[Chuckit]

According to EveryMac, both Schiller and a marketing guy said Apple didn't intend to stop people from running Windows.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

According to EveryMac, both Schiller and a marketing guy said Apple didn't intend to stop people from running Windows.

Yes.

In other words, they're not going to do anything to actively prevent someone from running Windows on the machine if they so desire.

They're not going to do anything to actively get it to run either.

So, if you're expecting Windows to "just work" on the machine, you're going to be sadly mistaken.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by 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.

Ever tried using a pre-boot loader in BIOS? Setting up PXE boot with a mishmash of 5 different vendors of PCs in a lab?

Right. BIOS is a piece of sh*t. I hate it all hell. Gods I miss working on Macs with OpenFirmware, all of them running NetBoot and deploying software without a hitch.

[Goonies]But nooooooooooooooooooooo![/Goonies] Because we don't have tens of thousands of dollars just laying around so we can upgrade all the NICs with PXE boot ROMs, we have to do it the old way! Hidden friggin' DOS partitions with unique NIC drivers for every god damn computer.

PLEASE, Apple, use EFI.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

PLEASE, Apple, use EFI.

Relax, it's all but confirmed that they will.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

Phil Schiller said that IIRC.

Chuckit's comment above rings true with what I remember. I don't have anything definite, and I've read a zillion opinions on what may and may not run on the new machines, so I can easily be completely and totally confused on the subject of Windows on a MacTel.

But it would be cool to show how much better OS X is than Windows on exactly the same hardware.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

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.

Anyone take a look at the patent? Here's a pertinent excerpt:

"22: The method of claim 20, wherein the first operating system is selected from the set consisting of Mac OS X, Linux, and Microsoft Windows."

[CaptainHaddock]

One of the main purposes of patents is to keep other people from doing stuff.

[CaptainHaddock]

Regarding the bootloader and firmware question, I really wish Apple would stick with OpenFirmware. It just works so well. EFI sounds decent, with most of OF's advantages like a proper device tree, pre-booting software environments, and hardware that loads its own drivers. BIOS is decrepit and hoary.

There's remarkable quiet on the hardware front; no one seems to know what Apple's up to. But I found out the following on my own:

1. EFI is being replaced by Unified EFI, which has formed a new trade association.
2. Apple is not a member; however, "adopters" are not allowed to join yet.
3. Intel is a member.
4. American Megatrends (AMI) is a member.
5. AMI has a new EFI implementation called Aptio, which they are heavily promoting. Aptio 3.0 is specially designed to use Intel's upcoming dual-core processors.
6. AMI has announced deals to supply Aptio to two Taiwanese firms, Quanta and Asustek. (sources: link and link)
7. Quanta and Asustek both build Macs (and iPods) for Apple. And more interestingly, Asustek appears to be building the widescreen 14" Intel iBooks. (source: Economic Daily News) The same source says Asustek will probably build the Intel 12" iBook as well, plus a 15.4" widescreen iBook to be released later in 2006.

So the case for EFI (UEFI) looks good. The case for Intel iBooks in January looks overwhelming.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Anyone take a look at the patent? Here's a pertinent excerpt:

"22: The method of claim 20, wherein the first operating system is selected from the set consisting of Mac OS X, Linux, and Microsoft Windows."

Yes. That is listed. But just because it is patented doesn't mean that Apple is going to make it easy for people to run Windows. They're just not actively doing anything to prevent somebody from trying to run Windows on their machines.

[Tyre MacAdmin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

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

No but it will bring people over. I've already talked to several of my Window only friends and they all say that they would switch if they could run windows too.

[SirCastor]

Originally Posted by Tyler McAdams

No but it will bring people over. I've already talked to several of my Window only friends and they all say that they would switch if they could run windows too.

I don't want to be negative, but i'd like to call your friends out on that one. When the Intel machines come out, and they're up for a new machine (assuming the new machines will run windows.) I'd be interested to see how many of them actually go for it.

I'm not saying anything about your friends, just my observations about people in general.

[Tyre MacAdmin]

Originally Posted by SirCastor

I don't want to be negative, but i'd like to call your friends out on that one. When the Intel machines come out, and they're up for a new machine (assuming the new machines will run windows.) I'd be interested to see how many of them actually go for it.

I'm not saying anything about your friends, just my observations about people in general.

But it *is* something negative about my friends. They *are* like that... "dude os x is sweet" I can't wait 'till it comes out on Intel so I can run OS X and Windows on the same box!" It's their stupid perspective. I can only hope that they will move completely to OS X. Obviously, these are the friends who are brainwashed on Intel rocks, PowerPC sucks. I just can't beat it in to them. "I never really got why you liked PowerPC Tyler" (Karl says..)


Obviously, I still have a few friends, namely the ones linked on my site that are either PowerPC fans or OS X fans who know better. My walk of life is this: Some people just need to make their own mistakes and then give them guidance when the do make the mistake. Other friends are stubborn or even dangerous with their blind devotions... who you just have to say "whatever" to. In the end they will fall in, but it will take a ton of time for them to do so. I think OS X on Intel is the solution for these people.

[Tomchu]

OS X and Windows would be great on a single box, but let's not get in over our heads here ...

When it comes to raw performance, Windows beats OS X at pretty much any task. It's common knowledge that OS X's disk subsystem and threading subsystems are slow as a dog.

[echosphere]

Originally Posted by Tomchu

OS X and Windows would be great on a single box, but let's not get in over our heads here ...

When it comes to raw performance, Windows beats OS X at pretty much any task. It's common knowledge that OS X's disk subsystem and threading subsystems are slow as a dog.

Where the hell did you get this info? From Msn.com? Crikey.

Windows carries so much bloatwear and legacy code that it's near common knowledge that Intel has quietly grumbled for years for MS to clean up their room.

First off, MS DOES need to support a tremendeous amount of machines, configurations, apps and drivers. That helps to make the code big. Second, there is no need to make the code efficient when Moore's Law applied to Intel chips increases their power so much between usual release cycle. Hey, should MS spent millions on cleaning up code or just tell their buyers that you'll need faster hardware?

Openly Intel can't complain against their #1 Customer and plus they do get to sell new processors BECAUSE users WILL need it to run the latest MS OS.

Look at the historical Apple hardware/sofware side. The perspective is completely flipped. Moore's Law has not been working for the IBM & Freescale chips. Performance increases have been minimal at best. Think why do we have QUAD chips? Because individually the raw CPU power is poor when compared to Intel chips in general.

Each release of OSX is faster than previous ones. 10.4 runs faster on my old Clamshell iBook than does 10.1. Ever want to confuse a Windows user? Ask them why XP does not faster than 2K after you mention the above about Apple's OS.

Why is Tiger faster since they have added thousands of new features since 10.1? Because they have had to optimize the hell out of the code to make up for sluggish chip adavances.

Now, if you take that code and PROPERLY export it to Intel chips. You have an OS that will produce amazing results.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Tomchu

OS X and Windows would be great on a single box, but let's not get in over our heads here ...

When it comes to raw performance, Windows beats OS X at pretty much any task. It's common knowledge that OS X's disk subsystem and threading subsystems are slow as a dog.

I have yet to see an "oranges to oranges" study of the disk or threading subsystems of Windows and OS X, let alone one that would make either one's superiority "common knowledge." Windows may be capable of using lots of gigaflops, but how much of that just manages the OS? (Hint: a LOT.)

I am a Windows user-right now, in fact-but I think your assertions are fallatious. What you are comparing are two completely different OSs. It would be a more realistic comparison to match a well developed Linux distribution (or Open BSD!) and OS X. There is no practical way to compare the internals of such different operating systems as OS X and Windows (any version) except using identical hardware and equivalent native code. These two conditions are not really available for a good sized test.

And gushing about Windows in a thread about OS X's next step looks like trolling... Do be careful with that.

[echosphere]

Originally Posted by Person Man

Yes.

In other words, they're not going to do anything to actively prevent someone from running Windows on the machine if they so desire.

They're not going to do anything to actively get it to run either.

So, if you're expecting Windows to "just work" on the machine, you're going to be sadly mistaken.

So true. Just goes to show that Apple does hire smart people. Apple said that they won't disallow people from installing Windows, just that they won't support it.

Look at how much Dell spends each fiscal quarter on "supporting" Windows. So much so that it became cheaper to move their customer services ops to India.

Just think if Apple had to bear the cost of publicly supporting Windows along with OSX at the consumer level.

I think Apple might like to support Windows initially (and THEN get people to switch over to OSX). But the cost would be so prohibitive that it wouldn't make up for the hardware marketshare increases they would like to gain from such a venture.

[Detrius]

Originally Posted by Tomchu

OS X and Windows would be great on a single box, but let's not get in over our heads here ...

When it comes to raw performance, Windows beats OS X at pretty much any task. It's common knowledge that OS X's disk subsystem and threading subsystems are slow as a dog.

As a programmer that specifically deals with threading on both Windows and Mac OS X, I can say that your info is incomplete. On Mac OS X, you can specify highly precise timing constraints for your thread(s)--well bellow 1ms if you desire. Mac OS X also offers nanosecond resolution on the internal clock. Windows, on the other hand, only offers 20ms resolution on the internal clock, which is also the limit to the capabilities of threads. Since Windows basically only switches threads about once every 20ms, that does basically mean that handling multiple threads involves very little processor time from the OS, but this lack of processing time also sacrifices timing accuracy on Windows. The mach microkernel's real-time priority thread scheduling is FAR more capable than Windows' real-time priority.

[Big Mac]

EFI confirmed as Mactel firmware in revised Universal Binary PDF

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

EFI confirmed as Mactel firmware in revised Universal Binary PDF

Good to hear!

[brokenjago]

So now the real question becomes:

Is EFI better than OpenFirmware? If not, what are it's shortcomings, and how will these affect users?

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by brokenjago

So now the real question becomes:

Is EFI better than OpenFirmware? If not, what are it's shortcomings, and how will these affect users?

From what I can tell, EFI and OpenFirmware are about on par as far as what Apple is using it for.

[TheoCryst]

And theoretically, EFI will work with other OSs, including (but not limited to) Windows XP.

Quoted from http://www.intel.com/cd/ids/develope...9568.htm?prn=Y :

The Framework can support non-EFI OSs (Microsoft Windows* XP and older). For IA 32 systems, the Framework loads itself above the 1 MB real-mode memory boundary to accommodate an optional Compatibility Support Module (CSM). A CSM is approximately 60 KB of firmware that is specific to each BIOS vendor’s code base. The CSM supplies services to operating systems that do not boot using EFI. It also supports legacy option ROMs on add-in cards.

[TheoCryst]

And theoretically, EFI will work with other OSs, including (but not limited to) Windows XP.

Quoted from http://www.intel.com/cd/ids/develope...9568.htm?prn=Y :

The Framework can support non-EFI OSs (Microsoft Windows* XP and older). For IA 32 systems, the Framework loads itself above the 1 MB real-mode memory boundary to accommodate an optional Compatibility Support Module (CSM). A CSM is approximately 60 KB of firmware that is specific to each BIOS vendor’s code base. The CSM supplies services to operating systems that do not boot using EFI. It also supports legacy option ROMs on add-in cards.

[inkhead]

openfirmware is ABSOLUTELY not better than EFI, EFI is much more advanced, can do everything openfirmware can, and more, even not having to completely power up to access the EFI.

Apple wrote their code into EFI which is the smart move. that "because it's OPEN" is crap, so is EFI and bios lol..

and YES the new intel mac books support TARGET DISK MODE< and booting from firewire, CONFIRMED from the macworld expo show floor.


Before making stupid comments at least read about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensi...ware_Interface

EFI is next gen, openfirmware is much older

Originally Posted by ghporter

???? 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.

[inkhead]

you are so mis-informed, openfirmware ONLY does this because apple put code in to the openfirmware to DO THIS, ibm and the other companies that have open firmware don't use this "nice graphical" interface.

EFI & Openfirmware allow for completely customized code to be loaded on, JUST LIKE openfirmware only with more configurations and extensibility, you can even offload virus protection into it.

"though EFI was initially developed by Intel, its apparent intention is to release at least one open-source form of the standard."

you can download everything you need to get started developing EFI from intel's develop site including code.

Stop talking about stuff you have no clue about.

Originally Posted by Millennium

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.

[pliny]

My understanding was basically what we will need to run Windows is a set of Windows os drivers. Shouldn't be very long, I guess.

Didn't someone mention end of 64-bit? I thought efi was set up to allow for 64-bit computing.

[pliny]

My understanding was basically what we will need to run Windows is a set of Windows os drivers. Shouldn't be very long, I guess.

Didn't someone mention end of 64-bit? I thought efi was set up to allow for 64-bit computing.

[macwebcam]

noone had windows xp boot disk at mwsf06 to check if it intel mac will boot xp?

anyoen had new iMac delivered? can they boot windows?
if EFI is problem for xp, would GRUB help?

http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/manual/grub.html

[Big Mac]

Yes, people did have XP boot discs at the expo, and it was confirmed early on that the Mactels do not boot from them. XP is not directly compatible with EFI.

[Eug Wanker]

Anyone have a picture of what the OPTION boot screen looks like on the Intel Mac?

[ranxerox]

Perhaps someone with more experience with EFI could correct me, but the fundamental problem I see with EFI is that EFI uses a partition on your disk to "pre-boot" the OS. In other words, it loads an OS prior to loading an OS. What happens if that partition isn't available? Will your machine still boot? Or is it now a doorstop? Openboot was standalone -- when the machine came on, everything necessary to use the basic functions of the prom were available. No disk was necessary. I may be wrong, but without an EFI partition (and a valid boot disk), your machine is more than useless -- you can't even boot the PROM!

I don't like hidden partitions, and ROMs that require a working disk before the computer can even pass diags. I want hardware to be functional from a diagnostic perspective without any need for a working hard disk.

[Catfish_Man]

That's an interesting point about the hidden partitions. Anyone here actually an expert on EFI? If not, any idea where we could find someone who is? I'm rather curious about it now.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by inkhead

you are so mis-informed, openfirmware ONLY does this because apple put code in to the openfirmware to DO THIS, ibm and the other companies that have open firmware don't use this "nice graphical" interface.

I was comparing OpenFirmware to BIOS, not to EFI. I am fully aware that OpenFirmware needs to be programmed to do this: any boot system would. Unlike BIOS, however, OF is actually powerful enough to make this possible.

EFI & Openfirmware allow for completely customized code to be loaded on, JUST LIKE openfirmware only with more configurations and extensibility, you can even offload virus protection into it.

You could theoretically do this with OF as well. EFI is little more than a reinvention of the wheel; the only thing it adds is Trusted Computing, and I don't want that.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Millennium

You could theoretically do this with OF as well. EFI is little more than a reinvention of the wheel; the only thing it adds is Trusted Computing, and I don't want that.

Just because Trusted Computing is there doesn't mean it has to be used.

At this point Apple is only using it to try to prevent people from taking Mac OS X for Intel and run it on non-Apple hardware.

[tigas]

Originally Posted by ranxerox

Perhaps someone with more experience with EFI could correct me, but the fundamental problem I see with EFI is that EFI uses a partition on your disk to "pre-boot" the OS. In other words, it loads an OS prior to loading an OS. What happens if that partition isn't available? Will your machine still boot? Or is it now a doorstop? Openboot was standalone -- when the machine came on, everything necessary to use the basic functions of the prom were available. No disk was necessary. I may be wrong, but without an EFI partition (and a valid boot disk), your machine is more than useless -- you can't even boot the PROM!

I don't like hidden partitions, and ROMs that require a working disk before the computer can even pass diags. I want hardware to be functional from a diagnostic perspective without any need for a working hard disk.

Ditto. I remember the flak IBM got when their MicroChannel architecture demanded an "Initialization Floppy" to set and retrieve settings from CMOS memory. I'd rather have the EFI partition living in a small Flash disk incorporated in the motherboard.

[CaptainHaddock]

Originally Posted by Person Man

Just because Trusted Computing is there doesn't mean it has to be used.

At this point Apple is only using it to try to prevent people from taking Mac OS X for Intel and run it on non-Apple hardware.

I read that the current Intel chipsets being used in Intel Macs don't even have Mistrusted Computing built in. Sure, EFI supports it, but EFI supports everything.

[baw]

Originally Posted by Millennium

...the only thing it adds is Trusted Computing, and I don't want that.

Exactly. It will be interesting to see if HD-DVD support Apple adds to OS X will require an EFI based system. We all know Jobs will not support HD-DVD until he can lock it down to prevent illegal copying of Pixar movies.

[JLL]

I guess you meant Blu-ray since that's what Apple is supporting.

[baw]

Both HD, correct? That is what I thought.

[Jellytussle]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Anyone have a picture of what the OPTION boot screen looks like on the Intel Mac?

No pics, but i played with an Intel iMac earlier this week, and tried alt - i got a larger (256x256ish?) version of the HD icon in a grey circle, with the volume name below. T and N work as expected too.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by JLL

I guess you meant Blu-ray since that's what Apple is supporting.

He's supporting both according to ThinkSecret.

[tigas]

On other related news, ppcMacOSX has an utility that allows it to partition drives that should be bootable by iMacOSX. It's called gpt. Just do "man gpt" at the Terminal.

[edit] In reality, it's used as diskutil partitionDisk <device name> GPTFormat <filesystem> <volume name> . Only in 10.4.3 and up. And I've done it, it works in my Pismo, and the partitions mount and are writable! [/edit]

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by goMac

He's supporting both according to ThinkSecret.

Link?

I read ThinkSecret a lot and I've NEVER seen any story saying Apple will support both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD.