More than likely 32-bit. The 64-bit Xeons aren't exclusively 64-bit. I doubt XP x64 will install. It's another configuration that Apple would have to provide drivers for.
Concur - Apple doesn't have the drivers, and Conroes run 32-bit Windows primarily. Woodcrests as you know are SMP Conroes on a faster bus. I bet you could get 64-bit Windows installed on it, but I doubt you'd get graphics drivers (needs special ones in the iMac x1600 vs. normal x1600).
Why would Boot Camp care? I mean, Boot Camp itself is a firmware update and a driver CD burning wizard with some improvements to Disk Utility (and a better GUI for partitioning). At worst, you have to partition non-destructively manually. You can run Linux under boot camp, I think. Check On Mac, they do a lot of looking into Boot Camp and their own XoM solution.
Yeah, Boot Camp wouldn't "mind". The main difficulty is finding drivers; Apple-supplied drivers are 32-bit, so they probably won't work.
That's what I love about the Panther-Tiger-Leopard transition Apple is doing from 32 to 64 bit. Completely painless move to 64-bit. I can keep all my drivers until I get around to upgrading naturally, and I don't even have to care if they're 32 or 64 bit.
They've gotta update the drivers to include the 7300 GT and x1900xt for at least 32 bit anyways. So it's not a "we aren't updating now" issue, it's a "are 64-bit drivers worth it?" issue (and I say no for XP, yes for Vista).
They've gotta update the drivers to include the 7300 GT and x1900xt for at least 32 bit anyways. So it's not a "we aren't updating now" issue, it's a "are 64-bit drivers worth it?" issue (and I say no for XP, yes for Vista).
1.) Provide a patch to the Mac's EFI firmware so that it can emulate a BIOS. With the patch installed, 32-bit Windows can boot as it is fooled into thinking that there is a traditional BIOS.
2.) Provide 32-bit Windows hardware drivers for things such as the GPU.
Windows x64 edition supports EFI natively, so it may be possible to get it to boot on a Mac without any patches of said Mac's firmware.
If you did get Windows x64 to boot (with or without applying the Boot Camp patch) there aren't any Apple-supplied 64-bit Windows drivers for things like the video cards. It is possible that standard OEM (e.g. ATI) supplied 64-bit drivers would work.
I read elsewhere that a guy has just installed XP32 straight on to a second hard drive into his Mac Pro. Boot Camp not needed. He downloaded the chipset/graphics drivers from Intel/nVidia and it works fine, except accessing the SATA HDD is slow so the chipset drivers aren't quite up to par yet.
It should work. Note that that guy probably installed the firmware update (or Mac Pros have it by default) that adds a CSM to EFI (which is a prerequisite of Boot Camp). There's no doubting it'll work, the issue is the Apple supplied drivers in Boot Camp are for 32bit XP. That's more of a problem for every other computer with iSights, sleep settings, closing laptops, motion sensors, etc. Mac Pros don't have that, so x64 will be easier on a Mac Pro than a Merom MBP.
I am currently running x64 on my iMac using boot camp. I also am capable of fully utilizing the gpu. I went onto nvidia's website and downloaded the driver directly from them.
I have installed using BootCamp Vista x64 (RTM version) on my Mac Pro and it works right off the bat. A few drivers are missing but everything appears to work ok and the OS is stable. I did update the ATI graphics drivers directly from the ATI site. I did NOT install the Apple driver CD except for the sound drivers.
Hopefully a future release of BootCamp will address Vista x86 and x64 drivers.
BootCamp runs perfectly with Vista x64, as mentioned above. I would think that Apple would be more inclined to provide drivers for the new Vista rather than go back to XP x64.
Comments
64-bit XP takes advantage of 64-bit processors like Tiger does.
I bet 64-bit Vista will get drivers.
Yeah, Boot Camp wouldn't "mind". The main difficulty is finding drivers; Apple-supplied drivers are 32-bit, so they probably won't work.
That's what I love about the Panther-Tiger-Leopard transition Apple is doing from 32 to 64 bit. Completely painless move to 64-bit. I can keep all my drivers until I get around to upgrading naturally, and I don't even have to care if they're 32 or 64 bit.
Leopard shouldn't matter. It's whether Apple bothers to provide drivers.
64-bit XP takes advantage of 64-bit processors like Tiger does.
I bet 64-bit Vista will get drivers.
I meant not until leopard because apple probably won't ever offer driver updates on a beta.
And I think that taking advantage of 64-bit processors means next to nothing unless you've got programs that can also utilize that.
They've gotta update the drivers to include the 7300 GT and x1900xt for at least 32 bit anyways. So it's not a "we aren't updating now" issue, it's a "are 64-bit drivers worth it?" issue (and I say no for XP, yes for Vista).
The X1900 is already taken care of i think.
1.) Provide a patch to the Mac's EFI firmware so that it can emulate a BIOS. With the patch installed, 32-bit Windows can boot as it is fooled into thinking that there is a traditional BIOS.
2.) Provide 32-bit Windows hardware drivers for things such as the GPU.
Windows x64 edition supports EFI natively, so it may be possible to get it to boot on a Mac without any patches of said Mac's firmware.
If you did get Windows x64 to boot (with or without applying the Boot Camp patch) there aren't any Apple-supplied 64-bit Windows drivers for things like the video cards. It is possible that standard OEM (e.g. ATI) supplied 64-bit drivers would work.
In short, we need someone to try this out.
I guess in that case that x64 would also work?
Windows XP x64 shows up as Windows NT 5.2, and XP shows up as 5.1, so Bootcamp will probably say no.
So Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP x64 has the same version numbers? (I do know that XP x64 rely heavily on the Server 2003 codebase.)
Hopefully a future release of BootCamp will address Vista x86 and x64 drivers.
Keith W.
So Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP x64 has the same version numbers? (I do know that XP x64 rely heavily on the Server 2003 codebase.)
Yes, the two are both NT 5.2.