Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Windows Vista Beta Running on a PPC Mac 121

Posted by timothy
from the sideways-approaches dept.
goombah99 writes "Macosxhints is giving a set of tips that let any Mac user boot Windows Vista on a Mac. In this case, it's not a native Intel boot but rather VirtualPC running on a PPC G5 Mac. Thus Vista and Mac OS X can run concurrently. There are no extravagant hacks needed, just a matter of finding the right set of configurations to let VirtualPC present the proper disk images for mounting and BIOS settings to the installer. This bodes well for native installs onto the Intel Mac." Actually, there have been successful (though not glitch-free) installs of beta versions of Vista on Intel Macs for a few months now. Here's a report from Hans Verbeeck (Developer Evangelist for Microsoft EMEA) on putting Vista Beta 2 on a MacBook Pro.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows Vista Beta Running on a PPC Mac

Comments Filter:
  • omg (Score:5, Funny)

    by AsmCoder8088 (745645) on Monday June 12, 2006 @02:57PM (#15518644)
    That poor mac!
    • by kesuki (321456)
      I feel it's pain.

      Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be.

      Sure it's cool to mess around and figure out how to get vista to run on mac, but mac is cool because it runs OSX :)

      I'm sure there are people who will buy the intel macs just to play around with this, but most people who buy macs will stick with thinking different :) Still, If I had a Mac I know I'd be tempted to play around and try to get vista running on it, just to say I had. Then I'd probabbly get sick of vista and go back to
    • Im not a fond person of Macs and OSX but i couldnt agree with you more.
  • How so? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gEvil (beta) (945888) on Monday June 12, 2006 @02:58PM (#15518654)
    This bodes well for native installs onto the Intel Mac.

    How so? I would like goombah99 to clarify this statement. As timothy points out, Vista has been installing on Intel Macs for a while. The thing is that it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Vista can run in an x86 emulation environment for a different processor family. It doesn't bode anything at all because it's irrelevent.
    • The headache of installing Vista on a mac intel has been the fact that it won't boot off of the EFI partition block. This has lead to speculation that it may be hard for OSX and Vista to function well togheter on the same computer. Under this vitualized environment the Disk is booting off of a EFI block (holding OSX), and then Vista is running and accessing the same disk not living on it's own disk. The two are running concurrently and not fighting. This is what I meant by bodes well. That is installin
      • Re:How so? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by gEvil (beta) (945888)
        Under this vitualized environment the Disk is booting off of a EFI block (holding OSX)...

        Except PPC Macs use OpenFirmware, not EFI. The first Macs to use EFI were the Intel Macs. And as others have pointed out (which you repeatedly seem to be ignoring), Apple introduced legacy BIOS support for EFI Macs with BootCamp. Since that came out a few months ago, you haven't had to worry about wiping out your EFI partition.

        The bigger news however is headline: vista runs on PPC.

        Vista runs on PPC under an x86
      • Re:How so? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by drinkypoo (153816)
        The bigger news however is headline: vista runs on PPC.

        Uh, no it doesn't. It runs on emulation of an x86, running on a PPC. It does not, repeat NOT run on the PPC hardware. It's in a 100% emulated environment.

  • by PGC (880972) on Monday June 12, 2006 @02:59PM (#15518663)
    WHY?!?!
  • by bsartist (550317) on Monday June 12, 2006 @03:00PM (#15518677) Homepage
    VPC emulates a traditional PC with a BIOS. An Intel Mac is an entirely different beast. Getting Vista to boot in VPC is no more difficult than getting it to boot on a generic "white box" pc, and has just as much relevance to the Intel Mac. That is, none at all.
  • by appleprophet (233330) on Monday June 12, 2006 @03:04PM (#15518707) Homepage
    So an x86 emulator is capable of running Vista, an x86 operating system? Sweet!
  • by mypalmike (454265) on Monday June 12, 2006 @03:08PM (#15518732) Homepage
    I would not predict such a thing. But I would predict an article by Dvorak and/or Cringeley predicting such a thing.

    "You can already run Windows on the Mac. And I'm talking Windows Vista. Microsoft is already doing this internally. Microsoft, given its problems with security, will buy Apple so that it can get its hands on the OS. It will then port the entire Windows API to run on top of the Darwin kernel. With Virtual PC, they're already doing this. The purchase will give Microsoft all the benefits of the Unix security model with the developer base of Windows."
  • by Rorian (88503)
    Given Vista's demand on systems, is there even any point in trying to run it emulated on modern-day hardware? It seems to me like the overhead presented by emulation would bring vista to a grinding halt..
    • Not true, Vista runs well on VMWare on a P4 2.8 with 512 MB RAM allocated to the VM. At this point I'm not a fan of the interface, but it runs and is only limited as far as I can tell by my slow hard drive and the imposed limit on RAM, I will be installing it on a stronger VMWare box this weekend and expect even better results.
      • That's not emulated, only virtualized. Virtual PC in this case is translating machine code, which is totally different.
    • I got vista installed last night in VPC on my dual 2.7ghz G5 w/ 2GB of RAM.

      I allocated 512MB of RAM to the VPC machine and created a 15GB partition. It took about 2 hours to install (from the DVD). It took about 20 minutes to boot, and the UI is about as sluggish as sluggish can get. it reminds me of when I was trying to run windows98 and play halflife through emulation on my old 7600/132 with 128MB RAM.

      Vista is NOT usable in VirtualPC. I guess it'll be ok for rendering a quick site to see how IE7 renders,
  • Vista will flop (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    After trying the Vista beta, I am convinced that it will be a huge huge flop for Microsoft. The thing is that people who likely own hardware capable of running Windows Vista don't need the constant babyish security reminders ("Is it really YOU running this program?") that users who bought an eMachines something five years ago likely do. Does your grandmother have 256 MB of memory? because even with my 128 radeon Vista was sloooow. And I will stick to OS X on my mac, thanks.
    • I think Vista will be a huge success. With M$ partnership with hardware vendors, everyone will be forced to upgrade yet again, and both M$ and the hardware vendors will be advertising like crazy telling us how great vista is and why we MUST have it...
    • The thing is that people who likely own hardware capable of running Windows Vista don't need the constant babyish security reminders

      How insightful, yes. I mean, there's absolutely NO chance that Joe Sixpack is going to spend $2K on a high-end gaming box just so he can have bragging rights. I mean, no one has EVER bought a more powerful machine than they needed! Who would do that? This even translates to cars too, if I may extend that tired old analogy into this arena. No one would ever buy a car with more

      • YOU might keep buying new comptuers. But for people who just browse the internet and use e-mail, the market is saturated. They already have a computer and they don't need a new one because their computer already does everything they want and more.

        Currently, the low-end machines from most major companies do not support Windows Vista. And people who use WWW and e-mail don't want bragging rights and they don't buy gaming computers, they want WWW and e-mail.
        • You really don't understand the consumerist society, do you? People buy new stuff even when the old stuff works just fine. It's about social status and bragging rights. It's got nothing to do with if it works or not. Also, you'd be surprised by the number of people who think that getting a virus means they need to get a new system. There was even a newspaper article around here in my hometown that said something to the effect of "Be careful of viruses. They can delete your data or even destroy your computer
          • You really don't understand the consumerist society, do you? People buy new stuff even when the old stuff works just fine.

            But when you consider all the crud that the typical Windows system is infested with over the course of its "consumerist" lifetime, it would be replacement time after three years regardless of whether the buyer is in touch with their inner fashion god or not.
        • But there is still some upgrading going on. People are aware that their computer is
          5 years behind the curve and so when something goes wrong, instead of spending the
          time and the $50 dollars to replace whatever needs replaceing, people are more likely
          to spend $300 and get a new (low end) machine which will likely have Vista on it.

          That's the how it works. Old machines don't run forever, and the older it is, the more
          likely it is to be considered "totalled" or "untrustworthy" when something does go
          wrong (even i
          • Which low-end machine is capable of running Vista? :-) Apparantly you have not tried the beta. I feel so sorry for the hardware manufacturers... suddenly those low-end machines are going to have to have blow-you-away specs... the real strategy would be to get one of them and install XP.
    • People said the exact same thing when Windows XP came out, if you'll recall.

      128MB of ram? This is ridiculous!
  • So, it's now firmly established that Windows can run on Apple hardware. Are anyone else's feet cold, or is that just me?

    I'm actually thinking that having a Mac might be okay, especially if I can convince the Wife that we'll be getting so much more. Hmm, what was that? Oh you'll have to excuse me. I think I hear Half-Life 2 calling.
    • by Zaphod2016 (971897) on Monday June 12, 2006 @07:45PM (#15520567) Homepage
      Just grabbed a pair of MacBooks for this exact purpose- the *almost* wife and I both need office, and she learned everything on a PC at work. Rather than fight through weeks of "why did they move that button" frusterations, she can just boot into the exact same OS she uses at work (they require IE too...ugh) and get to it.

      Better still- when she doesn't need Windows, she can use OSX, which means less support headaches/spyware hunts for me. According to her, OSX is far "cuter" too, so that's a plus (I think?).

      This is my first Mac since my Apple IIe. It's not the end-all be-all super box that some are claiming, but I gotta admit, it makes *my* life a heck of a lot easier.
  • by ABoerma (941672) on Monday June 12, 2006 @03:11PM (#15518758)
    "Virtualization allows you to run an OS that was designed for another type of hardware. This is news. Really."
  • Do you know what you Mac is doing right now???
  • by iceborer (684929) on Monday June 12, 2006 @03:51PM (#15519078)
    Did anyone else read that as Masochists "giving a set of tips that let any Mac user boot Windows Vista on a Mac?"
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12, 2006 @03:58PM (#15519127)
    I have been tweaking with getting Vista Beta 2 (5384) working since it was released out in the wild. I have been able to install without a glitch, although slow. It works great. I have poked around and found that by installing Virtual Server 2005 R2 and extracting the files and installing the virtual machine additions that come packed with that, that you can get a significance performance increase (ppc virtual pc 7.0.2), although I have yet to get networking and sound working. anyone here been able to get these two devices working?

    you can download Virtual Server 2005 R2 @ http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/virtu alserver/software/default.mspx [microsoft.com] for FREE. As a mac user, I booted into a WinXP virtual machine and performed the following commands to extract the new virtual machine additions to be installed in Vista.

    Command Prompt type:
    -------------------
    setup /c /t c:\temp

    If you then run the following command, you can unpack the MSI file. And you then you have access to the VS2005 R2 additions ISO, which you can install into your VPC (just use the CD -> Capture ISO Image... option)

    msiexec /a "c:\temp\Virtual Server 2005 Install.msi" targetdir=c:\temp\extract /qn

    after doing this, I have been able to install Office 2007 beta on vista's virtual machine with acutally not too bad performance, considering the emulation.
  • Simple but pointless (Score:5, Informative)

    by keot (667523) <keotuk@gmail.com> on Monday June 12, 2006 @04:04PM (#15519175) Homepage
    I did this a few days ago on my 1.67GHz PowerBook G4. Yes I am insane.

    All you need to do is ensure the RAM setting is at 512MB otherwise the installer refuses to work. Then just before booting hit the delete key and enable APCI in the BIOS. Once installed, you can lower the RAM setting to something like 256MB. You also need patience because it took almost four hours to install (although it only asks for information at the beginning and end.)

    It's extremely pointless though. For starters the Aero Glass interface won't work because the best graphics card Virtual PC emulates is a 16MB generic VGA card.

    The only thing I learnt is that Microsoft have created an installer that requires 512MB to merely display a fake Aero Glass interface, you get seemingly random error codes with less RAM. Vista seems to use about 300MB once booted.
  • by xkr (786629) on Monday June 12, 2006 @04:05PM (#15519178)
    Wow. You can take a machine that has almost a zero chance of getting malware and convert it to giant virus magnet. This is like a Priest having sex with every prostitute in the Caribbean. Repeat after me, "Sweet!"
  • But when, oh when, will I be able to natively boot Linux on my Intel Mac?

    -Peter
  • This is not news (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PhunkySchtuff (208108) <kai@automatic[ ]om.au ['a.c' in gap]> on Monday June 12, 2006 @06:39PM (#15520218) Homepage
    There's nothing new here. They're running VirtualPC, so Vista isn't really running on Mac hardware. Even installing vista on intel Mac hardware is very straightforward - if you want to dual-boot OS X and Vista, things get a little more difficult (or impossible?) but if you want to run Vista on an intel Mac, just go ahead an install it. It works.
  • Why? (Score:3, Informative)

    by bpb213 (561569) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .enrybpb.> on Monday June 12, 2006 @07:36PM (#15520522)
    I really have to ask.... WHY!

    I have a 2.1GHz PPC iMac, with 1.5GB ram. I also have Office Professional with VPC. I have VPC to the max amount of memory allowed (512). It has Win XP Professional installed.

    You can JUST ABOUT use VPC to render a page in IE. However, don't try anything with Flash. or Javascript. Or try any form of new application. They all run like molassas. Emulated performance is about a 300MHz machine. VPC is so sluggish, that I bought a wintel box just to do my website checking. (ok, and run oblivion)

    Anyway, point is, XP is slow, Vista I am sure would be unusable.
  • I don't understand why people freak out so much over virtualization, people these products were built to do these types of tasks. Of course it can Windows, hey guess what? It'll also run Slackware, Debian, Fedora, etc. ALL AT THE SAME TIME!

    You are NOT running concurrent OS's, you are running software-rendered hardware that the OS installer is too stupid to figure out that the computer doesn't exist.

    Seriously, can we get better stories than this. Like a HOW-TO on installing OSX as the parent OS on my ho

"Be *excellent* to each other." -- Bill, or Ted, in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure

Working...