- Related Stories
-
Apple sees 'pause' in Mac sales
January 18, 2006 -
Jobs: New Intel Macs are 'screamers'
January 10, 2006 -
Macworld: Intel-based Macs built for speed
January 10, 2006
That simple question deserves a simple answer. But there isn't one--at least not right now. Reaching the nirvana of running the two most popular desktop operating systems on one machine is a lot harder than you might expect.
Apple has said that it wasn't planning to support Windows on the "MacTel," but the company also said it wouldn't try to stop people from doing so. Still, some of the technical choices Apple has made in designing the new Intel-based Macs have made running Windows a challenge.
Intel iMac impressions
Ten thoughts for anyone considering whether to pick up the newest twist on the Apple machine.
Click here for story
The good news? Plenty of people have been working to break down the barriers, so it should only be a matter of time before Windows shows up on the iMac's 20-inch widescreen display.
Even after solving the technical challenges, there are also legal hurdles. Just because you might get Windows running on a Mac, or Tiger running on their Dell, doesn't mean it's legal.
Finally, even if the legal and technical obstacles are overcome, many people say just being able to boot both operating systems independently is not the answer. Most people will want the systems to interact, which means some form of emulation or virtualization. Some small developers are making promises in this area, but just how quickly this will happen--or how quickly the emulated OS will run--remains to be seen.
We're not engineers or lawyers, but here's our best stab at answering some common questions:
Q: So if the Mac runs on Intel chips and Windows runs on Intel processors, what's the holdup?
A: The challenge comes in the technical means by which the operating systems load. Windows loads itself using something known as the Basic Input/Output System, or BIOS. Apple's Intel Macs, however, use a newer technology known as Extensible Firmware Interface.
"These different firmware environments will separate MacOS and Windows environments almost as effectively as instruction set architecture did when Macintosh software ran only on PowerPC chips," chip analyst Nathan Brookwood said in an e-mail.
But not everyone is convinced the obstacles are so insurmountable. Envisioneering analyst Peter Glaskowsky noted that Gateway had a Windows Media Center PC back in 2003 that used EFI rather than BIOS. Gateway, Glaskowsky said, had to change the boot loader that manages how operating systems load.
"It's just not a big deal," Glaskowsky told CNET News.com. "At some point, I expect it would be in the next week or two, somebody will figure out how to change boot loader on those Macs so that it is smart enough to do the same thing."
In any case, word is that the next version of Windows, called Vista, will support EFI. Enthusiasts claim to have
A: Discussions about the idea quickly cropped up on a mailing list for Red Hat's Fedora version of Linux. The verdict: Again, it's a matter of writing the right code, but it's not simple.
The challenge here is not the chip, but the way that the operating systems boot. Most Linux versions use a boot loader called GRUB that doesn't support EFI at present, though Itanium versions of the operating system use a different one called Elilo that does.
Q: What about going in the other direction: How about running the Mac OS on other Intel machines, like a standard PC?
A: Apple has said that it will take steps to prevent this from
happening. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an
Apple Mac," Senior Vice President Phil Schiller
A: Microsoft, which now owns Virtual PC, has been a bit cagey on when,
or even if, it will bring out Virtual PC for the Intel Mac. The
company's
Other emulation makers have been more direct. One small company, iEmulator, has promised that it will have an Intel-native version of its software by the end of February. "We're already in early testing," said general manager John Czlonka. "The performance increase is staggering."
Q: Technical issues aside, is it legal to run Windows on a Mac?A: It seems so, but only by purchasing a full copy of the OS, not the upgrade versions typically bought by consumers. Microsoft says that a fully licensed copy of Windows XP Professional can be properly licensed if run on an Intel Mac.
Q: What about running the Mac OS on a non-Apple PC?
A: There isn't a legal way to do that, given that Apple doesn't sell standalone versions of its operating system. Because all Macs come with some form of the Mac OS, the retail boxes that Apple sells are only licenses to upgrade from one version to another.
CNET News.com's Stephen Shankland contributed to this report.
See more CNET content tagged:
Apple Intel iMac, IBM PowerPC, Intel, Apple Computer, Apple iMac
how, so far, nothing has been written that I would argue with at the
moment. But the story may yet develop in more ways. We'll see.
By the way, you really don't want to get Ty started on any set of
posts.
I see posts from both, have yet to read them all but it's going, it's going! :)
how, so far, nothing has been written that I would argue with at the
moment. But the story may yet develop in more ways. We'll see.
By the way, you really don't want to get Ty started on any set of
posts.
I see posts from both, have yet to read them all but it's going, it's going! :)
full version of OS X, since there is no such thing as an OS X-less
macintosh.
Basically, with Apple, their hardware likely subsidizes their software development, so if you like having MacOS X exist, don't pirate it onto non-Apple hardware.
an "upgrade" has nothing to do with whether it requires the
previous version to exist on a computer's hard drive at the time
of installation. Many apps have (and do) simply replace the
existing app with a full copy of the new version. The license is
all about a legal contract. And when it comes to Mac OS, you
"agreed" to the terms of Apple's license when you started using
the machine -- regardless of which Mac OS was installed on it.
As someone accurately pointed out: the machine itself is proof
that you had (or were originally entitled to) a legal, licensed
version of Mac OS. So Mac OS X is just an "upgrade" -- even
though it can be installed on a clean hard drive. Your
previously-licensed version is either on a disk in your desk
drawer, or happened to get lost somewhere in time. But once
upon a time, that Mac had a licensed copy of Mac OS on it --
every Mac and even the short-lived Mac OS clones did. So don't
get so hung-up on whether it'll install on a clean HD. That has
nothing to do with it. It's all about the legal license agreement.
full version of OS X, since there is no such thing as an OS X-less
macintosh.
Basically, with Apple, their hardware likely subsidizes their software development, so if you like having MacOS X exist, don't pirate it onto non-Apple hardware.
an "upgrade" has nothing to do with whether it requires the
previous version to exist on a computer's hard drive at the time
of installation. Many apps have (and do) simply replace the
existing app with a full copy of the new version. The license is
all about a legal contract. And when it comes to Mac OS, you
"agreed" to the terms of Apple's license when you started using
the machine -- regardless of which Mac OS was installed on it.
As someone accurately pointed out: the machine itself is proof
that you had (or were originally entitled to) a legal, licensed
version of Mac OS. So Mac OS X is just an "upgrade" -- even
though it can be installed on a clean hard drive. Your
previously-licensed version is either on a disk in your desk
drawer, or happened to get lost somewhere in time. But once
upon a time, that Mac had a licensed copy of Mac OS on it --
every Mac and even the short-lived Mac OS clones did. So don't
get so hung-up on whether it'll install on a clean HD. That has
nothing to do with it. It's all about the legal license agreement.
its operating system." They certainly do. It does seem that Cnet
writers too often don't have mastery of their topics.
Don't be surprised by the quality of what you read here. And keep an eye on the banners and interstitials when evaluating the subjects they deem worthy of consideration...
I use it as a "heads up" on things that might be interesting to explore elsewhere. No more, no less.
its operating system." They certainly do. It does seem that Cnet
writers too often don't have mastery of their topics.
Don't be surprised by the quality of what you read here. And keep an eye on the banners and interstitials when evaluating the subjects they deem worthy of consideration...
I use it as a "heads up" on things that might be interesting to explore elsewhere. No more, no less.
is true that most people use it as an upgrade, it's also a full,
standalone version - even if your harddrive is empty you can install
a full running copy of OS X. I've done it before. Sounds like more
than an upgrade to me.
regular intel box, but would you not require a copy of the Mac ROM
to install Mac OS X on a non-Mac box?
is true that most people use it as an upgrade, it's also a full,
standalone version - even if your harddrive is empty you can install
a full running copy of OS X. I've done it before. Sounds like more
than an upgrade to me.
regular intel box, but would you not require a copy of the Mac ROM
to install Mac OS X on a non-Mac box?
and having it bronzed.
there is no mac equal to a custom developed piece of software for a corporation that runs on windows
I duel boot linux and windows for exactly that reason I develop for both platforms.
like a Mac. That's why I have PC's to run Windows.
To each his own
and having it bronzed.
there is no mac equal to a custom developed piece of software for a corporation that runs on windows
I duel boot linux and windows for exactly that reason I develop for both platforms.
like a Mac. That's why I have PC's to run Windows.
To each his own
The problem lies in the legal domain. Apple will fight tooth and nail to protect MAC OS. They have been quite successful in doing it all these years.
I don't think it would be legal to run Mac computers using Windows. Ask the "Man", and he will say; No way, Jose.
The problem lies in the legal domain. Apple will fight tooth and nail to protect MAC OS. They have been quite successful in doing it all these years.
I don't think it would be legal to run Mac computers using Windows. Ask the "Man", and he will say; No way, Jose.
That way it is running in a nice controlled sandbox. The worms and
other crap that sprout can be contained.
http://www.vmware.com
And if not, Darwine may be even better:
http://darwine.opendarwin.org/
That way it is running in a nice controlled sandbox. The worms and
other crap that sprout can be contained.
http://www.vmware.com
And if not, Darwine may be even better:
http://darwine.opendarwin.org/
I dont know, Jobs can plan a MacTel computer but, imagine the damage he can do to MS if his MAC OS runs in PC with the same quality as it runs in a mac?
They might license it to exclusive partners (like they did the iPod with HP), but open it completely? Forget about it. Not going to happen.
- Who would install a Windows in a Mac?
- by Mark_Smith January 20, 2006 3:04 PM PST
- From what ive heard in ten years using a PC, ppl say mac rules. I dont agree in 100%. I would like to see, yes, a PC running a MAC OS. It would be a good point to break the Microsoft monopoly over the pcs.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- Answer: Virtual PC and VMWare customers.
- by open-mind January 20, 2006 3:21 PM PST
- Opening OS X to run on any Intel box would hurt Apple a lot more than it would hurt Microsoft. In fact, it would probably destroy Apple.
- Like this View reply
Processing -
Showing 1 of 3 pages (314 Comments)I dont know, Jobs can plan a MacTel computer but, imagine the damage he can do to MS if his MAC OS runs in PC with the same quality as it runs in a mac?
They might license it to exclusive partners (like they did the iPod with HP), but open it completely? Forget about it. Not going to happen.