No Windows XP on an Intel Mac After All

Does it mean that Vista is compatible with EFI? If so, I wonder why Microsoft had done it... What for?

I consider this a good thing. It's another Apple Innovation which
will be widely used in the future and probably be accepted by
the entire industry.

That and why ruin a perfectly good Intel Mac by installing
Windows XP on it?

Its amazing how people like you will jump with shouts of yahoooooooo when there is apiece of bad news for Bill Gates. Is it because, as failures in life, you cant stand up to the man's guts

Grow up, it's only a computer story.

Bill gates and microsoft has taken on the character of darth vader
allowing me and my fellow mensa members to chanel our anger about everything and anything including point out personal flaws such as bill's amazing style of dress that rivals that of a mentally challenged baboon.

p.s.

steve ballmer is jar jar binks

and yes i love my mac

But... EFI has a compatability module... of course it can run BIOS o.O

Err, Mensa member isn't 'chanel' spelt 'channel'?

Err... John, isn't "spelt" supposed to be "spelled?" Next time correct yourself first

Just in case some people don't know, from what I've heard, (I'm no expert)
EFI is similar to BIOS, only it has more power, such as the ability to perform all kinds of diagnostics before launching the OS. Maybe I have that wrong. Anyway, this is an Intel technology, not an Apple technology. Intel will be pushing this, but we won't see it in the hardware on the PC side until Vista comes out.

Err Andy, 'spelt' or 'spelled' either is fine.

finally. u can have a good lookin computer. but as was said, why ruin a perfectly good mac? everybody who has some brains know that mac os x is much better.

it only makes sense to run MAC OS X on Intel based PCs! Why run Windows on expensive Macs?

Windows > Mac, Mac spends all their money on design none on the actual OS or software, get more Mac errors then I did on windows 98

Windows=expensive
Intel Macs=expensive

You are right, why put those together?

Linux on a 486?

Bill Gates is NO Darth Vader, sir...we ALL know the role is much better played by George W Bush...he makes hurricanes ya know!

Everything inside an apple computer was made especially to cooperate with each other, so is the OS, so why would anyone want to install another OS than MAC and risk a bunch of problems?
Get an Intel Mac and Virtual PC!

Everything inside an apple computer was made especially to cooperate with each other, so is the OS, so why would anyone want to install another OS than MAC and risk a bunch of problems?
Get an Intel Mac and Virtual PC!

poluted thread, bleah

even if Bill G has a poor sense of dressing, I guess he's $200 Billion more sensible than you, Ohnoes, and the very fact that you cant spell betrays your intelligence!!!

PowerMacs are next

Errr... Harry... The guys at thinksecret .com claim "Along with running Mac OS X, Windows XP installs without hitch on the Intel-based Mac, just as it would on any other PC".

Google "Intel, Mac, thinksecret".

Some of you are right. Why waste your time and money putting windows on a mac. Even something as progressive as that could never save the ever expensive and anti upgradable mac. Save your money and dont spend twice as much on an apple that will only give you half as much.

tsk tsk. this same ol lame ol argument about mac's being more expensive. this is so 90's. pound for pound, all things equal, they are NOT more expensive. bring yourselves into the new millennium folks.
bill gates' guts? are you referring to the guy that runs the company with more convictions of theft than any other (in courts of law, not public opinion)? is that the one? that bill gates? thieves do have guts, gotta give 'em that. of course your stance is completely understandable, these types have always been made folk hero's. frank and jessy were folk hero's to some as well.

Stick to the topic No Windows XP on an Intel Mac After All".

Which is not true by the way... see my post above.

Stick to the topic "No Windows XP on an Intel Mac After All".

Which is not true by the way... see my post above.

Resistance if futile. Homogenization of OS and hardware will continue until we have no choices. Apple on an Intel? Just wait, one day BIOS or EFI will boot a Java based OS that can run on any architecture. Enjoy the diversity while it lasts gentlemen. The good old days are fading fast.

Disregard previous posts... old link... does not consider extensible firmware interface

Hey, you Windows bashers: SHUT UP!!!! You Mac people say that Mac is superrior to Windows. Well, don't you think that if Mac was that superrior it would be the most widely used OS? I don't think Windows is superrior, but people may need a dual-boot system to run their hundreds of dollars of programs that they bought before Apple even announced Intel Macs.

Those sour little green apples will kill horse & you.Don't believe your safe with mac in upper middle class world, t\They seek comfortably delusioned for another type of clever fish testing, Its' more than money fishing, ts' giving worst to all in effect by selecting stupidest(NAIVEE) info base.Signed:PHYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART VON DRASHEK M.D.

doc, you need to take some english classes dude.

Vista will run on mac:
http://engadget.com/2006/01/11/no-xp-on-intel-macs-but-vista-is-good-to-go/

I don't care whether or not I can run Windows or Linux on an Apple computer. I just want to be able to run Mac OS X on a PC.

*Puts on tinfoil hat*

I am a very satisfied Windows XP user, I use my PC for pro audio, and I can do ANYTHING on my PC that can be done on a Mac (I invite any debates!). Bottom line, I think Apple switching to Intel is a BAD Idea for 1 reason. It takes yet another choice away from thew public! Mac's & PC's are both great machines! But the public deserves a choice of processors.

Wow if works then I can have a dual MAC/XP PC!!!!!!!!

that is awsome!

Re: John Sara - " I can do ANYTHING on my PC that can be done on a Mac (I invite any debates!)" How about trying that new Lightroom app from Adobe. Uh oh!!! NOPE. Sure, wintel boxes CAN perform any task that a mac can, but professionals prefer that they get done faster. That's why they use macs. ILM does all of their special effects on a cluster of 600 macs. Apple got an Emmy for it's contribution to the arts. Why doesn't windows get that kind of recognition?

Go to http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=303956 to see a technical description of Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI) technology which the author of article states as incompatible with Windows XP which is indedd true for the 32-bit version.

Microsoft:
"...Because the 64-bit version of Windows will not boot with BIOS or with System Abstraction Layer (SAL) alone, Extensibile Firmware Interface is a requirement for all Intel Itanium-based systems to boot Windows."

Thus, Windows XP will run on a Macintosh-Intel.

Macintosh has a good operating system; there components, on the other hand, are not so high quality. That's why they are changing there fundamental chipset supplier to the superior Intel technology.

Macintosh should have sold Mac OS X with a specially designed Rosetta translator program that would work on PCs. They would increase their revenues many fold. They just didn't want to risk alienating their brand loyal/conscious customers. Look at the big picture here: a market with two high quality OSs would be great. All the people who hate Windows could then run Mac OS on their computationally efficient PCs.

Go to http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=303956 to see a technical description of Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI) technology which the author of article states as incompatible with Windows XP. This is indeed true for the 32-bit version.

Microsoft:
"...Because the 64-bit version of Windows will not boot with BIOS or with System Abstraction Layer (SAL) alone, Extensibile Firmware Interface is a requirement for all Intel Itanium-based systems to boot Windows."

Thus, Windows XP will run on a Macintosh-Intel.

Macintosh has a good operating system; there components, on the other hand, are not so high quality. That's why they are changing there fundamental chipset supplier to the superior Intel technology.

Macintosh should have sold Mac OS X with a specially designed Rosetta translator program that would work on PCs. They would increase their revenues many fold. They just didn't want to risk alienating their brand loyal/conscious customers. Look at the big picture here: a market with two high quality OSs would be great. All the people who hate Windows could then run Mac OS on their computationally efficient PCs.

Go to http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=303956 to see a technical description of Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI) technology, which the author of article states as incompatible with Windows XP. This is indeed true for the 32-bit version.

But Microsoft states:
"...Because the 64-bit version of Windows will not boot with BIOS or with System Abstraction Layer (SAL) alone, Extensibile Firmware Interface is a requirement for all Intel Itanium-based systems to boot Windows."

Thus, Windows XP will run on a Macintosh-Intel system.

Macintosh has a competitive, high quality operating system. There components, on the other hand, are not so high quality. That's why they are changing there fundamental chipset supplier to the superior Intel technology.

Macintosh should have sold Mac OS X with a specially designed Rosetta translator program that could work on PCs. They could have potentially increased their revenues many fold by doing so. They just didn't want to risk alienating their brand loyal/conscious customers. Look at the big picture here: a market with two high quality OSs would be great. All the people who hate Windows could then run Mac OS on their computationally efficient PCs. Like me.

Aight, peace out.

Go to http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=303956 to see a technical description of Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI) technology, which the author of article states as incompatible with Windows XP. This is indeed true for the 32-bit version.

But, Microsoft states:
"...Because the 64-bit version of Windows will not boot with BIOS or with System Abstraction Layer (SAL) alone, Extensibile Firmware Interface is a requirement for all Intel Itanium-based systems to boot Windows."

Thus, Windows XP will run on a Macintosh-Intel system.

Macintosh has a competitive, high quality operating system. There components, on the other hand, are not so high quality. That's why they are changing there fundamental chipset supplier to the superior Intel technology.

Macintosh should have sold Mac OS X with an integrated, specially designed Rosetta translator program that could function on PCs. They could have potentially increased their corporate revenues many fold by doing so. They just didn't want to risk alienating their brand loyal/conscious customers. Let us look at the big picture here: a market with two high quality OSs would be great. All the people who hate Windows could then run Mac OS on their computationally efficient PCs. Like me.

Aight, peace out.

PCs excell at one thing in particular that Mac OS X doesn't, they ALL get viruses, adware, trojans and spyware. Boo hoo I want viruses on my Mac ;)

Pshaw on this whole Macintosh v. Microsoft. What's done hardware wise is done. Now it is all about Intel v. AMD. If Intel gets too cozy with Mac, would Microsoft start to move towards AMD? Not to mention Dell.

Actually, I want to run OS/2 Warp on the new Intel Mac. There's no chance of EFI support in OS/2, but apparently I can use and EFI-aware copy of GRUB (the Linux booter) to run OS/2. I'll bet the same is true of Windows XP, or probably most other versions of Windows, too.

Good grief people, enough with the petty bickering. Talk about lack of maturity. My personal preference is a PC with Windows, for several reasons. Number one is you can build PCs to your exact liking. It's impossible to do that with a Mac. Second, despite its problems, Windows is a great operating system. If it wasn't, it wouldn't still be the most popular OS on the market. Macs have not overtaken Windows because they're too expensive and because in all honesty, they just aren't as functional. Sure, they're great at graphic design and video editing and stuff, just to name a couple things, but the sheer volume of software just isn't available. There's tons of little apps and utilities I'm running that there simply is no Mac OS equivalent for, at least not a good one. The same goes with Linux. Linux has its own set of problems along the lines of user-friendliness and hardware support. There are so many distributions and versions that I end up running around in circles whenever I try to find any information about anything to do with a Linux distribution. Let's face the facts people. Windows (particularly Windows XP) is simply the perfect combination of hardware support, available software, and user-friendliness. I'm a tweaker by nature, and the little bit I've messed with Macs tells me that the interface is simply too limiting for my liking (example: for cryin' out loud, suck up your pride and ADD ANOTHER MOUSE BUTTON ALREADY!). I'm not going to debate how Windows arrived at this point, because that leads to all the ridiculous arguing I see on this blog.

What I would like to see is the ability to run any OS on any platform I want. Linux and Unix have already tackled this problem seeing as you can get distributions of either one that will run on virtually any hardware platform available on the market. I should have the choice of putting Windows on Mac hardware, or Mac OS on x86 hardware. If these companies would get over themselves and allow true interoperability for different platforms, then all the monopolistic boundaries would be stripped away. The factors that determine the winner of the market share would be narrowed down to nothing more than cost and personal preference. If I can assemble a bunch of hardware to my liking and find I like Mac OS the best and could afford it, then that would be my choice. Right now Apple is shooting themselves in the foot by not allowing third-party hardware development. While it's true that they can maintain strict quality control over drivers and whatnot this way, to me it's not justifiable when you consider the high cost of R&D for the hardware side of it. I think it should be possible for Apple to make it so that any and all third-party drivers have to be tested and signed by Apple before the OS will let them be installed, thereby maintaining fairly good quality control over the hardware aspect.

Oh and as for the virus/spyware argument, knock it off already. If Apple computers had the dominant market share, I GUARANTEE YOU they would be infested with viruses and spyware themselves. There is no such thing as a 100% secure computer as long as it's connected to the Internet. The software is simply too complex for there not to be holes and exploits that can be taken advantage of. Windows is heavily targeted for the simple reason that it is the dominant OS on the market, thereby allowing the maximum incursion of any malicious software. I've heard this argument so many times it makes me sick and I've had enough of it. The biggest problem is that people are stupid and don't secure their own systems. I have not had a single virus or spyware app on my personal computer in over a year and a half. Not a single one. And I rarely even run spyware scanners. One word - Firefox. It saves (PC's) lives. I do have antivirus software that runs weekly scans, and it hasn't found squat in that time period. On the rare occasion I have gotten something suspicious via email (I use Outlook Express), I'm not stupid enough to open it. Honestly people, it's not that hard to keep a computer clean if you're not stupid about what you download and install on your computer. If you're dumb enough to click on that banner ad for a tool that wioll magically speed up your computer, you deserve what you get. Then you'll have to call me to come fix your computer because you screwed it up. >:D

In any case, grow up people. Anybody who shoots off their mouth about Microsoft being evil just makes themself look like an immature idiot. All the whining and complaining in the world is not gonna change a blasted thing (at least not from a blog). Go complain to somebody who cares.

I'm with you.

Read my post over at ZDNet Talkback:
h t t p : / / news . zdnet . com / 5208-1009-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=16720&messageID=330941&start=-1
(Note: You'll have to copy-and-post the URL into your address bar. It's about not blaming Microsoft.)

you must have had a lot of free time to write all that!

If you read the article about false alarm over Windows Support deadline, notice they said "...guess who gets the blame: it is Microsoft." The author of the article didn't use common sense. You will see why when you read my comment.

Oh, and one more thing: After copying and pasting the URL into your address bar (that you get from above my post), erase the spaces between letters, slashes, and period.

Our household uses both Mac and PC. Why not have both OS's on one machine? It would be ideal to have a PowerBook that could run Windows, so that we can run all the CAD software that is available of PC, while taking advantage of the sweet interface, size, quality and stability of a PowerMac with OSX for day-to-day work. No Windows laptop compares to a Powerbook for elegance of use, but unfortunately we need special CAD programs. Why should I have to buy two different computers?

Hey "Sick and tired of this.....". One thing u must keep in mind. People are all different from each other. Maybe u didn't give a good use to ur MAC OS or maybe u r able to accomplish ur deals just with ur Win XP. But the different people around our planet still uses MAC OS or WIN XP or LINUX cuz they want it, they like it, they see that it's more simple this than that or those... so keep ur disgusting criticism about 'people growth' to ur self and let humanity live or die.

Mac vs. XP

I'd run Mac in a heartbeat, but only on a custom computer or something high quality like a Dell or Alienware.

On the performace, speed, stuff like that: Did anybody go to the Apple website and see the performance gains they are claiming on the Intel processor? 2-5 times the performance. Doesn't that prove what test have been saying for a while? Namely, x86 technology is superior. Apple is eating crow pie if you ask me.

Growing Up, that's enough.

RE: Chris Stevens, The letter I posted was about CHOICE, you made your choice & I made mine, your tecnical opinions are just that, opinions, NOT facts, ILM also made thier choice as Adobe did! but to sink to your level, ILM could have done what they did with FAR LESS than 600 computers, in less time if they used XP/Dual Xeon PC'S!!!!!

To Growing Up:

Apparently you missed my point entirely. All operating systems are good in their own way. There is no reason you shouldn't use Mac OS, or Linux, or Windows, or any other OS out there if it suits your needs. My point was that everybody needs to sit down and shut up when it comes to arguing which one is superior because they're all good and useful in their own way and to different people. Without realizing it, your reply was actually agreeing with my entire statement, at least up to the part about "disgusting criticism" which is yet another immature comment.

If Mac OS works for you, then great, use it! Windows works for the majority of the people, so they use it. Do not bash people for using an OS that you say is a useless piece of trash, because it works for them, and they probably think the same of your OS.

To LTM:

Honestly, it didn't take me very long at all to write that. I type pretty fast. =)

Nicely put 'sick and tired'
I use mac and windows, I have my preference of course. I am definitely sick of arguements, which are just regurgitations of articles written by people looking to try and sound smart. This OS war is creating mindless cultists on a religious crusade of sorts.
When it all comes down to it, its a tool, why would you tell someone that their tool is not as good as yours.

Agreed. Good replies.

Users over at ZDNet (in Talkbacks) exploited my intelligence and higher levels of education because of the way how they think I'm not that good with Windows and told me that I'm not suppose to work in the IT field (even though the topic is not about IT like MCSE). I get frustrated when they bash about my intelligence.

Some insight may be gained by looking at history.

Let's look at history and the evolution of the PC vs Apple over the last 30 years. Microsoft gained popularity because many PC makers were cloning the original PC for cheap and designed an OS that patched everything out there. Apple has always had a tight control over their hardware and total experience of the OS. This has cost Apple both marketshare and popularity. However, this was the path they chose.

If you want setup a computer for cheap but don't mind all the hassles of maintaining the patch job Microsoft has been doing over the years, Windows is for you.

If you're about the total computer experience working flawlessly, spend the extra bucks and get something designed to work hardware/software together from the ground up.

It's that simple folks... You got a choice out there.

Wow, you people are INSANE. Arguing about shit like this?! What do you people do all day, sit around and .... watch porn or something? In your mother's basement? Why don't you people go out and actually have a little bit of a life instead of saying "OMG HE USES MAC HE IZ SO STUPID OMG OMG U SHOULDNT USE MAC CUZ ITZ GAY AND HAZ NO PROGRAMZZZ!@#$%!$%"

Just used google search to find some reliable info about the new Macs being able to run Windows and stepped into this hornet's nest.
I have worked on both platforms in the past, but doing print design and pre-press work, OSX has been the preferred OS.
One issue, with all the insults and bickering on this forum, seems to have been overlooked. The tag of "Evil Empire" has not been earned by MS for producing bad products. The reason for bad press has been, that MS were threatening to dominate the industry by unfair means. Many observers had seen this as contradictory to free enterprise and fair competition.
The recent developments are the best thing that could have happened to consumers. A bigger choice of hardware and OS and more power for the $. Not to forget, that the Power PC is still in the picture and who can say, that if IBM will come up with something revolutionary, that there wont be another platform.
Just one more thing to stir things a bit with regards to Windows: If the number of people that embrace a product would be an indication as to its excellence, "Titanic" would really have deserved the Oscar!
It's great and a priviledge to be allowed to think differently.

From what I read,
Apple is allowing outsourcing but is not currently 64 bit. This is a Mac on Windows problem. Windows has consistently followed a "universal hardware" business model... you can load Windows on virtually any machine built except for Apple.
I can load Linux, Unix or Windows on my machine.
I can NOT load OS X on my AMD, Cirrus, Intel or ANY other brand based system.
Cross-platform compatibility is a business survival model and Apple will benefit from it.
If Apple follows this model, we'll see a non-platform specific OS X (or whatever! duh!) that should have been available so long ago!
Steve got pissed at the geek friend who ripped him off that he became short sighted. The geek had good marketing genius and if the two had stayed in collaboration, I think a 'home PC' would be MUCH more advanced than currently available.

What about instaaling a bootloader like GRUB and then installing XP?

Windoze is not "popular". That word suggests a grass-roots agreement among a majority of individuals, which is certainly not how Windoze got to its present dominance. Windoze (based on MS-DuhSS that preceded it, and that still lurks in XP and Vista due to backward-compatibility issues) became nearly ubiquitous due to short-sighted, tightwad PC hobbyists with little knowledge of computer usage (vs. technology specs-manship) and particularly large corporate IT buyers who had the financial power to make or break suppliers, and force prices (and quality, as usual) down to a lowest-common-denominator of mediocrity. The purchase of tens of millions of beige boxes for mundane corporate office use resulted in the de facto lead in the market, but that was decided by a very small number of people, and certainly not the users (in fact, many companies where users expressed a preference for something other than Windoze, over-ruled the users with glee by power-mongering IT empire-builders). By the time PCs were starting to be bought by average people, the damage had already been done, and most non-technical people never even knew that there were any viable alternatives to Windoze.

The majority of Microsloth's current front-line applications (including almost everything in Office) were originally developed on/for the Mac, usually in companies that Microsloth had to acquire, sometimes using what we now know were quite illegal tactics to force a sale at a price well below market values (this was all well-documented in testimony and evidence presented at the various proceedings that resulted in Microsloth's abuse of monopoly power convictions). The claim of many more programs for Windoze is somewhat specious, because in software, quality is everything, and quantity means very little. There's not much use in getting the wrong answer at the speed of light, or having to overcome a horrible user interface to do even the simplest task. Consistent user interface elements across applications results in substantial productivity gains - the average Mac user is proficient in over six programs at an expert level, while PC users tend to only be able to master fewer than three. There's a lot more to life than Copy, Cut , and Paste, even in a typical office full of drones. The vast majority of PC programs are never used by more than a handful of people, generally because the programs are one-trick ponies that aren't integrated with the functionality of related programs.

After all this time, including starting over with Windoze NT, there are more security holes than ever, as the low-paid new arrivals make the same old mistakes, such as buffer overflows/underflows. These peoples' stock options will never be worth anything to motivate them (the stock price hasn't changed much over the last five years, so they just look forward to being able to put Microsloth on their resume after a couple of years of slave labor). The people showing up at places like Google these days sure aren't interviewing at Microsloth, and it's making the personnel and morale problems even worse than they already were. Read "Microserfs" for a flavor of what it's like to work on the Microsloth campus - and it was written in the early-mid 90s.

Anyway, it's hard to compete on a playing field that's tilted almost 90 degrees vertical, and then gravity gets cranked up more than a few notches. I'm all for a fair fight, but when the rules are being written by some of the same people who write credit card account terms of agreement, you start to get an idea of what reality actually is.

All the Best,
Joe Blow

Spoken like a true zealot. People are still fighting over the civil war in the "deep south" also. Get over it.

I don't understand how this forum got so off course. This Mac/PC war has been going on for ages and finally has an end in sight. I do not see the need for all the bickering. First of all Apple has not said anything about dropping Power PC completely. You will be hardpressed to find anyone who would be unimpressed with the quadcore G5s (Mac or Pc user). Those systems are screaming. To me this just seams similar to the rise of AMD in the mid nineties. It is just more options. Apple made this intel deal because the quadcore chip is the best chip on the market with power consumption/performance ratio. This is a strategic move on Apple's part to compete with Dell etc... in the notebook market. Keep in mind that Apple has only been a major player in the notebook market for a short time now. We all can remember those horribly slow, brightly colored ibooks. It won't take much to take Mac out of the laptop market. I hope this puts a fire under Motorola to produce. It's like all the talks when the Pentium 4 chips started coming out and AMD had nothing close and all the forums were talking about the death of AMD, and then they were the first to release a 64 bit processor.

Remember Apple isn't switching there OS over completely, just making it dual compatible.

The greatest thing about this for the consumer is the cross platform of software. I'm not talking about just OS, I am talking about all applications. This gives a new drive for software companies to make programs cross platform. So what this means is more competition, which in theory is better for us the consumer. It is better for the Mac users because they gain more products, and it is better for the Microsft users because it allow Microsoft OS on Mac computers. Remember Mac is going to great lengths to not release their OS on PC systems, but it looks like Microsft intends to for Mac systems.

Also we are all forgetting that there is rumors of a google OS running on Java. This will be huge in the OS Realm. We all know that people are going to jump on anything with Google in the title because they are the current hot company. This creates more competition for Windows and Mac. If they hope to keep a major share of the OS market, they need to band toghether, because an OS accessible from any computer (Google's will) sounds mighty tempting to alot of consumers.

Back to the war between mac and PC. This one button mouse crap is worthless. If you use that as an argument you apparently haven't used Mac OS much. Also Mac users talk about the ease of switching between mac programs. Because of Mac's lack of program selection, u have the mac way or the highway. With PC I can pick and choose programs that work the way I want them to. As for PC/Spyware problem: ya it sucks but I still spend less time playing with Virus programs than I do trying to network Macs toghether. So its 6 one, half dozen the other.

Mac/Windows machine: same as Windows/Linux, or Mac/Linux machines. Not really needed but it is a nice luxury and a cost saving way of having our cake and eating it too. Let's just all be thankful that Sun Micro's OS didn't take off. (I really hated that system)

This thread reminds me of a TV program I once watched on the Discovery Channel... It was about a bunch of monkeys fighting over a stick or a banana or something of no practical use just to find out who the strongest primate was.

So, you don't like PCs or Windows? Well, "boohooo" DON'T USE IT!
and if you don't like MACs, BIG "boohoo" DON'T USE IT!

I work for a company that manages MAC and PC based networks and own several machines, so your technical mumbo jumbo doesn't impress me.

Stop complaining about the system you don't like just because you can't use it. Stop feeling sorry for Steve Jobs - OMG, he got ripped off! I'm going to buy another G5 or iPod and help put his kids through college!
GET A LIFE!

Cordially yours,

Couldn't Care Less

wow, you guys are really bickering about some stuff that does not matter.
When I am using PCs its usually linux and I do prefer AMD based machines but now with apple going with intel some things intel has been trying to do with the market are suddenly going to get allot easier.
For years intel has been trying to get the PC vendors to abandon ancient technologies such as floppy drives but have not done well at this.
Apple did that in 1997, along with going to USB for keyboards and most other devices another thing intel has been pushing for since the 90s but has not happened.
Now Intel has a vendor that is doing exactly what they have been trying to get the market to adopt for years and its allot easier intel to deploy new technolgies with a company like apple that does not have to worry about supporting all sorts of odd hardware like MS does.

For apple this is great because they are now dealing with a supplier their main business is producing PC hardware, with IBM and Freescale(motorola) the PC market is a very small piece what they do and could really care less about what apple wants and needs.
The main reason that apple went to intel was because of laptops, the G4 was pretty much at the end of its life and the G5 would not have been viable for use in a laptop for quite some time.
Now with Intel being the source for most of their components they are in a much better posistion to stay competitive.

anyway, to get back to the topic of this thread, windows will run be sure of that, might need GRUB or something but it will happen soon if not already, Vista will run for sure because it supports EFI, apple Knows that making systems that can not run windows hurts them and they just wont come out and say look it runs windows too.

ohh yeah, someone above mentioned that Macs are not 64 bit, the PPC G5 is 64 bit and have been for sometime
I must admit that going to IA32 is a step backwards in some respects but very much needed unless they went to AMD.

yes.this is my site http://gorlum-pidaras.hallwriting.com/buspar/buspar_drug_sleep.html Thanks.

I want to install Windows on a new Mac. I love the way Macs look but I'm into gaming and everything at my office is Windows based so I need to install Windows.

I just tried:

Windows XP x64
Windows XP IA64 (which should support EFI and GTP)
Windows Server 2003 R2
Windows Vista Beta 1 (which should support EFI and GTP)
Windows Vista CTP December 2005 (which should support EFI and GTP)

No joy.

Apple has either disabled or not included a compatibility module. I'm hoping there's a secret firmware command we can enter to enable it.

To Andrew McNaughton -

Best case, you'll need to set up a GTP partition in which to install one of your OS choices... there is a limited version of the gtp tool installed under OS X (though it clearly identifies that it is not complete). From there, I'm not sure how you'd set up dual boot, but you could use instruction for EFI above to identify GPT partition as boot choice. ...this is, of course, assuming you haven't done all of this and/or can find some way to boot the Windows install disk (which may require using EFI to set it as the boot partition also).

I'm looking forward to trying this at some point, but I'm not willing to give up my 17" PowerBook for a 15.4" MacBook Pro... I'll wait 'til the next round to see what it brings.

Ugh... make that GPT. I hate it when I discover stupid typos after I hit submit. This is, of course, why there's a Preview button... which I failed to use.

At least I was consistent :)

Yeah, I had Mac 8.1 and that piece of tripe was ruined by Windows Xp. My new Sony media center PC is so much faster that than PowerMac we used to have. PC's rule, Mac's suck.

I am a very satisfied with my PowerPC G5 Mac. I us it for pictures, videos, music, web, and others software that I us on my Mac. To tell you I don't realy like is Apple, switching in to Intel is a BAD Idea for 1 reason.

}:~( I think a person starting to put Microsoft Windows XP on intel MAC, is waste your time and money putting windows on a mac. Ho ever is trying to put Windows XP on a MAC, it's is not going to happen put on mac it all!!! You can try, but ocne again you are waste your time and money putting windows on a mac. }:~(

Maybe it's a good idea for Apple deserves to move in to Intel, but I don't realy know if is good idea for Apple to move? I'm happy with my PowerPC G5 MAC that's is on now.

Man you can almost see the spit fly can't ya!

I have the PPC G5 Quad running OS X and I couldn't be happier.

And yes Johnny Halfass, 8.1 is tripe. Oh and btw do you have a sitster called Sassy Halfbrain? (her married name).

To me this is the main argument, based on Mac 8.1 vs Windows XP. Put it this way its like Windows 3.1 vs XP.

I have a three button mouse or if I wanted to in System preferences set up my mouse to be in effect a 6-button mouse in that I can use my mouse to move open windows out of the way using Expose, not close them, then with another single click move them back into view again. The mouse has a scroll button, which allows me to move a web page up and down AS well as side to side

I am with if it works for you then great, no problem. Just don't mention that to my sister-in-law, her Dell laptop's HD failed on her and the laptop was only 7 months old! This for me as well is the major sticking problem with Windows, all that maintenence required to keep it going. If you like tweaking then that is what Linux is for.

I switched because I got fed up with paying $50-60 per hour at least three times per month just to fix a glitch in Windows.

None of my Mac's have EVER needed to be repaired or fixed in any way, sure upgraded, which can be done as well with memory, new HD's and not to mention SATA has been in the Mac since 2003. Also PCI Express is a standard now.

This is the most childish debate ever concieved! If you want to civily debate the benefits of either OS on separate computers or on the same one or what not, then do it. Quit your bickering and converse like adults. Both systems have their benefits and downfalls that each individual user contends with on a daily basis. I can't wait for the day when one OS is all that's left so this rediculous debate can go the way of BATA vs VHS. I'm all for choice (I choose to use both OSes), but this is rediculous...

This is goofy....
Those who complain about mac not being able to be custom built..... get a life, you are pasty nerds who lives in your basement all day.

Normal people don't need custom build computers. Mac towers are totally upgradeable like PC towers. Mac all-in-ones aren't like PC all-in-ones. Macs and PCs are very similar.

Windows users,
You're all gay!

Macs last forever

-I have a G4 tower.
-I have upgraded everything
-Nothing has broken on it in 5 years
-I've had 2 OS crashes in 5 years!

glad I switched.

Well, I don't know what GRUB is. I'm guessing Apple won't write a BIOS to run Windows in native mode. I hope that what we get is a Windows OS emulator running in a user partition, because Windows systems are more susceptible to malware. Does anyone know about that?

I think that it is a very good thing that the new macs will run vista - many programs are windows only, ie gaming

Interesting. There actually some sane reason to buy a Mac now.

@Steve Jobs
Maybe so, but homosexuality is the wave of the future. Better to make money off of gay weddings than be a penniless pruit!

Mac is superior to windows in some respects. The processor does more and the graphics and audio are better, thats a well known fact. I alos see no reason why someone shouldnt install Windows on an Apple machine if they need it. If you dont then dont install it. If you only need windows then get a pc. I howerver need both because of research purposes. As for the comment about money making someone smarter, in my experience money just makes you greedy, power hungry, and prone to mistakes. Whether you agree with me or not, dont bash, this is just my take on it.

I'm a 3d animator, in training. To put it bluntly windows on any
high end server hardware is the path to countless headaches. Either
run Linux, or for Maya, and Discreet Flame/Smoke/Combustion get
a new Powermac Quad. Simply put the use of RISC puts any Wintel
box to shame when it entails video compositing, period. I used to
be a SGI junkie, to me windows boxes are just a cheap solution to
gaming and simple everyday office tasks :P