Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Matteh99]

Hey everyone,
Just incase you haven't seen some one got windows xp booted on an intel mac.

http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/03/16/winxp.boots.on.intel.mac/

I wonder if they had any driver issues once they got it booted..

[edscoble]

brilliant news, usually work if you have the 64bits version of XP which support EFI.

thought the bad point is there's no graphic card driver for it.

I can't wait for Vista.

[est]

No versions of WinXP or Vista work with the version of EFI that the Macs are running, hence the competition.  This guy had to write his own bootloader and modify some stuff to get WinXP working/booting with EFI.

[M3gaBigh]

Why? Why would you want to do such a terrible thing?

[edscoble]

No versions of WinXP or Vista work with the version of EFI that the Macs are running, hence the competition.  This guy had to write his own bootloader and modify some stuff to get WinXP working/booting with EFI.

an irony since EFI was developed by both Intel and Microsoft isn't it?

Why? Why would you want to do such a terrible thing?

because I like Windows XP and OS X.

[est]

exactly.  Also, this is a plus for Mac-owners to the same degree that dual-booting into Windows a plus for Linux users.  You can run OSX for all your day-to-day apps, etc, but then when you want to play certain games that might not be released on OSX yet you can fire up Windows and play.

In fact, I have a sneaking suspicion that if things keep going the way that they are going I may end up caving in and buying a Macbook Pro at some point in the future & setting up a dual-boot system on it.  I've been looking into getting a laptop for a long dang time now, but nothing on the PC side has looked at sexy or well-made as the Powerbooks, and now the Macbooks

[edscoble]

heh, I'd wait for the rumoured 13.3inch widescreen MacBook (Pro), as I like a smaller laptop with a bigger resolution, the 12inch iBook and PowerBook are being very 2003 nowadays.

seriously modern 12inch laptop now has Intel Centrino, 1280x800, 128mb graphic card, 1GB of ram 60GB and dual layer DVD-R, for only £700!

let hope the small MacBook will be worth spending on.

[est]

Yeah, it's easy to pick up a decent-spec'ed Windows laptop, but everything looks so goddamn ugly.  I'm just crossing my fingers that ASUS gets some decent gear together soon, as their laptops are the closest to good-looking I've seen that aren't super-expensive custom-made VoodooPC laptops (Dell and Alienware look plasticky and tacky to me)

[edscoble]

Yeah, it's easy to pick up a decent-spec'ed Windows laptop, but everything looks so goddamn ugly.  I'm just crossing my fingers that ASUS gets some decent gear together soon, as their laptops are the closest to good-looking I've seen that aren't super-expensive custom-made VoodooPC laptops (Dell and Alienware look plasticky and tacky to me)

did you know that some of the ASUS laptop are actually the same design as the PowerBook 15inch/17inch? they're the company who make the body of the PowerBook/iBook for Apple, here's some example:

Asus W2Vc (17inch PowerBook design)


Asus W1Vc (15inch PowerBook design)


thought some of the Sony laptop, especially the small one are pretty nice looking.

[est]

Hey, they are kind of cool.  I suspect that they aren't available out here though, because I've been getting Asus catalogues and looking into them recently (as they are the better-looking brand to my eye) and I haven't noticed anything like that, unfortunately.

The Sony ones do look all shiny and so forth, but I have a few problems with Sony gear:

1. The price.  Sony are seriously up themselves if they think I'm going to pay 150% of normal price just because it's got the word "Sony" there on the laptop.

2. The super-shiny screen.  I know that a lot of people like that whole glassy LCD screen dealie, but for me it's a no-go.  They are glary as all hell, so I can't stand using them.

3. I'd be giving money to Sony.  At the moment I really, really, really hate Sony.  In my opinion their attitude towards their customer is very arrogant and shitty, and has been for a while.  They seem to act from a position of "well, this is how it is, fuck you".  I don't like that.

But thanks, I'll start looking into the Asus laptops and see if there's any way to get that kind of model out here.

[nihilist]

an irony since EFI was developed by both Intel and Microsoft isn't it?

Well, not really.  EFI isn't really a standard yet.  EFI 1.1, which is what Apple is using with their gear, is actually outdated.  The rest of the x86 world is currently looking at EFI 2.0 and 2.1, with 2.1 likely to become the standard replacement for the BIOS.  Which means that Vista will support 2.x, not 1.1.  Thus Apple has managed to tie itself to a "dead" technology with their brand new product.  Now that amuses me.  (I'm sure they did it to help ensure that their hardware is theirs, and that future OSs will not work on it, etc.  But still.)

[Matteh99]

That doesn't really make sence.

Apple isn't stuck with 1.1 forever.  There is nothing stopping apple from using the 2.x standard in their later computers.  All they have to do is make sure osx also supports 1.1 as well as 2.x.

Since UEFI 2.0 just got released march first what was apple supposed to do?  use standard BIOS?  Delay releasing the iMac till EFI 2.0 came out?  They can make 1.1 do everything they need it to and they don't have wait for it to happen.

Any ways dual booting between windows and OS X is cool.  Both XP and OS X have their advanages over eachother.  So being able to do both on the same system really makes things interesting.  Being able to switch on the fly would be even cooler but dual booting is still pretty good.

Eric

[Samari]

I just saw today that WinXP doesn't have drivers for the fans in the new Apples.  So I'd hold off on duel booting until minor details like that are worked out.

[jhocking]

Didn't you know, Macs don't need fans for cooling?

[est]

Samari: from what I've read it seems that that's only half true.  The fans do kick in, but they kick in later.  Apparently this means that they get hotter quicker, but don't get any hotter than when you're running OSX (ie: same max temperature).

[nihilist]

Apple isn't stuck with 1.1 forever.  There is nothing stopping apple from using the 2.x standard in their later computers.  All they have to do is make sure osx also supports 1.1 as well as 2.x.

Since UEFI 2.0 just got released march first what was apple supposed to do?  use standard BIOS?  Delay releasing the iMac till EFI 2.0 came out?  They can make 1.1 do everything they need it to and they don't have wait for it to happen.

OS X x86 has been built to work with EFI 1.1.  If they rev to 2.x already, they're going to be paying a fat load of cash to support two different standards, plus they'll have to rev the OS itself.

Remember that the Intel switch wasn't supposed to have happened yet, they released "early".  (Not really, but that's what they like to say...)  Point is that they worked on their system to use 1.1, not 2.x  It was done specifically, since the world+dog has known that 1.1 wouldn't really make it, and that 2.0 was going to be out shortly.  This was a conscious decision.

[Matteh99]

I see your point.

I suppose how good of an idea it was to use EFI 1.1 depends on how backward compatable EFI 2.x is and if there are any licening costs for using the EIF standard.  If 2.x is backward compatable and there is no licencing then there isn't much of a downside to using 1.1.  It gets their product out sooner and with all the features they need.

I honestly have very little idea of what makes 2.x better than 1.1 or what it takes to adopt a standard.

[edscoble]

Didn't you know, Macs don't need fans for cooling?

tell that to my G5 iMac, which's currently cooking the radiator.

yes, cooking the radiator as if it not hot enough.[/i]

[jhocking]

I meant to post a link to information about the failed mac design without fans, but I forgot.  At one point Steve-o decided he didn't like fans and told his engineers to come up with a design that didn't have any fans in it.  The resulting computer often went nuclear while people were using it.

[nihilist]

I see your point.

I suppose how good of an idea it was to use EFI 1.1 depends on how backward compatable EFI 2.x is and if there are any licening costs for using the EIF standard.  If 2.x is backward compatable and there is no licencing then there isn't much of a downside to using 1.1.  It gets their product out sooner and with all the features they need.

I honestly have very little idea of what makes 2.x better than 1.1 or what it takes to adopt a standard.

How very polite of you.  Are you sure you belong on these forums? :p

From what I read, 2.x will not be compatible with 1.1 in any way.  Hence the manufacturers bypassing 1.1 and going straight to 2.x.  EFI 1.1 was an Intel-only deal, whereas UEFI 2.x is by a group of companies.  Lots of changes/enhancements.  Finally, Vista's UEFI implementation will only support 64-bit processors, which current Apple x86 chips are not.

[nescience]

I meant to post a link to information about the failed mac design without fans, but I forgot.  At one point Steve-o decided he didn't like fans and told his engineers to come up with a design that didn't have any fans in it.  The resulting computer often went nuclear while people were using it.

Ah yes, you're (partially) talking of the CUBE...



Anyone remember this bomb?

[edscoble]

I meant to post a link to information about the failed mac design without fans, but I forgot.  At one point Steve-o decided he didn't like fans and told his engineers to come up with a design that didn't have any fans in it.  The resulting computer often went nuclear while people were using it.

Ah yes, you're (partially) talking of the CUBE...



Anyone remember this bomb?

yes, I do, it's an innovated design to used an alternated method of using gravity to keep the Cube cool, the bonus is that it run very quite, unfortunately the reason it failed because it's too expensive, because of the technology back then (eighty quid for 20GB? are you mad??) and because it's small, it may needed laptop hard drive for one, it's a victim of being too ahead of time.

[nihilist]

It failed because of hardware problems and bad manufacturing, not because of price.  True Apple die-hards shell out obscene amounts of money because Steve says they should and since he's oh-so-cool, they do.  

[edscoble]

It failed because of hardware problems and bad manufacturing, not because of price.  True Apple die-hards shell out obscene amounts of money because Steve says they should and since he's oh-so-cool, they do.  

actually there's no hardware problem, it was just too expensive for the specification, while the PowerMac is cheaper with more specs.

[nihilist]

Stop quoting the person above you.  It's just not cool.

There were hardware problems with it: overheating, things cracking, and it giving off a horrible smell.

[minignome]

was that the cube that had the grounding issue, or was that a different one?

[Bunnyman]

Judging from the Wikipedia article, the issue was the price combined with the tendency for people to put stuff on top of the vent, causing overheats.

Pity, it's a great size for a computer.  Why I like Shuttles.

[edscoble]

Stop quoting the person above you.  It's just not cool.

There were hardware problems with it: overheating, things cracking, and it giving off a horrible smell.

I really can't remember I was stuck on my PowerMac G3 (350Mhz), I just spend too long staring at the Cube back then in the Online Apple Store.

[nihilist]

All of the anti-Apple people were having a lot of fun with it.  Especially the smell bit.

[minignome]

Slightly back towards the topic, anybody have a guess as to when they'll have vista up and running on a mac?  Saw that the same guys who held the original contest are holding another, even if only for a buck.

[est]

They'll get a fair few donations that'll prop that figure up, I'd say.  I doubt it'll get as high as the $13k for XP though, because at least now there's something to use, whereas before it was nothing.