No EFI Support for Vista 688
DietFluffy writes "Microsoft revealed today that it will not support EFI booting for Windows Vista on its launch. The news will be a shock for owners of Intel Macs who had hoped they would be able to dual-boot between Windows Vista and OS X. Intel Macs only support booting via EFI."
WTF is EFI? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Leader of the pack, not (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Big whoopdie freakin'-doo. (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Firmware_
OS independant device drivers sounds like a big plus to me. No more complaints about how your ATI card runs like crap under linux.
Re:Leader of the pack, not (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Dual-Booting Can Go Take A Freaking Hike (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Leader of the pack, not (Score:4, Informative)
You can flash your bios using a bootable cdrom without a problem.
I've been living quite happily without a floppy for 2+ years.
Re:What's the advantage of EFI anyway? (Score:3, Informative)
Even if you have two dual-core Athlons 64, you start with a single CPU in 286-compatiblity mode. You need to climb all the way up, starting with ancient 8-bit instructions to enable 16-bit, get out of the 640K memory limitations, floating math co-processor, pull all the hardware from legacy compatiblity modes (all gfx cards by default start in CGA mode, year 1981) enable all extras that were not supported by 486 and similar, and slowly, slowly crawl your way up to a level where a dual 64-bit CPU is a dual 64-bit CPU, not a hyper-overclocked 386.
Re:Bios Work. (Score:5, Informative)
Apple just chose not to include it, for the obvious reason that they don't need it.
I expect standard bootloaders in the free software world will all support EFI by the end of this year, if they don't already. I don't know if you'd need an EFI-specific live-CD / install CD too for CD installs.
Re:Wrath of the Windows Users! (Score:2, Informative)
It did as you said and translated the 680x0 Mac code into 680x0 Amiga code with barely any slowdown.
It was a breath of fresh air, especially considering how poorly emulation ran on the Amiga platform up until this point.
What goes around comes around, the Amiga once again proving it was well before its time
Re:Who cares? (Score:3, Informative)
Nope, this is much less significant.
Such announcement would be a huge boost for IBM and Motorola (the PowerPC makers), especially given the kick they have just taken from Apple (who for 15 years were 1/3 of the PowerPC trio of backers [wikipedia.org]).
A revival of Microsoft OS support for the PPC processor family in Vista (NT 6.0) would be a huge deal, given that they dropped it from NT 5.0 (Windows 2000) and NT 5.1 (Windows XP and 2003), after it was supported in NT 3.51 and NT 4.0 (up to SP3, at least).
FYI, here's a snippet from Microsoft's NT 4.0 docs [microsoft.com]:
Vista is only going to run on x86, x86_64 and Itanium processors, but the odd thing is that it will need EFI support to boot on the latter anyway. Maybe MS have some toe-stepping avoidance deal with Apple?
Re:If a tree falls in a forest... (Score:5, Informative)
You're obviously not a Windows user, nor a gamer, since the ONLY use of Windows is to play games anyway. Maybe view pr0n as well, but you can do that better on a Mac already...
Re:What's the advantage of EFI anyway? (Score:3, Informative)
Rewind 4 years and we have USB1.1.
Booting from a 12mbits/s theoretical, 4mbits/s actual interface? No thanks.
Macs have booted from 400mbits/s firewire for years.
Back to the present we have USB2, 480mbit/s theoretical. Modern macs boot from that.
Half wrong ! (Score:5, Informative)
286 processors and up start in what is know as real-mode. like the original 8086. That is the 16 bit mode.
There is not 8 bit mode (not any more, and I think that was only available in the nec v20 AFAIK).
VGA cards do not start-up in CGA mode. They are initialized by the VGA BIOS in text mode, compatible to CGA but is not the same because 480 vertical lines (plus retrace) are used instead of 200 plus retrace.
BTW, newer graphic cards don't even support all C/E/VGA modes anymore, and I think that has benn for almost for 8 years more or less.
I don't think that the setup of the protected mode should be done in BIOS, but some useful mode (better than the crappy real-mode) should be enabled.
May be some flat mode (32 or 64 bits).
On the other hand, you don't enable more than protected mode, the "features" are always available (but maybe just in protected mode the instruction don't produce illegal opcode... I don't know that.)
Re:A shock, you say... (Score:5, Informative)
Casablanca. [vincasa.com] (1942)
RENAULT (Claude Rains): I am shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
The croupier comes out of the gambling room and up to Renault.
CROUPIER: (handing Renault a roll of bills) Your winnings, sir.
Re:BIOS can only boot from disks less than 4TB (Score:3, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
RAM (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Dual-Booting Can Go Take A Freaking Hike (Score:3, Informative)
Could you at least TRY to get the story right? (Score:5, Informative)
I love all the comments about how far behind Apple MS is, as proven by the fact that they can't even get EFI working. No, they have it working, just on modern 64-bit systems. Apple is the only company on earth that decided to go with a brand new technology like EFI, and then stick 32-bit chips on a 32-bit OS in their system! If Apple actually comes out with a 64-bit machine (like most modern PCs), I'm sure 64-bit Vista will boot on it just fine. This is one of those cases where the problem isn't how far behind MS is on their support for EFI, but how far behind Apple is on their choice of x86 chips. I have no idea why Apple let itself get talked into dumping a 64-bit architecture, just to get what basically amounts to some fast dual-core P3s, but they did.
Talk about the very definition of FUD!
Re:Big whoopdie freakin'-doo. (Score:3, Informative)
Precisely the reason that you will never see Microsoft supporting it. Hardware support is their *only* real advantage anymore.
One little error. (Score:5, Informative)
I hope you weren't implying that Wine is an emulator because Wine Is Not an Emulator [winehq.com]. ;)
Re:Leader of the pack, not (Score:5, Informative)
1. Run Program
2. It automagicly Downloads what's needed
3. Click Okay
4. Wait 10 seconds
5. Profit !!! ???
One of the asus boards was a P2B Slot1 (PII 350 100MHz Bus) and a A8V 939 (Athlon64 3000+ @ 200MHz FSB) and ive seen not an issue. Windows won't magicly crash during those 10 seconds and I doubt it really will or else asus won't let you flash from windows.
You guys really gots to get out of the "Windows is unstable" crap. This isn't Windows 98 ive seen desktop XP systems get months and months of uptime without any problems.
For fun I decided to run windows vista and it seems to already be using EFI because it makes a "Boot" directory in both Windows Drives (XP MCE and Vista) and an "EFI" directory containing fonts. So there going to remove the feature from the beta ??
Solosoft
CLUETRAIN TO THE RESCUE, NEXT STOP IS YOU (Score:5, Informative)
Windows supports EFI. Here, now, today. Has been for years. Currently is. Except only on the IA64 architecture. This makes the article partly bullshit, and a large amount of comments here as well. But the bullshit doesn't stop here.
Of course the thing about drivers being stored entirely in EFI is completely false, misleading and somewhat retarded (it really depends on how twisted your idea of drivers is. If you come from a Linux background there's a 9 in 10 chance you are clueless and forever jaded about it). Of course the DRM comments here don't make the slightest sense, since TPM chips are here, now, have been for years, and they work with the old, usual, actually-existing BIOS extensibility interface (i.e.: drop a function pointer somewhere, get called). Have you bought an IBM laptop or workstation that was made some time after the Cretacean? congratulations! your cute little black box is Trusted Computing compliant (r), (c) and (TM)!
From a more technical point of view: Windows doesn't depend on legacy hardware. It used to, in ye olden days (until before Windows Server 2003 R1), but it was so easy to get around it with software emulators (provided by Microsoft herself, as part of Windows NT 4 Embedded, Server Appliance Kit for Windows 2000 Server, et cetera) that only people with a really small penis complained. Nowadays it's a matter of the right boot loader and Hardware Abstraction Layer (all aboard the cluetraaain! if you are among the differently-endowed mouth breathers who confuse "instruction set" with "hardware" - and you know if you are one - this might just be your chance to finally get it!).
Technical trivia: the Windows boot loader is a beauty. It totally mops the floor with anything in the wild, save maybe for Grub. The horrid ntldr flat executable is just a teeny weeny stub containing the real thing, a PE executable called osloader.exe (with a resource section, even - the description simply says "Boot loader"; sadly it has no icon) which is the universal loader - why, yes, your humble peecee can network-boot too! In short, the little bugger comes with a full SCSI+ATAPI stack (it can even stay loaded and be used by the kernel as the SCSI class driver - no shit!), a network stack for the TFTP client (yep) and its very own hardware abstraction layer, since the thing was written against ARC (think EFI, only for the Alpha AXP architecture) which is only really available on Alpha. The thing is a driver model short of a full operating system
So, reconsider the length of your penis in the light of these new facts
Re:Wrath of the Windows Users! (Score:2, Informative)
Maybe you missed the last financial statement, but Apple is now an MP3-PLAYER COMPANY. The majority of Apple's revenue comes from Ipod sales.
Re:Leader of the pack, not (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why is everyone bitching? (Score:1, Informative)
Apple hasn't "locked out" XP users, no more so than microwave manufacturers have locked out aluminum foil users. What's more, EFI can help Linux out, since EFI is supposed to abstract the drivers away from the operating system. Which means you don't have to worry about the shitstorm that is driver support on Linux. And Apple will at least not go out of their way to not support Linux, since they make a profit when they sell the computer, and not when you use their OS.
Good thing you posted AC for this troll.
Re:Motherboard manufacturers would sway this... (Score:3, Informative)
If it weren't for macheads wanting to install Vista on their machines, this wouldn't even be a news story. Intel is more than capable of writing the code Vista needs to boot in whatever way Intel wants it to. If Intel had convinced any OEM but Apple to go EFI with 32-bit chips, then Intel would just hand over the code to MS, and the whole problem would be solved. Besides, every EFI MB out there has a BIOS compatibility mode, which Apple decided they didn't need. This truly is a lot of FUD that only effects Apple. The issue here is that MS doesn't want to put in extra work just to get Vista to boot on a Mac, Intel apparently doesn't either (or has been asked not to by Apple) and Apple sure as hell doesn't want to, which is the whole reason they went with EFI without a compatibility mode to begin with. Right now, EFI only exists in some 64-bit systems, and Macs. I guarantee you, that if tomorrow Intel talked Dell into going EFI with 32-bit CPUs, Vista would support it in whatever configuration Dell needed.
Re:Stupid Question But... (Score:3, Informative)
1) You have legacy apps, particularly games. This doesn't apply to me, since all my apps are for OS X, and the only game I play is multiplayer Neverwinter Nights on our family game night. YMMV.
2) Familiarity with/necessity of Windows. It is generally accepted (though there are dissenters) that Apple makes pretty decent hardware, and that for similarly spec'ed systems, Apple's price is within 5% of Dell's. Personally, I own a dual-processor-dual-core G5 tower, and MAN is that thing nice. I have coworkers, MCSEs and .Net programmers, who absolutely covets that thing. There are all sorts of engineering touches that hardware people might appreciate. So some people would like to have Apple hardware and still be able to use Windows out of need/desire. Again, YMMV.
3) There would be a certain geek-chic to doing this. I don't think this can be underestimated with the /. crowd; the idea of having OS X available and being able to switch to Windows when you want/need to has a certain cool factor to it. There is also that "because it's there" factor that any tinkerer finds appealing. And being the person to do it will give you a modicum of fame (or at least recognition) and respect.
Bull (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Could you at least TRY to get the story right? (Score:3, Informative)
Apple does have a 64-bit machine, the G5. It seems to me that the Core-Duo Intel Macs are just a stopgap until the next Intel Core processors are released in the second half of this year, which are 64-bit. If anything, this is Intel's fault for not starting the Core architecture as a 32-bit platform, then moving to 64-bit for the second rev.
Re:Leader of the pack, not (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Could you at least TRY to get the story right? (Score:2, Informative)
Glad to see yet another clueless Slashdotter jumping on his soapbox proclaiming some "truth" about something he has no clue about.
Re:OSX install size (Score:3, Informative)
I installed Panther on a Rev D iMac with the original 6GB HD and had 2-3 GB left over. That included the Developer tools, too, I think. It does not take 10GB.
Re:One little error. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bull (Score:4, Informative)
No XP doesn't support EFI booting, Windows 2003 64 bit does at this time. The Gateway system has EFI _with_ legacy BIOS support allowing XP to boot on it.
Re:Could you at least TRY to get the story right? (Score:3, Informative)
Nice example of self-contradiction. Apple has come out with 64-bit machines -- they're called G5s -- as you allude to in the last sentence quoted.
What's more Conroe and Merom are supposed to be pin-compatible with the Pentium D and T series CPUs, so you'll be able to plug 'em into your 32-bit Intel Macs when they're available. (Exactly how 64-bit the resulting system will be is another question.)
Apple released 32-bit computers because
So here's the thing: Apple will be shipping 64-bit x86 boxen with EFI by the time Vista comes out, and it may well be possible to turn your existing 32-bit x86 boxen with EFI into 64-bit boxen fairly easily. The real question is why? Is supporting EFI in Vista such a difficult thing to do, or is Microsoft nervous about the impact on marketshare of dual-booting Macs?
My guess is that there will be a good virtual machine implementation on the Mac within six months, allowing Mac users to run Linux, Solaris, Windows, etc. in VMs under 10.4 -- making all of this discussion pretty pointless.
What Vista will do for you (Score:3, Informative)
Give you the same experience as OS X at a higher price, in six confusing variants, with less security, on a new and unproven codebase. From what I've seen, the new Office actually has some pretty cool improvements, but Vista is simply a crude rip-off. "Gadgets" are Widgets, and even the picture-viewer-thingy is a straight iPhoto copy. The list is of things copied is pretty long.
Mind you, it will be big leap for Windows XP users, especially live search. Live search ("Spotlight" on the Mac) changes your life. But for those of us with Macs, it's just Microsoft catching up to the status quo again. Briefly.
Re:Wrath of the Windows Users! (Score:3, Informative)
Simply put, the terms `chunky' and `planar' (short for `bitplanar')
refer to different ways of storing graphics information in a computer's
memory. They are rather easy to understand, as far as things go, but
incredibly difficult to explain:
Computer images are arranged as a grid of pixels, each of which can
be thought of as a number representing the color number of the pixel,
sort of like a paint-by-numbers scheme. For example, here's a
simplified example image, in four colors:
00302132
The Amiga stores this image in a `bitplane' mode. That is, it is
represented by several planes of bits (binary digits, 1s or 0s). This
is a four-color image, so each color number could be represented by two
bits. Therefore there are two bitplanes:
00100110 Here's bitplane 0
00101011 And here's bitplane 1
-------- Now, let's add them up, binary style:
00302132
Which is the final image. If the image was in two dimensions, it
would truly be composed of bit planes. However, I'd need three
dimensions to show multiple bitplanes overlayed, and therefore for
simplicity we're working in one dimension (which is all we need).
Now, there's another way of storing this image. How about if we
localize the bit data in little chunks?
00 00 11 00 01 10 11 01 = 00302132
This is the principle of the `chunky' pixel mode.
Both methods of image storage are perfectly logical, and no one can
say that one is better than the other. However, there are certain
technical aspects which cause certain advantages and disadvantages.
First, if you've seen colored text scroll on your Amiga, you know
there is a bit of "flicker" that arises. Specifically, what happens is
that while the text is scrolling, its color temporarily changes to
something completely different. What's happening is that the computer's
moving several bitplanes of data while the raster (monitor electron
gun) is sweeping across the screen. What that means is that, if the
raster catches the data while it's being moved, you can end up with some
bitplanes being moved and some not. What if we filled bitplane 1 in the
example above with 0s? Instantly all the 3s become 1s, and the 2s
become 0s! This is what causes "flicker" when certain colors are
scrolled. By contrast, if a chunky pixel display is caught while
scrolling, all we see is a partially-scrolled image; the colors are
preserved (since their units are the small ones).
That's a disadvantage to planar pixels, but what about chunky pixels?