Windows Vista Beta Running on a PPC Mac 121
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.
Yes it is news (Score:2, Insightful)
Other's have only been able to install Vista by wiping out the EFI boot partition. Here's a way to concurrently run Vista. It shows it can be done without reformating the disk.
Second,
it shows that Contrary to rumors, Vista is not crippled against running on macs or under virtual systems.
Third,
it shows macs meet the minumum specs for Vista, so one need not hesitate about buying a mac now if one was worried about running vista.
Fourth,
i
Re:Yes it is news (Score:5, Informative)
PowerPC-based Macs (you know, what the article is about) don't have EFI partitions. Unless I'm missing something, there's nothing about this that indicates that Vista can be run concurrently with OS X on Intel-based Macs.
Re:Yes it is news (Score:2)
Maybe using Virtual PC on Intel Macs? It'll run under Rosetta, I'm sure; and Universal builds can't be far away.
Re:Yes it is news (Score:1)
Re:Yes it is news (Score:2)
Are you? From what I've heard, it won't run under Rosetta because of weird dynamic code generation stuff it does, or something.
Not to mention that an x86 version of it would kind of be a completely different program, since it would be doing x86->x86 virtualization instead of x86->ppc emulation. Somehow I doubt that's the kind of code that can be made universal with just a recompile, ya know?
Re:Yes it is news (Score:2)
The fact that you can run Vista on Virtual PC on a PPC machine says absolutely nothing about whether or not you will be able to run it on an Intel Mac.
Re:Yes it is news (Score:2)
Bold text is mine - it's an important distinction to make. VPC emulates a traditional PC, not an Intel Mac with an EFI boot partition.
it shows that Contrary to rumors, Vista is not crippled against running on macs or under virtual systems.
How seriously did anyone take the tinfoil hat brigade and their conspiracy theories anyway?
it shows Virtual PC running on PPC G5 macs meet the minumum specs
Re:Yes it is news (Score:2)
Ummm, if you mean that Vista will run on Intel Macs under a virtualization environment, then yes, it can. However, I don't think anyone ever doubted that you'd be able to do it. Well, anyone that actually has a clue about these things, at least.
Re:Yes it is news (Score:2)
How would it “know?”
How?
As someone who spends an inordinate amount of development time running XP on 10.4 via VPC, no, it really, really doesn’t mean that, anymore than viewing screen shots of the operating systems side by side in a magazine gives you a feel for how responsive the GUI might be if a train left Chicago on Tu
Re:Yes it is news (Score:1)
Re:Yes it is news (Score:2)
Re:Yes it is news (Score:1)
MOD PARENT UP! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Yes it is news (Score:3, Insightful)
2. This is a BETA and most if not all the retail checking mecha
Re:Yes it is news (Score:2)
Not news. People have been using virtual machines for reasons exactly like those for years.
t shows that Contrary to rumors, Vista is not crippled against running on macs or under virtual systems.
Not news. How would Vista know or even care that it's running on a virtual machine?
it shows macs meet the minumum specs for Vista, so one
omg (Score:5, Funny)
Re:omg (Score:2)
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
Re:omg (Score:2)
SG
Re:omg (Score:1)
How so? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:How so? (Score:1)
Re:How so? (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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.
For the love of god... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:For the love of god... (Score:2)
Re:For the love of god... (Score:1)
Running under VPC on my iMac G5, WinXP barely manages to crawl. Either someone is exaggerating when they say Vista 'runs', or this is some new usage of the word 'run' that I wasn't previously familiar with.
Re:I'll be annoyed (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:I'll be annoyed (Score:1)
I had this problem with my rebuilt PC. My motherboard died so I replaced it (and only the mb) and tried to do a fresh install of windows. I kept getting that same error.
It turned out my memory went bad, running memtest86 revealed it failing some tests. I don't know if the memory died along with the motherboard or if I mishandled it when tr
Re:I'll be annoyed (Score:1)
The next one, was to make sure that I'm installing off a DVD-ROM drive, and *not* a burner. This was the biggest problem I had. I could *not* get Beta 1 to install at all
Re:I'll be annoyed (Score:1)
hmmm
Re:I'll be annoyed (Score:1)
I hope it works out for you. I was upset when I figured out that that was the problem. It's like, why should that make a difference? *sigh* Maybe I should file a bug, I mean, how could they not already know about it though?
No a single bump in the road here... (Score:1)
Just for kicks, I used my Mac Book (booted to XP PRO) to d/l the ISO, booted to OS X, burned the IS0 using disk utility (BTW - the file was on the FAT32 Windows partition - created by Boot-Camp), then ran the install as an upgrade from within XP Pro on a Dell Optiplex - also using a DVD-drive - not a conbo burner. Aside from a long install time - it was close to two hours - whenI finally booted to Vista, I had Aero, network worked, and all apps that I currently use seemed to work fine. I do have a 256 me
Re:I'll be annoyed (Score:1)
With a great big ZOTZ!!
Abra-Cadaver, is that you?
This has nothing to do with Intel Macs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This has nothing to do with Intel Macs (Score:2)
As it stands Apple beat everyone to the punch and there's no news in it at all now.
Re:This has nothing to do with Intel Macs (Score:2)
Hell, all they'd have to do to make it "news" would be boot Vista on a PC with the processor fan running at 12 volts [slashdot.org]
Re:This has nothing to do with Intel Macs (Score:2)
Disclaimer: this is a joke. I imagine that the code-generating nature of VirtualPC might mean that it breaks Rosetta (ignoring the dreadful net performance, if it would actually "work").
x86 emulator runs x86 OS? (Score:5, Funny)
Even more amazing... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Even more amazing... (Score:1, Redundant)
Microsoft to buy Apple. (Score:5, Funny)
"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."
Re:Microsoft to buy Apple. (Score:1)
Exciting
Re:Microsoft to buy Apple. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft to buy Apple. (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, GREAT.
with the developer base of Windows
Oh, EVEN BETTER!
Re:Microsoft to buy Apple. (Score:1)
Re:Microsoft to buy Apple. (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft to buy Apple. (Score:2)
Re: Microsoft to buy Apple. (Score:2)
(I mean 'cares' as in 'wants to improve', of course, not as in 'wants to use as an excuse to charge people more money'.)
Re:Mac OSX on PCs? THIS is what I am waiting for.. (Score:3, Informative)
And then Apple would go out of business.
Rule #1 when it comes to understanding Apple is this: Apple is a hardware company . They make their money selling those Macs and iBooks, and if they lose that revenue stream they go out of business. That is why Apple will
Re:Mac OSX on PCs? THIS is what I am waiting for.. (Score:1)
I know it's a douchey fanboy thing to point out, but clarity is always a good thing. It can get confusing when you send an email telling a staffer how to "assign a MAC to the MAC".
Re:Mac OSX on PCs? THIS is what I am waiting for.. (Score:1)
Especially considering that MAC equipment is way overpriced just to run windows on it.
Machine Access Code equipment is way overpriced? Holy shit, what's a network admin to do???
Re:Mac OSX on PCs? THIS is what I am waiting for.. (Score:2)
Media Access Control address (MAC address). (wtf is a Machine Access Code?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Access_Control [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAC_address [wikipedia.org]
Re:Mac OSX on PCs? THIS is what I am waiting for.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Simple reason to put Windows on a Macbook Pro: Games. I'm tired of having reconnect my monitor to a Windows machine for games and one for my PowerMac. The ONLY reason I keep a Windows machine around is to play games. I don't use it for anything else. OS
Re:Mac OSX on PCs? THIS is what I am waiting for.. (Score:2)
Speed? (Score:1)
Re:Speed? (Score:1)
Re:Speed? (Score:2)
Re:Speed? (Score:2)
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)
Re:Vista will flop (Score:1)
Re:Vista will flop (Score:1)
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
Re:Vista will flop (Score:2)
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.
Re:Vista will flop (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Vista will flop (Score:2)
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.
Re:Vista will flop (Score:2)
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
Re:Vista will flop (Score:2)
Re:Vista will flop (Score:1)
128MB of ram? This is ridiculous!
Two for the price of, err, two? (Score:1)
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.
Re:Two for the price of, err, two? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Misleading headline... (Score:4, Insightful)
Since you claim to have read the article, you'd have noticed that the big deal isn't "It works in an emulator" but rather "At first it wouldn't install in VPC, but someone found a neat trick to get it to install." I didn't even know it was possible to get into a BIOS setup screen in VPC.
I agree, it would be extremely slow though. I have a Dual 1.8GHz G5, and the Virtual PC seems to run at ~350 MHZ for me (not a scientific measurement... just a guess based on how it 'feels'). Considering Vista's minimum requirements are at least 800 MHz, I wouldn't want to use it on a regular basis.
That being said, I'm going to try it out anyway, just to take a look at Vista.
Re: Verizon Chaperone (Score:2, Funny)
Macosxhints? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Macosxhints? (Score:2)
Virtual PC 7.0.2 PPC - Network, Sound working? (Score:4, Informative)
you can download Virtual Server 2005 R2 @ http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/virt
Command Prompt type:
-------------------
setup
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
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)
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.
like a priest having sex with every prostitute (Score:4, Funny)
Re:like a priest having sex with every prostitute (Score:1)
Intel Mac (Score:2)
-Peter
This is not news (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
uhhh . . . come on, this isn't news (Score:1)
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
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
From a personal standpoint, some of the reasons for wanting to do this are:
1. I like working on Macs but it's a Windows world out there. I need to be able to run some Windows software but don't want to buy and maintain a separate machine just to do that.
2. Running VirtualPC makes it easer for me to share the data between my Mac and the Windows machine I occasionally need to use.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)
well, some of us already have a PPC mac. I use VPC for 2 reasons; primarily to test how websites look/work in different versions of IE. sure, you could build a cheap x86 machine and pop a bunch of different versions of windows on there, but that can be expensive and requires a lot of rebooting. with VPC, I can see win2k and XP side by side, and when I close the window, it freezes the state, so I don't need to reboot windows every time I fire up VPC.
the other reason is to test how code works in cygwin and occasionally how pygtk apps run in windows.
I tried installing the vista public beta last night, but it failed complaining about the bios thing and I assumed that it wasn't possible to do, but now that this has been shown to be possible, I can actually see how the new version of IE will render my sites. I'm not really looking forward to seeing how it'll perform, though. XP is only usable for webstuff. win2k runs pretty well. my dual 2.7ghz G5 emulates about a 550mhz pentium4, so I'd hate to see what a mess vista will be.
Re:Why? (Score:2)
In fact, Apple will have a hard time beating the price of a Dual DualCore G5.
Just compare what a fully stacked XW9300 or Ultra40 would cost.
Also, the the PPC-Mini was cheaper than the current Intel Mini - IIRC.