor

and If I may ask, why is Open Firmware gone? If it's hardware independant, and Apple's got Intel making specific MBs anyway, why can't they just say 'hey, use this instead of that.' ?

Is there hard evidence that Intel will be making Apple-specific motherboards? Has anyone official said this, or is there a rumor with a good source? Just curious.

[SirCastor]

I seem to remember folks who had the systems posting information about them, including that intel wsa providing the boards for the dev boxes. That may not mean a whole lot though.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by SirCastor

I seem to remember folks who had the systems posting information about them, including that intel wsa providing the boards for the dev boxes. That may not mean a whole lot though.

The dev boxes are all el cheapo stock components, from my understanding.

[JLL]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Yeah, it's not pretty either, but I'm sure that Apple could do something much nicer and user friendly.

Just as Open Firmware isn't showing itself when you boot a Mac, BIOS isn't showing itself when you boot the DTK, and EFI will probably not show when you boot a future Intel Mac.

[RevEvs]

Originally Posted by sushiism

if it looks anything like this
http://www.3dnews.ru/documents/10127/4200-5.jpg
I'll be buying one of the last G5's and sticking with it for the next few years
keep it as close to the current one as possible with the excellent features such as firewire mode written into the system itself not tacked in with the os (basically do it the same way its currently done) I've personally seen Firewire mode has save about 5 macs even an ibook with a really messed up logic board and at the studio we got a g4 with a broken cd drive up and running again by using it as an external drive in another mac and installing osx via that.

My windows PC at work does not show any dos prompt or ugliness - so i doubt apples intel machines will.

My pc will show a image and then go straight to the windows or ubuntu loadup splash screen.

You dont really think we will have loads of text on startup and "press del to enter the bios" kinda crap do you?

bring on the kickass intellimacs

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

EFI is Intel's baby. They probably heavily encouraged Apple to use it, and Apple agreed.

As long as it provides similar functionality in everyday practical use, they may as well use it.

Same here. I just don't understand what this fascination is with Open Firmware, when EFI would provide similar functionality.

P.S. Here is Towers of Hanoi in EFI:

Code:
fs1:\> ls
Directory of: fs1:\

    06/12/04  05:11a             15,872  hanoi.efi
            1 File(s)    15,872 bytes
            0 Dir(s)

fs1:\> hanoi
usage: hanoi N
Exit status code: Invalid Parameter

fs1:\> hanoi 3
move 1 --> 3
move 1 --> 2
move 3 --> 2
move 1 --> 3
move 2 --> 1
move 2 --> 3
move 1 --> 3

EDIT:

It seems the [code] tag doesn't work properly. :hmm:

Yes it does. You just need to disable smilies ;)

[Tyler McAdams]

As much as I would love Apple to adpot the old SGI invovation on the 320 and 540 workstations using a firmware driven scheme to run and boot x86 hardware from that model, it looked like SGI ran in to issues keeping newer msft OSes (like XP) installable. Since the idea seems to be that you can have both XP and OS X running on the same machine (not to mention Linux, BSD and Solaris) it would make it more compatable to just simply use an "industry standard" BIOS.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Tyler McAdams

Since the idea seems to be that you can have both XP and OS X running on the same machine (not to mention Linux, BSD and Solaris) it would make it more compatable to just simply use an "industry standard" BIOS.

What makes it seem that way? All the statements I've seen out of Apple suggest that running Windows is nothing like a priority, though they imagine it will be possible.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Tyler McAdams

Since the idea seems to be that you can have both XP and OS X running on the same machine

Nope. Apple only said that they would not prevent anyone from running Windows on their machines. They didn't say they were going to make it easy.

Part of the things that make a Mac a Mac are the ability to modify the boot process while starting up (i.e. holding down different keys to do different things). You apparently can't do that on BIOS. EFI seems better in this regard, so it's likely what Apple is going to use.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Tyler McAdams

As much as I would love Apple to adpot the old SGI invovation on the 320 and 540 workstations using a firmware driven scheme to run and boot x86 hardware from that model, it looked like SGI ran in to issues keeping newer msft OSes (like XP) installable. Since the idea seems to be that you can have both XP and OS X running on the same machine (not to mention Linux, BSD and Solaris) it would make it more compatable to just simply use an "industry standard" BIOS.

Meh. That assumes that Steve Jobs actually wants to have XP running on Mac hardware. In fact, it could just be the opposite. Either way, it's not as if Apple is going to spend a lot of resources ensuring Windows runs on Macs. It just doesn't make much sense.

Oh and Apple choosing EFI would mean that XP wouldn't work at all on Macs. Windows Vista probably could though.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by RevEvs

My windows PC at work does not show any dos prompt or ugliness - so i doubt apples intel machines will.

My pc will show a image and then go straight to the windows or ubuntu loadup splash screen.

You dont really think we will have loads of text on startup and "press del to enter the bios" kinda crap do you?

bring on the kickass intellimacs

The picture the PC shows you is just there to hide all the command line stuff going on behind the scenes-it's still there, you just don't see it. Nor do you see the error messages it might come up with; if your hard drive starts to crap out on you, the ONLY place you can be guaranteed to see the SMART warning is while watching the BIOS screen.

My problem with EFI as I understand it is that it implements some form of DRM before the OS even starts to load. If I'm wrong, please correct me, but I sure don't like the idea of some Big Brother software loading before my OS...

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by ghporter

The picture the PC shows you is just there to hide all the command line stuff going on behind the scenes-it's still there, you just don't see it.

Did you ever boot your Mac while holding down ⌘V? There is command line stuff behind the scenes as well. Who cares?

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by ghporter

My problem with EFI as I understand it is that it implements some form of DRM before the OS even starts to load. If I'm wrong, please correct me, but I sure don't like the idea of some Big Brother software loading before my OS...

I'm not sure about that, but just because the capability exists doesn't mean it has to be used. Perhaps Apple will be using it along with the TPM chip to make it harder to put OS X on non Apple hardware?

[SirCastor]

DRM is coming whether we like it or not. (unfortunately) and there's not a whole lot we can do about that. My main concern is that while Trusted computing is happening, Apple's not screwing over us, the customer.

From what I've read, Microsoft's version of TC is something where They appease all the major corporations at the cost of the user, delegating exactly what you can and cannot do with your stuff. Apple seems to have done a pretty decent job protecting folks from that stuff (such as Your ability to burn, and copy music, and Steve's efforts to avoid tier pricing in iTMS)

One of the *advantages* of EFI, is that drivers will load before the OS, preventing people from hacking them.

[Tyler McAdams]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Meh. That assumes that Steve Jobs actually wants to have XP running on Mac hardware. In fact, it could just be the opposite. Either way, it's not as if Apple is going to spend a lot of resources ensuring Windows runs on Macs. It just doesn't make much sense.

Oh and Apple choosing EFI would mean that XP wouldn't work at all on Macs. Windows Vista probably could though.

Well, the idea in my mind for this is that it makes the Mac that more attractive and "risk free" since you can run both OSes (plus a lot more). That makes it more marketable to Windows users to "jump boat" or to other (read smarter) users the extra utility of several well supported OSes on one box (thus keeping expenses down). This is a marketing dream come true.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Did you ever boot your Mac while holding down ⌘V? There is command line stuff behind the scenes as well. Who cares?

The command line stuff behind the scenes on a Mac is rather different than on a PC. Granted there is stuff going on, but on a Mac it's much more "Unix-like" stuff, giving status on how the process is going rather than just enumerating the memory and drives, and then only providing feedback if something goes wrong AND the part that goes wrong has been coded to provide useful error messages. Frankly, over almost two years of using OS X, I haven't seen ANY boot problems, though I've seen something like two dozen on my PC desktop during that same time (and NONE of those problems was accompanied with a useful diagnostic message of any kind).

[goMac]

I will answer your question this way:

Darwin has a built in boot loader which Startup Disk is a frontend to.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Frankly, over almost two years of using OS X, I haven't seen ANY boot problems, though I've seen something like two dozen on my PC desktop during that same time.

Is it confirmed already that the Intel-Macs will be standard PCs? It was my understanding that Apple switching to Intel processors doesn't automatically mean that Macs will be just a PCs with a pretty case. What makes you sure Apple won't address any of these problems? Apple doesn't have any legacy to consider like the "IBM compatible" PC does have to.

[SirCastor]

Originally Posted by Tyler McAdams

Well, the idea in my mind for this is that it makes the Mac that more attractive and "risk free" since you can run both OSes (plus a lot more). That makes it more marketable to Windows users to "jump boat" or to other (read smarter) users the extra utility of several well supported OSes on one box (thus keeping expenses down). This is a marketing dream come true.

It would be poor marketing to push at all the idea that a Mac can run Windows. We want to sell the Macintosh, not a CHRP system. If Apple starts to push Windows on a Mac, then people will just buy a cheaper Windows box from Dell. They won't get a Mac if getting mac is to have Windows on it, and OS X is a benefit.

Apple makes Macintoshes, They're stance on it is right 'We won't stop people, but we aren't going to make it happen'

[Tyler McAdams]

Originally Posted by SirCastor

It would be poor marketing to push at all the idea that a Mac can run Windows. We want to sell the Macintosh, not a CHRP system. If Apple starts to push Windows on a Mac, then people will just buy a cheaper Windows box from Dell. They won't get a Mac if getting mac is to have Windows on it, and OS X is a benefit.

Apple makes Macintoshes, They're stance on it is right 'We won't stop people, but we aren't going to make it happen'

Yes true but it make sense with the "switchers" marketing ideology in that it could make the move more "risk free" ...the idea being a smoother migrate from windows to mac. Move your whole OS from a PC machine to a mac and then to Tiger... thus being more risk free since the new mac runs both OSes. People could be more inclined to buy then.

[Chuckit]

Apple is a hardware company, but Apple is not a Windows hardware company.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Is it confirmed already that the Intel-Macs will be standard PCs? It was my understanding that Apple switching to Intel processors doesn't automatically mean that Macs will be just a PCs with a pretty case. What makes you sure Apple won't address any of these problems? Apple doesn't have any legacy to consider like the "IBM compatible" PC does have to.

The only things I've seen confirmed are that Apple will use Intel processors, OpenFirmware is history, and that the final product computers will be able to run Windows. I've seen more stuff about EFI, but no details beyond that it implements, among other things, DRM before the OS loads.

Further, it's probable that a lot of stuff will be different inside an Apple/Intel box from a Windows/Intel box; I certainly hope they get rid of the silly "North Bridge/South Bridge" kluge that connects the CPU to its peripherals and give it better control of them in the process. The "bridge" mechanism is a good solution for Windows, which needs (according to ol' Bill) to be backward compatible with old code, but it's a dumb thing to start a new platform with.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by ghporter

The only things I've seen confirmed are that Apple will use Intel processors, OpenFirmware is history, and that the final product computers will be able to run Windows.

I have seen no confirmation that the final product computers will be able to run Windows.

[sushiism]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Did you ever boot your Mac while holding down ⌘V? There is command line stuff behind the scenes as well. Who cares?

isn't that behind osx rather than behind the actual machine booting up which is the bit where you'd get a stop sign over a system disk or the firewire disk mode bit.
I'm aware osx has bootup stuff its just ugly bios **** like 2 colour blocky intel logo this counting ram that which I'm against. Its embarrassing actually watching a windpwx XP bootup on a decent screen, you can actually count the colours in the horrible dithering on the windows fisher price xp logo god that sort of **** wouldn't get out the door if I was running a company making an os.

[Spliffdaddy]

"open firmware" isn't superior to a PC BIOS. It performs the very same functions.

You can get a pretty graphical 'firmware' interface in a peecee BIOS. Hell, some will even talk to you. Some can control your CDROM so you can play music with the PC turned off. You can boot from USB, SCSI, 'firewire', network, and probably even punch cards - and you never have to look at "DOS text". Yes, Virginia, even peecees can store device drivers in BIOS - and make the hardware functional without loading an OS.

Again, there is no discernable difference between 'open firmware' and a so-called peecee 'BIOS' / CMOS.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Meh. That assumes that Steve Jobs actually wants to have XP running on Mac hardware. In fact, it could just be the opposite. Either way, it's not as if Apple is going to spend a lot of resources ensuring Windows runs on Macs. It just doesn't make much sense.

Oh and Apple choosing EFI would mean that XP wouldn't work at all on Macs. Windows Vista probably could though.

Take a look at the details of this patent that reveals Apple is not averse to dual booting. We'll see how long that receptivity lasts.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by ghporter

The only things I've seen confirmed are that Apple will use Intel processors, OpenFirmware is history, and that the final product computers will be able to run Windows.

Where have the latter two been confirmed? In particular, where has it been confirmed that the Intel-Macs can boot into Windows?

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by ghporter

The only things I've seen confirmed are that Apple will use Intel processors, OpenFirmware is history, and that the final product computers will be able to run Windows.

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Where have the latter two been confirmed? In particular, where has it been confirmed that the Intel-Macs can boot into Windows?

1) Intel processors - We all know this is true of course. It's just a matter of when now. MWSF?

2) Open Firmware is history - From the horse's mouth:

"Macintosh computers that use an Intel microprocessor do not use Open Firmware."

3) The final product computers will be able to run Windows - This is incorrect. Apple never has said this directly.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

3) The final product computers will be able to run Windows - This is incorrect. Apple never has said this directly.

True; I haven't found a direct quote about this. But I saw something around the announcement from someone pretty high up in Apple about there not being any reason the hardware wouldn't run Windows. Perhaps I've just repeated an assumption, but I had the pretty strong impression that the hardware would not "stop" a user from running Windows on it.

Sorry if I muddied the waters here.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ghporter

True; I haven't found a direct quote about this. But I saw something around the announcement from someone pretty high up in Apple about there not being any reason the hardware wouldn't run Windows. Perhaps I've just repeated an assumption, but I had the pretty strong impression that the hardware would not "stop" a user from running Windows on it.

Yeah. Afterward, somebody asked them about running Windows on the Intel Macs, and the guy gave a response along the lines of, "Eh, you probably could, but we're not going to support that." It didn't sound very decisive on any matter except that they don't intend it to be a Windows platform, as I recall. It did sound like they expected it to be Windows-compatible though.

[mike3k]

The DTK uses what appears to be a standard PC BIOS. Hitting F1 while booting will bring up a PC-style CMOS setup screen. This probably won't be the case with the finished product.



I can confirm that a standard x86 Linux live CD will boot on it.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by mike3k

The DTK uses what appears to be a standard PC BIOS. Hitting F1 while booting will bring up a PC-style CMOS setup screen. This probably won't be the case with the finished product.[/IMG]

Yes. The DTK uses a standard PC BIOS. Apple also said that you should not use the DTK to determine what final shipping hardware will be like.

<not directed at you specifically> Why do people persist in saying stuff like, "Well, the DTK uses BIOS, so that's what the final product will use," especially when Apple said the final product will not be like the DTK???

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

"open firmware" isn't superior to a PC BIOS. It performs the very same functions.

No, you're exactly missing the point. Open Firmware (and EFI) can do a lot more than standard PC BIOS.

tooki

[Big Mac]

If anyone has any doubts concerning the merits/demerits of BIOS, there are some in depth discussions to be found on it over at Slashdot. The standard PC BIOS can be hacked in various ways, but it remains anchored to the absurdly limited core architecture of IBM's original PC BIOS.

And yet, I for one hope Apple uses BIOS and ships its Mactel PCs in standard beige boxes. In truth, is there really much of a need to beautify with precious engineering dollars that which is destined to be jettisoned in a couple years when Apple Computer Inc. becomes Apple Media Inc.?

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

And yet, I for one hope Apple uses BIOS and ships its Mactel PCs in standard beige boxes. In truth, is there really much of a need to beautify with precious engineering dollars that which is destined to be jettisoned in a couple years when Apple Computer Inc. becomes Apple Media Inc.?

Your opinion.

Apple has already stated they're not going to use standard BIOS, nor are they making "generic PCs."

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by ghporter

True; I haven't found a direct quote about this. But I saw something around the announcement from someone pretty high up in Apple about there not being any reason the hardware wouldn't run Windows. Perhaps I've just repeated an assumption, but I had the pretty strong impression that the hardware would not "stop" a user from running Windows on it.

Sorry if I muddied the waters here.

Phil Schiller said that IIRC.