Bounty For Booting XP on the Intel iMac

An anonymous reader writes "The race is on. You can try to get the bounty for booting Windows XP on iMac. At this moment there is $2773 waiting for the winner. However several people have brickified their iMacs when playing with EFI." I imagine those tech support calls are hysterical ;)

the opposit

[servo335]

I would prefer to see booting osx86 on a non intel mac then ruining a perfectly good mac with xp.

Maybe...

[thepotoo]

It's to prove you can. Just like the people who hack IE to run on Linux in WINE, there's a lot of geek credit (and 15 minutes of fame) to be gained by doing this. If I had a mac, I'd try for it.

Short answer: Because you can.

For the last time...

[copponex]

If I could have a dual core machine with a really nice graphics card, and the machine was also cool, quiet, and attractive for $1300, and I could boot any OS I wanted on it (OS X, Linux, XP), I think I don't qualify as perverse. The iMac is a compact and powerful machine, and there's nothing available like it at the moment. Furthermore, give me the choice between carrying around two laptops or one (especially for developers or on-site technicians), can you possibly guess which one would be less expensive?

So, please, just drop this joke. It's been told a million times. If you don't have anything useful to say, just save your breath.

Re:Don't they have this backwards?

[$ASANY]

Absolutely. Booting windows on a mac is sort of like booting OS/2 Warp on a mac. An interesting exercize, but of doubtful usefulness.

Hey honey, guess what? Our Mac is now vulnerable to the Kama Sutra worm! Aintcha proud of me?

Re:Don't they have this backwards?

[Anonymous Coward]

What I want is to boot MacOS on my PC. How about a bounty for that?

Shouldn't you be the one offering the bounty in that case?

Why? Seriously

[G4from128k]

I've always heard that I would "need" Windows for something or other. In my business it seemed prudent to own/install a copy of Software Windows and so a bought a succession of versions starting in the early 90s.

In more than 10 years of having a copy of Windows, I've needed it all of 3 times (using content on 2 MS-only CD-ROMs and some MS-Access work). Now I don't even need the emulator -- I bought a Pentium-III laptop at a garage sale for $10. It's sat unused now for 3 years.

I can understand the "because its there challenge," and I suppose some people really need to play PC-only games (I don't), but otherwise putting Windows on a Mac seems like a waste of good hardware.

Re:Why? Seriously

[LurkerXXX]

Right, because no one else has other software needs than yours.

Re:I suggest the Free Software Foundation

[HuguesT]

> Shouldn't it be illegal for a computer vendor to force you to only use a
> particular OS on your computer?

Apple isn't forcing anybody to run OS/X. I'm quite sure people buying Macs do it of their own volition. Furthermore I'm pretty sure Linux will be booting on these machines quite soon, this should answer this worry.

On the other hand there is no requirement on hardware manufacturers that their machines must be made to boot Windows, just because they have an x86-compatible chip inside.

Re:I suggest the Free Software Foundation

[SteveAyre]

More like the choice of using unleaded petrol or diesel in your car, or a particular tire size.

You can use the other if you like, just don't expect it to work as well anymore if at all.

The fault is with Windows AFAIK not supporting the hardware anyway, which is hardly surprising when it was written several years before Apple announced that they'd be moving to Intel.

Re:Why? Seriously

[NutscrapeSucks]

Turn your argument around. Nobody really "needs" a Mac in the first place. We could get everything we need to get done on a standard Windows PC, but instead we buy Macintoshes because we *want* to, not because we need to.

Surely you will admit that there are some very popular Windows packages that have not been ported to the Mac. As well about a million inhouse and vertical software packages designed for Windows. A lot of people in the Mac community see this as something that would be legitimately useful to them, and not just "because it's there". They're doing this because they think it would add value to their Mac system.

Re:No EFI backwards compatibility module on iMacs

[NutscrapeSucks]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only part of XP that needs the BIOS is the bootloader.

So, only one of two things need to happen: Either someone rewrites NTLDR for EFI systems, or someone needs to create a fake BIOS enviornment. The LinuxBios people had a way of faking a real BIOS to boot XP, so going EFI -> Linux -> Windows might be possible also.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:BartPE

[larkost]

Change "forbid booting" to "not have support for". Apple has not done any work to support booting, that means they don't include things that they don't need, but might be needed for Windows. they are not hindering you from booting Windows, just not helping you either.

Games.

[Alcimedes]

Maybe they want to play games on occasion, but want the OSX experience the rest of the time. I know a LOT of people in that boat.

Re:booting linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Really?

Being able to boot Windows on a mac means people who need a windows laptop for work might now consider a Mac, and it also means those who need certain programs that are only available on Windows can also consider buying a Mac instead. And vice versa as well, those who require a Mac for work but also likes playing games may be able to combine all that into one computer, rather than a Mac and a PC. There's a bunch of reasons why booting Windows is important.

Now with Fink I already have access to the most popular programs available for Linux, and many of the bigger Apps already have a native OS X port (which I'd imagine will be Universal soon enough), so why is linux more important?

Re:I suggest the Free Software Foundation

[JonathanBoyd]

When did they remove BIOS? Macs have never used BIOS. People haven't bought a computer that Apple have come round and pulled a chip out of. They designed a computer that doesn't use BIOS... just like all the other computers they've been designing. In what sense can they be said to have removed something that was never there in the first place?

Re:I suggest the Free Software Foundation

[gh0st1nth3mach1n3]

There's a big difference between removing things and not bothering to put them in in the first place.

Apple isn't doing anything to prevent anyone from running Windows on their systems, but they're not spending money to help anyone either. Why should they? Spending money to add legacy functions that aren't necessary for anything but Windows just doesn't make sense for them.

They switched to Intel, not WinTel.

Re:I suggest the Free Software Foundation

[Richard_at_work]

Did Apple say the current version of Windows? No, they didnt.

There are many reasons.

[pavon]

If you do webdesign, you need to check your pages in Explorer.
If you do application software, and your users are on windows.
If you do embedded software, and the dev kits are windows only.
If you do electrical design, you will probably need to run OrCAD.
If you do drafting, you will probably need to run AutoCAD.
If you teach and your school requires a specific application for grades.

Since MS Office was ported to the Mac, most business people will probably be able to get by without using windows. For graphics work, all the professional tools are also on the Mac, so they can get by just fine as well. There are also many good audio tools as well, although most professionals use a mix of Mac and Windows software (plus that one that boots up without a seprate OS).

However for many people, they really don't have that option. Even if there are replacements apps on the Mac that are as good or better than the windows based industry standards, compatibility with others pretty much forces you to have a copy around.

Re:Games.

[Alcimedes]

Ok, let me load up WoW.....

Oh, that doesn't run on an Xbox or playstation. How about I bust out my old copy of Master or Orion.... Hmm, nope not that either. Ok, I'll play some CSS. Crap, no again.

Sorry, I could do that all day but the majority of games I want to play don't exist on consoles, and either don't run, or run like ass under OSX.

Dual booting would be a god send to me. Instead of buying the low level laptop (work needs) I'd be a lot more likely to spring for the top of the line laptop so I can game on it as well. I'm not going to buy a laptop exclusively for gaming, or a desktop for that matter. However, I'd be more than happy to drop an extra $200 - $500 on a machine that will do my work AND play games well.

Re:Brickified?

[pornking]

Hmm...

"to brick" already has the meaning of using bricks to block something off. for example, bricking up a window.

If were to "brick up a building", you would not be turning it into brick or building it out of brick. You would either be enclosing it in brick, or walling off all entrances and windows.

I think "to brickify" is clearer in this case since the suffix indicates a literal or figural transformation.