So, before doing what I wanna do now, (ie buying an Intel Mac) has anyone tried running Windows on one of these?
How was it? Can you boot easily from it? And, most importantly of all, can I play Grand Prix World?
My limited understanding is that it won't work right now and when it does it will require a hack. Intel Macs don't have a BIOS and use the new EFI instead.
Somebody will do it, but who knows when. Microsoft Vista supposedly will support EFI when it comes out, but who knows when that will be?
I'm wondering how long it will be until we see an update of Virtual PC which takes advantage of running directly on Intel hardware.
I'm morbidly curious to find out if the current version of Virtual PC runs under Rosetta... just think, an x86 chip pretending to be a PowerPC chip pretending to be an x86 chip. That oughtta be somethin'.
I'm wondering how long it will be until we see an update of Virtual PC which takes advantage of running directly on Intel hardware.
I'm morbidly curious to find out if the current version of Virtual PC runs under Rosetta... just think, an x86 chip pretending to be a PowerPC chip pretending to be an x86 chip. That oughtta be somethin'.
windows xp does not support EFI and will not run unless if some clever hack comes up with a way to patch XP...however vista does support EFI...so in the future it will be possible..or if you're a Vista tester, you can have the best of both worlds right now...
Windows XP doesn't by itself recognize EFI but there is a BIOS legacy module (developed by INTEL) in EFI that enable it to boot an BIOS compliant OS.
The question is: Does Apple choose to include it in their personilised implementation of EFI?
Sure a lot of customers (and switchers!) would by interested.
If it's not already done maybe it will with a firmware upgrade.
And Vista is not so far away: 08-31-06 for the official release date (Vista will support EFI - prerelease version already supports it).
Also with EFI an OS doesn't access to the hardware but an abstraction layer. So I suppose it could simplify the virtualization of such an OS. In particular regarding graphic acceleration operations.
By the way, have you seen that Xen (the OpenSource virtualization solution for Linux) is now in version 3.0? In this version it supports guest operating system like Windows (without modifying it) thanks to Vanderpool (the Intel technology for virtualization that can be found in Yonah).
Maybe someone (Apple in Leopard?) will port it to MacOS X.
"Computers with the Intel Itanium family of processors use EFI to start and load Windows XP 64-bit Edition (Itanium) and the Itanium-based versions of Windows Server 2003."
So if anyone has that available, take a stab at it.
I'll do it myself if someone will buy me one.
EDIT: This topic reminded me of something about Yonah, only 32-bits, so it will be rather difficult if at all possible.
I'm morbidly curious to find out if the current version of Virtual PC runs under Rosetta... just think, an x86 chip pretending to be a PowerPC chip pretending to be an x86 chip. That oughtta be somethin'.
Microsoft is developing the new virtual PC right now, and in an article i read about it, it said that virtual PC will NOT work under Rosetta.
Itanium is where Intel wants to go, which is NOT the direction of x86.
I know I'm alone here, but Itanium is great. It's one of those things, like has been the case with Java, that will take a little bit of time to get its feet on the ground. But, at the end of the day, Itanium and Cell are going to be the players.
Itanium is where Intel wants to go, which is NOT the direction of x86.
I know I'm alone here, but Itanium is great. It's one of those things, like has been the case with Java, that will take a little bit of time to get its feet on the ground. But, at the end of the day, Itanium and Cell are going to be the players.
You're not alone at all. I think Intel could use Apple to break free from the x86 nonsense once and for all - they didn't do it, but I was hoping that Apple's object code would be VLIW, and that the chip in the Apple machines would be a smaller, lighter IA-64 with the x86 cracking circuitry disabled.
- Apple's code is source, not legacy x86, so they don't care what it compiles to.
- Apple's VLIW object code wouldn't do jack on a vanilla PC, so the issue of stealing the OS X and installing it on PCs would be a moot issue.
- Microsoft would not care. If the speed of Apple's VLIW solution led to rapid adoption, MS would easily produce a compatible VLIW version of Windows that not only would run on the Apple machines but also on other PCs with the IA-64 chips.
- Super-optimized VLIW code would open up a whole new series of steps to be taken with better and better compilers and less and less logic circuitry needed in the chip to do branch prediction and instruction scheduling, as this is all done by the VLIW compiler.
- It gets around Intel having to kludge 64-bit extensions with only 8 more registers into the x86 model. IA-64 is full clean 64-bit with plenty of registers and a linear address space.
But, they didn't. The question is, can they now go from C/C++/Objective-C source to a VLIW object code (especially will 3rd parties do it) with a simple recompile? Or have they boxed themselves into x86 by letting developers code x86 and SSE3 assembly?
Comments
Originally posted by mpw_amherst
So, before doing what I wanna do now, (ie buying an Intel Mac) has anyone tried running Windows on one of these?
How was it? Can you boot easily from it? And, most importantly of all, can I play Grand Prix World?
My limited understanding is that it won't work right now and when it does it will require a hack. Intel Macs don't have a BIOS and use the new EFI instead.
Somebody will do it, but who knows when. Microsoft Vista supposedly will support EFI when it comes out, but who knows when that will be?
I'm morbidly curious to find out if the current version of Virtual PC runs under Rosetta... just think, an x86 chip pretending to be a PowerPC chip pretending to be an x86 chip. That oughtta be somethin'.
Originally posted by shetline
I'm wondering how long it will be until we see an update of Virtual PC which takes advantage of running directly on Intel hardware.
I'm morbidly curious to find out if the current version of Virtual PC runs under Rosetta... just think, an x86 chip pretending to be a PowerPC chip pretending to be an x86 chip. That oughtta be somethin'.
Kindof like a Turducken!
Intel MacOS 10.4.4 -> Virtual PC -> Windows -> Mac OS Classic Emulator?
The question is: Does Apple choose to include it in their personilised implementation of EFI?
Sure a lot of customers (and switchers!) would by interested.
If it's not already done maybe it will with a firmware upgrade.
And Vista is not so far away: 08-31-06 for the official release date (Vista will support EFI - prerelease version already supports it).
Also with EFI an OS doesn't access to the hardware but an abstraction layer. So I suppose it could simplify the virtualization of such an OS. In particular regarding graphic acceleration operations.
By the way, have you seen that Xen (the OpenSource virtualization solution for Linux) is now in version 3.0? In this version it supports guest operating system like Windows (without modifying it) thanks to Vanderpool (the Intel technology for virtualization that can be found in Yonah).
Maybe someone (Apple in Leopard?) will port it to MacOS X.
Originally posted by dhunter
Slightly off topic, but why not
Intel MacOS 10.4.4 -> Virtual PC -> Windows -> Mac OS Classic Emulator?
Eh, I like Intel MacOS 10.4.4 -> Virtual PC -> Windows -> PSP Emulator -> Windows Emulator ->Mac OS Classic emulator -> SNES emulator.
Originally posted by Placebo
Eh, I like Intel MacOS 10.4.4 -> Virtual PC -> Windows -> PSP Emulator -> Windows Emulator ->Mac OS Classic emulator -> SNES emulator.
for that genuine mac plus feel
According to this support page at Microsoft
"Computers with the Intel Itanium family of processors use EFI to start and load Windows XP 64-bit Edition (Itanium) and the Itanium-based versions of Windows Server 2003."
So if anyone has that available, take a stab at it.
I'll do it myself if someone will buy me one.
EDIT: This topic reminded me of something about Yonah, only 32-bits, so it will be rather difficult if at all possible.
Originally posted by PBG4 Dude
Not to mention the Itanic uses a different instruction set (VLIW) then x86 chips.
Really? That seems unlikely.
Originally posted by Placebo
Really? That seems unlikely.
Then you should read this article --> http://blogs.msdn.com/craigmcmurtry/...05/252852.aspx
Also, this article --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLIW lists IA-64 (Itanium) as a VLIW processor.
interesting to see whether can install win n OS X together or have to wait for intel virtualization technology to take off
if possible, then no one can argue about the price of the new intel Macs, very competitive and able to run two os
Originally posted by shetline
I'm morbidly curious to find out if the current version of Virtual PC runs under Rosetta... just think, an x86 chip pretending to be a PowerPC chip pretending to be an x86 chip. That oughtta be somethin'.
Microsoft is developing the new virtual PC right now, and in an article i read about it, it said that virtual PC will NOT work under Rosetta.
Originally posted by shanmugam
any one tried to install xp or vista?
XP-32 doesn't support EFI, so without a hack/crack it's unlikely. Such a hack/crack is not out there yet.
Vista does support EFI, and one can try to install it, but it's a 64-bit OS and Yonah (Core Duo) is not.
Originally posted by Placebo
Really? That seems unlikely.
Itanium is where Intel wants to go, which is NOT the direction of x86.
I know I'm alone here, but Itanium is great. It's one of those things, like has been the case with Java, that will take a little bit of time to get its feet on the ground. But, at the end of the day, Itanium and Cell are going to be the players.
Vista does support EFI, and one can try to install it, but it's a 64-bit OS and Yonah (Core Duo) is not.
This is not true - there are 64bit and 32bit versions of Vista.
Originally posted by rminkler
This is not true - there are 64bit and 32bit versions of Vista.
I stand corrected.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Itanium is where Intel wants to go, which is NOT the direction of x86.
I know I'm alone here, but Itanium is great. It's one of those things, like has been the case with Java, that will take a little bit of time to get its feet on the ground. But, at the end of the day, Itanium and Cell are going to be the players.
You're not alone at all. I think Intel could use Apple to break free from the x86 nonsense once and for all - they didn't do it, but I was hoping that Apple's object code would be VLIW, and that the chip in the Apple machines would be a smaller, lighter IA-64 with the x86 cracking circuitry disabled.
- Apple's code is source, not legacy x86, so they don't care what it compiles to.
- Apple's VLIW object code wouldn't do jack on a vanilla PC, so the issue of stealing the OS X and installing it on PCs would be a moot issue.
- Microsoft would not care. If the speed of Apple's VLIW solution led to rapid adoption, MS would easily produce a compatible VLIW version of Windows that not only would run on the Apple machines but also on other PCs with the IA-64 chips.
- Super-optimized VLIW code would open up a whole new series of steps to be taken with better and better compilers and less and less logic circuitry needed in the chip to do branch prediction and instruction scheduling, as this is all done by the VLIW compiler.
- It gets around Intel having to kludge 64-bit extensions with only 8 more registers into the x86 model. IA-64 is full clean 64-bit with plenty of registers and a linear address space.
But, they didn't. The question is, can they now go from C/C++/Objective-C source to a VLIW object code (especially will 3rd parties do it) with a simple recompile? Or have they boxed themselves into x86 by letting developers code x86 and SSE3 assembly?