apcmag.com — 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.
Mar 10, 2006 View in Crawl 4
oepapelMar 11, 2006
"Forget the whole dual booting rubbish."It's not rubbish. It's the first step in achieving a truly universal hardware platform. The ultimate goal is getting a machine that can run XP apps, OS/X apps, KDE/GNOME apps all simultaneously without emulation, compatibility layers or rebooting. Just because you can't see the wide potential for such a system for users and developers doesn't mean that it doesn't have value for the rest of the world. With the Vanderpool technology in Intel's Core chips, multiple OS's can run simultaneously within the context of a hypervisor. But the first step is getting the other OS's to boot.
sneeka2Mar 15, 2006
mgrasso:So...- Vista doesn't have all the promised features.- Vista is horribly late.- Vista will most certainly have a lot of bugs (hey, we're talking 'bout MS here).What was that talk about 2 out of 3 things again...?
oepapelMar 18, 2006
"there are many other dual-core processors that support 64-bit computing. Nobody put a gun to their head."That is the dumbest argument I've heard. They were already using a G5 with 64 bit support and were running into problems with heat dissipation keeping the G5 out of the powerbooks. The only dual core Intel's with 64 bit support were the 8x0 series which were ALSO too hot to put into a notebook. Plus, why switch to the P4 based dual cores when Intel is basing their entire product line on PM based dual cores? That would have been a really dumb switch. No new powerbooks and buying the last of a product line before it became obsoleted. And don't even try and mention AMD because they were never in the running. "I'm talking about upgradability, not updating. It was impossible for Mac users to be able to increase the memory, change their cd/dvd drives or upgrade their processors and knowing how fast technology changes, a month after the "new" Apple computers were released, they'd look outdated because they were not upgradable."Which Mac's can't get more memory added to them? You might have to buy "Apple" compatible memory from Kinston but that's the same as with any company and memory. As for their CD/DVD drives, they use industry standard drives that are available from many third parties. The CPU's are as upgradeable as any PC. You are spreading lies, misinformation, and rumor and trying to pass it off as fact."It is so rigid. It's always the Apple way or the highway."Welcome to the computer industry. You could say the same about Dell. Or gateway. Or Lenovo. You either follow the official guidelines of the manufacturer or else risk losing your warranty."That proves two things. One, it's the point I've been trying to reiterate - it's always Apple's way or the highway hence the lack of upgradability of hardware."Just because Apple chooses to not support every POS piece of hardware out there does not mean that it's products are inferior. In fact, the lack of questionable hardware devices has greatly contributed to the stability and the performance of its products. Other companies that care about quality do the same thing. Pick an industry. Every company that builds it's reputation on quality and dependability severely limits or completely denies a third party aftermarket for it's products."Two, you haven't been reading Digg as often (not that it's a crime). OS X is being hacked pretty well and is being used widely on non-Apple hardware. But I agree with you, it's not the same as turning on an iMac."Just because you CAN run OS/X on a PC doesn't mean you should. Aside from the legality (which will keep it out of the business world), you have no assurance that when something goes wrong that it isn't your choice of hardware that is the problem. Apple does quality control on it's own hardware. Even otherwise identical hardware can have different firmware (DVD's being a big culprit here) and can cause all kinds of instability. Whose fault is it when it doesn't work. You or Apple. They never said it would and the last thing they want is some guy with a screwdriver and a bag of junk parts thinking that he can build a Mac. It only disparages their brand when it doesn't work."It's what has been tying them down. Steve Jobs doesn't realize it. Or maybe he just wants to be the true monopoly of both hardware and software unlike Microsoft which just wants to indirectly monopolize the hardware through their software. Ain't that the irony."So you seem to think that you know better than Steve Jobs on this one? Maybe you should get a history book and see what happened the LAST time that Apple opened it's software to run on compatibles. It was a disaster for the company and one of the first things that Steve did on his return was pull the "Mac compatible" licenses. The quality of the machines was too low, the profit was non-existant and the customer was hung out to dry when problems arose. "Bottom line: let's face it, if somebody was given a choice of buying a Mac computer without the OS or buying just the OS that will run on any hardware, they will choose the latter. "That's a useless argument because they AREN'T sold separately. That's like saying, given the choice between the front half of a chevy or the rear half of a chevy, most users would choose the front half. Apple sells computers. Not computer hardware in isolation or computer software in isolation. Even their peripherals division follows that mentality. The iPod (hardware) is sold to be used with iTunes (software). The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. The value to the customer is that they buy a solution that has been thought out from beginning to end. Anyone can sell an OS.
1821Apr 17, 2006
<a class="user" href="http://www.iwebtool.com/tools/">http://www.iwebtool.com/tools/</a>