# Can we load Windows directly on the IntelMac



## chevy (Jan 10, 2006)

Can we load Windows directly on the IntelMac ?


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jan 10, 2006)

Why ask now?  The Intel-based Macintosh computers are only a few hours old, and nobody has one in their possession yet -- no one will until February (or 1 - 3 days in case of the iMac).

I would assume the answer would be "yes," but anyone who says one way or the other before February is simply speculating.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jan 11, 2006)

Basically what's also interesting to consider: "why not?". Apple hardware with preinstalled macosx that can run MS Windows software would be perfect for switchers. It's not like apple would loose any market share. They would sell the hardware AND the software. And it would make the whole thing less risky for switchers who have no clue what macosx is like. And for now there are not so many dual core laptops available. Some ppl might even switch to mac only because of the hardware and knowing they can use their 'good old' XP.. 
Of course, it's only speculation but I would also rather say "yes, windows should boot on Intel Macs".


----------



## symphonix (Jan 11, 2006)

I think it'll be possible, but unsupported and unreliable. I'm sure there'll be some people out there who figure it out - people will do anything.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jan 11, 2006)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> Basically what's also interesting to consider: "why not?". Apple hardware with preinstalled macosx that can run MS Windows software would be perfect for switchers. It's not like apple would loose any market share. They would sell the hardware AND the software. And it would make the whole thing less risky for switchers who have no clue what macosx is like. And for now there are not so many dual core laptops available. Some ppl might even switch to mac only because of the hardware and knowing they can use their 'good old' XP..
> Of course, it's only speculation but I would also rather say "yes, windows should boot on Intel Macs".



because people may end up not switching at all.  many people don't like macs simply because it's different.  if they can get windows on there then great! why bother using macos?


----------



## powermac (Jan 11, 2006)

My guess is Apple would not make it easy for users to put some version of windows on a Intel Mac. In the end Apple would lose. Sure, some people with strong tech knowledge will figure it out. For Apple to make it easy to do it would be suicide for Mac OSX. Lets face it, OSX is at the heart of the Apple's success!!!


----------



## ora (Jan 11, 2006)

Workwise, being able to run Windows would be a major reason for buying a MacBook <shudder>. I never liked Virtual PC but i am forced to use Windows for a bunch of work related tasks which currently means i am running 4 machines (2 laptops, 2 desktops). I would hope that Apple would make this simple rather than complex, they are after all primarily a Hardware company,  so they shouldn't find it too threatening.

And powermac, i disagree, i don't think OS X is anything like the heart of Apple's success (though i love it dearly), i would say the iPod had a much better shot at that title recently.


----------



## powermac (Jan 11, 2006)

I think the iPod for money value, certainly has increased Apple's bottom line. People are buying new Macs, new users to Mac because of the OS. Whether or not they love the iPod and decided why not buy a Mac, or many have reported they switched because of destine for XP. 
As I am sure I don't have to tell you. Until OSX, reviewers and critics destroyed Apple. 
Although Ora, I agree with your point about the iPod. I still believe OSX has driven Apple's success in notoriety and catching the public's attention.


----------



## ora (Jan 11, 2006)

Quite possibly, what i meant is that Apple derive their profit from the hardware not the software (despite the many $100 point upgrades to OS X). If people buy an Intel Mac, i doubt it will be just to ditch OS X and go Windows (or if so just a very small amount, as most of the pro-PC camp who wouldn't otherwise switch wouldn't go for the Apple kit). On the other hand, letting you dual boot OS X and windows would remove a barrier to switchers who still need some Windows only applications.

On being a Hardware company, that was something i cam across when researching my MSc thesis. As a modern example, Apple derive very little profit from iTMS, they make the money from the iPods. On the other hand, I am certain iTMS drives the purchase of iPods, or at least the overall software integration of the iPod drives iPod purchasing.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jan 11, 2006)

Lt Major Burns said:
			
		

> because people may end up not switching at all.  many people don't like macs simply because it's different.  if they can get windows on there then great! why bother using macos?


Well, now macs are not so much 'different' at all. Infact there is nothing mac-specific in the current MacBook, right? And sure, some windows users gonna rip off macosx from their MacBook disk and use windows. But does that harm apple? They sold their hardware AND software to those ppl who would never have thought of using macs, because after their windows installation finalized what is apple on the MacBook beside the logo? Best thing that could happen, if you ask me.


----------



## Mikuro (Jan 11, 2006)

powermac said:
			
		

> My guess is Apple would not make it easy for users to put some version of windows on a Intel Mac. In the end Apple would lose. Sure, some people with strong tech knowledge will figure it out. For Apple to make it easy to do it would be suicide for Mac OSX. Lets face it, OSX is at the heart of the Apple's success!!!


Well, I doubt any Mac user is going to buy a Mac, install Windows, and say "Zowee, this is great! I don't need that thar oh-ess-ex no more!" I mean, c'mon...  On the other hand, Windows users might well buy a Mac just to use Windows, and then start using OS X more and more because they finally _can_. And even if they don't keep using OS X, it'd still be good for Apple, because it would increase their market share (most market share numbers are based on systems sold with an OS preinstalled).

I think Apple can and should operate with the belief that they have the best product out there. That means that allowing Windows to be installed isn't a huge threat.

I think it could really work in Apple's favor, even if they only allow Windows to work for the first generation or two of their Intel machines (killing support later would discourage styoopid developers from saying "well, if you can just install Windows on Macs, then we don't need to make Mac software at all"). It'd make Apple's machines soooo much more attractive to switchers, and could even help non-switchers slowly become switchers.

In any case, we'll probably know in a few days.


----------



## powermac (Jan 11, 2006)

Well the question has been answered by Phil:
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10794396/from/RS.3/


----------



## nixgeek (Jan 11, 2006)

Either way, it won't hurt Apple that much in my opinion because they aren't _shipping_ a copy of Windows with these Intel Macs....they only come with OS X preinstalled and you would have to fit the bill and _purchase_ a copy of Windows for that Intel Mac.

Even if they try to install a pirated copy, they would be hindered by the MS Genuine Advantage ActiveX control for any updates, not allowing them access to other Windows tools that they might have used on a PC that came with Windows preinstalled or with a legit copy of Windows.  While there is a workaround to this, the usual user isn't going to know how to apply this workaround...too much trouble and too geeky for the average user if you ask me.

So all in all, whether it's Windows or OS X, it's still a hardware and software win for Apple.


----------



## powermac (Jan 11, 2006)

I certainly respect Apple's decision not to purposely sabotage one's ability to install another OS. I am just brainstorming here!!

For argument sake, lets say loading Vista on a Mac-intel is easy. I can see this situation playing its self out. Assuming it is a perfect world 

People are not going to get two versions of the same software (whether legal or illegally). Lets say, I have a duo-boot machine, and get M$ Office. Why wouldn't I get it for the Vista side, photoshop and like?  Lets be real here, apps like Office, photoshop, etc are easily gotten illegally, and much easier to get for Windows. If I have my hard core apps on the Vista side, what makes one use OSX? My iTunes library and iPod are set to use Windows!

Certainly not going to use OSX just for iLife, and as time goes on, I can see people using OSX less and less. I don't think it is Apple's doom. But I enjoy Mac software as well as hardware. 

I remember reading an article years ago in a computer magazine. It predicted that some day, one Operating System would be all you need to run every app. I wonder if we are getting closer to that prediction? 
Just some stupid thoughts!


----------



## nixgeek (Jan 11, 2006)

Again, this is assuming that the pirated software that was acquired isn't riddledwith backdoors, trojans, and other types of malware.  It's too risky for the regular user to even attempt especially nowadays with Windows, even Windows Vista depending on how secure that OS will be.  Getting the software this way will only degrade the Windows experience on Intel Macs as much as it does on the other PCs that usually run Windows.

Consider that right now, even with whatever malware there might be for OS X, it still tends to be more secure than Windows.  Consider also that right now, a few more WMF vulns have been discovered on Windows even after the patch has been released and installed.  All these things are what will keep flocking users to the Mac.  Not saying that Mac OS X is impenetrable, but Linux has been around much longer, has a lot more vulns around that we never hear of in the mainsteam tech press due to it's age and length of use, and STILL tends to be less prone to infections and take-downs than Windows does.  That says a lot about the UNIX design that makes up Linux, OS X, and a lot of other POSIX-compatible open source UNIX operating systems out there.


----------



## powermac (Jan 11, 2006)

Overall, I am excited about the transition. Although I will not be part of it for awhile since my PB was just purchased and I am pleased with it. I used to be one of those people who said, "Apple will switch to Intel processors." If I learned anything, it is never say never


----------



## iball (Jan 11, 2006)

What would be better would be OS X's capability to run XP Pro in a VirtPC-style environmnet...that way when I want to get things done I can use OS X...but to reset an Active Directory user account or two or use Visio when the boss emails me yet another network plan I can pop over to XP WITHOUT have to reboot.
Also, under the DoD's licensing plan with Microsoft, we are allowed ONE Microsoft XP Pro license for TWO machines...a laptop and a desktop, and the license also comes complete with Office 2003 for XP Pro.
The only condition is that we can't use BOTH machines at the same time.
Hmm....if OS X on a MacBook can run XP Pro, then I can ditch the desktop.
But it would probably take the whole 2GB of possible RAM to do it somewhat decent (time to buy more RAM!).


----------



## nixgeek (Jan 11, 2006)

Because of EFI on the Intel Macs, Windows XP is a no-go, but Vista will be since it will have support for EFI.


----------



## iball (Jan 11, 2006)

nixgeek said:
			
		

> Because of EFI on the Intel Macs, Windows XP is a no-go, but Vista will be since it will have support for EFI.


In that case, it will be at least a year after Vista comes out for me to even try that.
Because we all know to NEVER buy a Microsoft operating system until they've released the first Service Pack for it...and even then wait for any "gotcha" bug reports from the Service Pack.
Well, that's how we operate in the government sector anyway.  Feel safer?


----------



## mdnky (Jan 11, 2006)

nixgeek said:
			
		

> Because of EFI on the Intel Macs, Windows XP is a no-go, but Vista will be since it will have support for EFI.



That's a bit misleading since we don't know yet whether they have BIOS support as well, we'll have to wait and see.

Hopefully since the architecture of the chip is no longer an issue, we'll see a port of WINE or maybe a release of a program from someone else that runs the Windows program under OS X without the need for Windows itself.  It wouldn't surprise me if Microsoft made VPC (possibly renamed) into that kind of APP in the future.


----------



## powermac (Jan 12, 2006)

"Hopefully since the architecture of the chip is no longer an issue, we'll see a port of WINE or maybe a release of a program from someone else that runs the Windows program under OS X without the need for Windows itself. It wouldn't surprise me if Microsoft made VPC (possibly renamed) into that kind of APP in the future."-mdnky

That would be an interesting idea. If Microsoft offers a way, perhaps one universal version of Office. The possibilities could be wonderful. I would not mind running some windows apps, with out the OS.


----------



## nixgeek (Jan 12, 2006)

mdnky said:
			
		

> That's a bit misleading since we don't know yet whether they have BIOS support as well, we'll have to wait and see.
> 
> Hopefully since the architecture of the chip is no longer an issue, we'll see a port of WINE or maybe a release of a program from someone else that runs the Windows program under OS X without the need for Windows itself.  It wouldn't surprise me if Microsoft made VPC (possibly renamed) into that kind of APP in the future.



Yeah, I guess I should have clarified that it _may be possible_ to run Vista since it's expected to support EFI.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jan 12, 2006)

Microsoft could even let us have our very own registry to play in.


----------



## mdnky (Jan 12, 2006)

nixgeek said:
			
		

> Yeah, I guess I should have clarified that it _may be possible_ to run Vista since it's expected to support EFI.



Actually it still may be possible to run XP also.  Only time will tell though.


----------



## Tommo (Jan 13, 2006)

I am a little confused by all of this, why would you want to install Winodws on a mac at all. I know there is the dual boot thing, but that is a real pain as you can only use one OS at a time anyway.

My reason for using a Mac is OSX not the hardware it runs on. In fact the more pertinant question would be can you run OSX on other intel platforms ? I can imagine many people switching to OSX if they could try it on their PCs, but paying nearly £1000 for a system that will probably run Windows as well as a PC costing half that is not going to get many people converted.

Get the OS out there, and then the software support will follow.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jan 13, 2006)

I would be interested in running Windows on another partition on my MacBook. Why? There are still many applications that are either only available for windows systems or run a lot better than on macosx. That would make your Mac perfect.


----------



## ora (Jan 13, 2006)

Tommo said:
			
		

> My reason for using a Mac is OSX not the hardware it runs on. In fact the more pertinant question would be can you run OSX on other intel platforms ? I can imagine many people switching to OSX if they could try it on their PCs, but paying nearly £1000 for a system that will probably run Windows as well as a PC costing half that is not going to get many people converted.
> 
> Get the OS out there, and then the software support will follow.



Apple have said this won;'t happen, and that they will restrict use of OS X to Apple hardware. While i have no doubt someone will work around it (as already seen with the beta releases of OS X for intel) but it will be unsupported and against your license agreement.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jan 13, 2006)

A little bit off topic:
iEmulator announced a new IntelMac Version that will emulate a full x86 platform for windows. But only BIOS, graphic unit and network interface will be emulated. The cpu commands will be directly handed over to the Intel processor. They are talking about a huge speed bump. Read more HERE or HERE.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jan 13, 2006)

Tommo said:
			
		

> I am a little confused by all of this, why would you want to install Winodws on a mac at all. I know there is the dual boot thing, but that is a real pain as you can only use one OS at a time anyway.


Some people are forced to work in Windows for one task, and OS X for another.  Would you rather carry around two notebook computers, or one?


----------



## powermac (Jan 13, 2006)

Since the announcement of Intel Macs, I never thought about the possibility of running Windows on a Mac. I guess the reason is I have no need to even consider the idea. As ElDiabloConCaca points out, would be nice for people who need to be able to do it. Be interesting to see what people do with the new Intel Macs.


----------



## eman13 (Jan 21, 2006)

WHAT A MINUTE!!!
Isn't the whole draw of Apple form AND functionality?  OSX is great, no question.  But the machines are gorgeous!!!  That's half the reason we keep buying these things.  Have you seen the crap that PC users have to choose from?  They are either ugly black boxes, or inept imitations of Apple's designs - with a scroll wheel and a suite of buttons that no one will ever use.  It's ridiculous!
There are thousands (dare I say Millions?) of people that love their Macs at home but have to work on a PC.  And there may be that many more that would switch to a prettier machine in a second if they knew that they didn't have to give up their old system.  What Apple should be banking on is that their OS is superior and when half-switchers start coming 'round, they will have more develpers pumping out more product and tipping the scales toward the better machine.

I'm I dreaming all of this?


----------



## powermac (Jan 22, 2006)

Read a interesting article, actually a review of the new Imac. At the end of the article, they author attempted to put both XP & Vista on his new intel Mac, with no success. I am sure it will only be a matter of time before people figure a way. http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/imac-coreduo.ars/7


----------



## Shookster (Jan 24, 2006)

Yes, one guy's set up a contest whereby someone who can figure out a way to get XP booting on an Intel Mac wins a cash prize (apparently):
http://winxponmac.com/The Contest.html

If someone does find a way, the solution will be posted on that site.


----------



## fryke (Jan 24, 2006)

According to some reports, there are already some dead iMacs because of that. People were playing with installing different EFI stuff and now can't get the thing to boot back into Tiger. People are sending their iMacs in for "repair". I'm not sure whether these cases are handled through warranty, though.  ... I guess I'll a) have to wait for my first intel Mac to try it and b) have to wait until someone comes up with a way that actually works.


----------



## nixgeek (Jan 24, 2006)

Maybe this was the "no support for Windows" that Schiller was talking about??


----------



## powermac (Jan 25, 2006)

As interesting as it is that Windows may work on a Mac. And I understand the excitement of the challenge, having played with Linux for a few years. As fryke reports, trying to get it to work in consequent to breaking a new machine, I can see the logic in that.


----------



## fryke (Jan 25, 2006)

I've read somewhere that someone has found a way to get them back to boot at least form the Tiger DVD included with the intel iMacs, and from there, you can re-install the OS. link: http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2006/1/23/2631 ... Info:

"1. Disconnect the internal hard disk
2. Disconnect the iMac from AC power
3. Plug in AC while holding the power button
4. Power up the iMac and zap NVRAM (cmd-opt-P-R)
The hard disk can be reformatted and the operating system restored."

(Guess the user means PRAM, not NVRAM. NVRAM, at least on PPC Macs, can be deleted from OpenFirmware, PRAM is zapped using the key-combo.)


----------

