Multi-booting Mac Intel Developer Machines

ytsejam-ppc writes "Ross Carlson over at Jasbone.com has a great article up on how to install multiple operating systems on the new Intel based developer edition Macs. His particular setup triple-booted Mac OS X 10.4.1 (Intel), CentOS 4 and Windows XP. Just makes me drool."

But will it run Linux...

[chia_monkey]

This looks dandy and all...I'd love to have a developer machine to do this to. But...will it run Linux and Windows on the actual machines in production that we'll see in a couple years?

This is nice but...

[Zweideutig]

What about 64-bit chips? These Pentium 4-based Macs are 32-bit, I was hoping Apple would be heading in the direction of 64-bit like they started to do with G5. Are they going to use Xeon chips in the high end machines, perhaps?

Be?

[sootman]

If it's an Intel box, it should be able to run BeOS as well. :-)

Re:But will it run Linux...

[daveschroeder]

There's no reason to believe it won't.

See my post here [slashdot.org] for more details. At the very, very least it could run Linux and Windows nicely in a virtual machine environment, but it's very likely that yes, they will run Linux - and Windows - regardless of whether the final machines utilize BIOS, Open Firmware, or EFI. Why wouldn't they? Especially in the case of Linux. PowerPC Macs run several varieties of Linux today; why wouldn't they also be able to run on production Intel-based Macs, even if they make the surprising decision of using Open Firmware? And there's no reason Apple would want to *prevent* people from installing Linux, or even Windows, as Phil Schiller himself has said Apple won't do anything to preclude people from installing Windows on Intel-based Macs.

This is a huge coup for Apple: imagine a laptop that can seamlessly run Windows XP and Linux - PLUS Mac OS X. Or better yet, run one environment (such as Mac OS X) and have your other environments in a VM at essentially full speed. It would be a dream machine, to be sure.

Re:But will it run Linux...

[sql_noob]

That's if Apple actually support the drivers in linux and/or windows.

Will apple open the hardware specifications so linux would work perfectly?

Will they provide the windows driver so unsatisfied clients can return their apple computer because the hardware does not work perfectly?

Another problem is that windows XP is quite expensive (non-OEM ver) and I don't think the apple would bundle windows XP OEM (original equipment manufacturer) in their machine.

Bigger issue

[SuperBanana]

The bigger issue is that developers have to sign an NDA. I presume that includes discussing the machine, its internals, and so on.

Also, as a side note- I received a call a couple of days ago from a woman in the Developer Connection group (I love those Irish accents, rowr :-)...but the accent wasn't enough for me to say yes to leasing the intel developer machine.

"Have you heard about our offer for development systems to ADC Select members?"

"Yep." Who hasn't? People under rocks? :-)

"Are you interested in taking advantage of the offer?"

"Nope, sorry."

Question is, why are they having to do this? Is reception to the development system lukewarm? Did they make a whole bunch, and are just being aggressive about getting 'em out to people? (which would be a good idea). I guess $1k isn't bad at all if you're a serious developer (I'm not).

Re:This is nice...

[Anonymous Coward]

but what will really be great is when someone makes a Virtual PC- or vmware-like product (perhaps even one of those products themselves) that is a virtual machine that runs under Mac OS X that allows running essentially any x86 OS at near-full speed, side by side with Mac OS X, without having to reboot.

I'm sorry, but have you ever tried virtualization software. While being great, and definitely a boon in allowing multiple OSes to be run simultaneously, I'm wondering where your getting these perfomance claims.

While it will probably be faster to emulate Windows on a OSX running on x86 or to emulate OSX x86 under Windows than to do the equivalent with a PPC version of OSX, I would expect the performance to be pretty much the same as emulating linux in Windows (if not a bit slower since companies have more experience and optimizations in optomizing linux emulation under windows).

In other words, the performance will be usable, but no where near native performance; and forget about gaming in an emulated OS - ain't happening as long as video cards are being emulated.

Re:But will it run Linux...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should Apple provide windows drivers? They don't claim Windows compatibly. I doubt they be slapping a Designed for Windows XP sticker on them.

Assuming you can run XP on the final boxes, Apple is just giving people the option of running XP, if they like. I'm betting most users would prefer to run XP on top of a updated VirtualPC that runs XP at (almost) full speed, and you can still cut and paste between the two systems.

Think about that... You can run Aqua, X11, and Windows environments side by side.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:This is nice...

[silvertear72]

I'm looking forward to being able to dual/multi boot OSes on one machine, but my friend may not share the same sentiments as I do. He's a Mac enthusiast and if he ever gets one of these machines, he won't know whether to hug it because of the Mac OS or to set it on fire because of it's ability to boot Windows. I had suggested that he do both, but that doesn't sound like a good idea either...

Sorry, but you're wrong

[daveschroeder]

Whether or not Microsoft wants Windows XP or Windows Vista to run on Intel-based Macs, it will.

Also, I never said that Mac OS X would run on commodity hardware. I'm saying the exact opposite: that Windows will run on Apple's Intel-based hardware. But on this topic, if you're arguing that the only way Apple can keep Mac OS X on its own hardware is via DRM, you'd be wrong. Apple currently specifies that Mac OS X can only run on Apple-branded hardware in the EULA. The legality aspect alone would relegate running Mac OS X (or hacking it to run) on commodity hardware to a comparatively negligible subset of slashdot-types, hackers, people content to pirate the OS, people content to run without any support from Apple on completely unsupported configurations, etc. In other words, on the grand scale, just about no one.[1] Sure, Apple *might* use DRM to do this, but it doesn't have to. Mac OS X currently has no product activation of any kind; it doesn't even have a serial number.

Whether it is in a direct-boot capacity or in a virtual machine, or both, remains to be seen, but you can be sure Windows WILL run on the Intel-based Macs, period. (And if you're arguing that Apple will somehow specifically disallow it, that flies in the face of both Phil Schiller, the number 2 man at Apple, specifically saying that Apple will not do anything to preclude people from installing Windows on Intel-based Macs, and the fact that multiple solutions for running Windows on PowerPC hardware, albeit in emulation, exist today. Are you honestly saying that we'll have less options to run Windows in actual x86 hardware? Hardly.)

Further, the last thing Apple wants is people Mac OS X applications getting killed because of the reasoning that people can just run them in Windows, so why even make it any more? Apple developers, including Microsoft's Mac Business Unit, understand that Mac OS X users want to run software in the Mac OS X interface and environment. Running software at full speed in Windows under, say, a virtual machine environment will be a convenience, not the default. Yes, you can make arguments that developers will kill their Mac products, but that makes the assumption that a very large percentage of the Mac userbase will fork out for a VM plus a license of Windows (whether or not these are ultimately bundled together in some product is beside the point - the point is, it will be costly). Further, there is no value in Mac OS X if there is no software. And since Mac OS X growth and Apple growth in general is at the highest in the company's history, Mac OS X developers will not be leaving the platform. There are compelling reasons to choose Mac OS X over Windows, and people, business, and academia are making that decision daily.

[1] From http://www.macworld.com/2005/06/features/intelfaq/ [macworld.com]:

Will any PC be able to run Mac OS X for Intel?

Apple says no. Our guess is that some enterprising hacker may be able to get it to work, but we'd expect that if anyone can get OS X to run on PC hardware, it will be a laborious process, and the end result may not be a particularly stable system. You certainly won't be able to go out, buy OS X, stick the install DVD in a Dell PC, and have it just work. Apple intends Mac OS X to only run on Apple hardware.

From http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050607.ar s/3 [arstechnica.com]

Q: Will I be able to run Mac OS X on a non-Apple PC?

A: No.

Q: Try and stop me!

A: Apple most assuredly will--try, that is. And they'll fail, just like Microsoft failed to stop people from installing Linux and MAME on the Xbox. But like MS, all Apple has to do is make sure that only Slashdot-reading, VoIP-using, PC-assembling, DMCA-breaking geeks hack their way to an "unapproved" configuration of hardware and software. If it's illegal (th

Re:Yes...

[guuyuk]

I haven't read that far into the EFI specification, but I wonder if it provides the same full device tree that Open Firmware provides? The fact that Open Firmware builds a complete device tree fairly early in the boot process allows any loading operating system to more easily identify active devices (which is one of the secrets to the Mac OS's plug&play capability).

The EFI spec talks about more independent device drivers than what you can do with the current BIOS setup. I'm just wondering how this compares to how it's done in Open Firmware.

Technical question-Partition table?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean that Apple wont use their style partition tables anymore?. I always hated the fact that is impossible to mix up Intel and Apple style partitions, for example now it is impossible to have Fat32 and HFS+ partitions on the same drive. If you use an apple style-partition table you can mix apple, linux and bsd partitions, but not apple and Microsoft partitions. By using an Intel style partition table, you can mix lots and lots of partitions, fat32,ntfs, ext2/3, QNX, Befs, etc, etc, but YOU CANNOT HAVE AN HFS+ PARTITION

Confessions of a switcher...

[Goth Biker Babe]

I've owned computers for 25 years now. I've been through eight bit machines, UNIX machines at Uni, 16 bit Amigas and 32 bit Acorn/ARM machines. I bought my first PC in 1995 and that was because, by then Linux had become useable enough for me. Eventually I also put Windows 95 on that machine. That machine is still around. Like the preverbial axe it has had all of its bits replaced a few times but is still the same machine. It now runs Linux and Windows XP except that it's been hardly touched in the last few months. Why? Because I use an old Mac G3 instead.

I used Macs at work between '88 and '93. I liked the hardware but thought it was expensive. Thought the software was okay but a little slow and sometimes unstable. So if someone bought one for me, I'd use it but otherwise I'd use something else. (RISC OS in the early 90s, then Linux/Windows).

I dislike Windows for many useablity reasons (I'm not an evangelist and will use something if it does the job) and I dislike Linux because it's not finished. Open source coders seem to lose interest once you've got a 90% complete product or application. They either prefer to refactor or add functionality rather than fixing those remaining bugs. I spend all my time at work being techy and I don't want to do it at home. I just want a machine I can use.

So when Apple anounced OS-X a couple of years or so ago I was interested. A UNIX foundation with Apple's useabilty on the top. But again the costs ruled one out. Not that long ago I got word of the availability of a cheap, second hand, Mac G3 so I bought it. Since I've had it it's done everything I need my home workhorse to do and the PC has not been touched. It may be a tad slow but I'm not worried about games as I use consoles for those (I decided a few years ago that I couldn't afford to keep a PC up to spec enough to play the latest games and so it was cheaper to pay the console premium on games and buy a Playstation 2).

I've just bought myself an iBook as I feel happiest using OS-X. I'm not worried whether it's PowerPC or x86 as in the end that's just one component in many and the machine runs the same software. I've grown up and no longer care whether my machine has the latest Hibachi 10Ghz processor, just whether it fulfil's my needs.

So the new machines will have an Intel processor in. So what? It doesn't mean I will put Windows on. I bought a Mac to get away from Windows. Apple will not stop producing OS-X because people don't just buy their hardware for the hardware, they buy a user experience and that requires OS-X.

If I want Office, I can get it for Mac (Actually I use OpenOffice/NeoOffice when I need such an application). I don't need Windows for anything. I have everything on my Mac. The only thing I use my PC for now is Linux development and the one thing that an Intel Mac would give me is the ability to do away with my PC.

You have an assumption that you cannot do without Windows and people want windows. You're wrong and I feel that actually what will happen is the complete reverse of what you describe.