PDA

View Full Version : news: XP on a Mac (without breaking licences..)


eek
03-19-2006, 03:38 AM
I know its been discussed before, but this is not a hack it uses a legal version of xp, and doesnt break any of the licencing laws of either software. Its developing fast, they just got it working on the mini. check out the discussion boards for a tutorial on dual booting it.

They have won the 13k prize of getting xp on a mac.

http://twit.tv/mb4

JDex
03-19-2006, 03:47 AM
Thanks for the TWiT link... my itunes is offline, so this was a great surprise to me.

Thanks eek!

GothTropic411
03-19-2006, 05:05 PM
Doesn't one get a Mac to avoid Microsoft? :rolleyes:

UrbanFuturistic
03-19-2006, 05:31 PM
No, some of us get computers based on what we need them to do, not layer 10 decisions.

CupOWonton
03-20-2006, 06:56 AM
Hm, so lets see, they got an os to run on a computer it wasnt specificly designed to, but because its now intell based, it was possible. Ok? Doesnt mean all games programs or anything is realy going to run STABLE.

noisewar
03-20-2006, 07:33 AM
Hm, so lets see, they got an os to run on a computer it wasnt specificly designed to, but because its now intell based, it was possible. Ok? Doesnt mean all games programs or anything is realy going to run STABLE.

I'd otherwise completely agree with your opinion, except for the little fact that it isn't worth $13,000 like their counterview happens to be. I'd be happy to collect donations for a "missing-the-point" award if enough interest warrants it :rolleyes:

Para
03-20-2006, 08:27 AM
Doesn't one get a Mac to avoid Microsoft? :rolleyes:

Well, no one certainly isn't getting a Mac for the hardware :p


Sorry, I just had to reply to a troll post with a troll post.

Srek
03-20-2006, 08:37 AM
Well, no one certainly isn't getting a Mac for the hardware :p
Besides me having trouble to understand the double negation in your sentence i tend to disagree. I'm no fan of OS X but the hardware Apple builds is appealing to me.
Cheers
Björn

parallax
03-20-2006, 09:13 AM
Now that it's a reality, there is one thing that is really interesting:

How will applications perform on a WinMac? ie Adobe After Effects on a Windows PC vs. After Effects on a WinMac vs. After Effects on OS-X.
And as i write this post, i realise there is no longer such a thing as a PC vs. a Mac.

Windows on Mac effectively proofs the fact that Macusers are running a niche market OS on overexpensive hardware. (not that it wasn't already a scientific fact, but hey, the proof just got better.)

I wonder if this is good, or bad for OS-X. This certainly isn't an incentive to write more programs for OS-X.

beaker
03-20-2006, 09:47 AM
How will applications perform on a WinMac? ie Adobe After Effects on a Windows PC vs. After Effects on a WinMac vs. After Effects on OS-X.We will be able to tell with software like modo and cinema4d, but stuff from Adobe, won't be universal app ready till the end of the year when Creative Suite 3 comes out.

Srek
03-20-2006, 09:51 AM
We will be able to tell with software like modo and cinema4d
A CINEMA user already reported comparable render benchmarks for an Intel Mac running XP and OS X. Due to lack of support for the graphics card when using XP a comparison wasn't possible for OGL.
Cheers
Björn

Para
03-20-2006, 10:01 AM
Besides me having trouble to understand the double negation in your sentence i tend to disagree. I'm no fan of OS X but the hardware Apple builds is appealing to me.
Cheers
Björn

You do know what an internet troll is, right? :)

PokeChop
03-20-2006, 02:28 PM
Microsoft Vista OpenGL support. Hmmmmmmm.

http://www.opengl.org/

Mar 15, 2006

Microsoft has enabled support for OpenGL ICDs that work with the Windows Vista compositing desktop, as of the February preview build. This is taken from a Microsoft blog:


“Windows Vista ICD’s - this is a new path for 3rd party ICD’s introduced for Windows Vista that will work in a way that is compatible with desktop composition. Essentially allowing direct access to the GPU for hardware accellaration, but then having the final surface that appears to be the front buffer to the application actually be a shared surface that gets composed by the DWM”.


This means that the OpenGL API and the Aeroglass window manager will work in harmony and fully accelerated once the hardware vendors get their Vista ICDs written and released.


Kudos to all developers who contacted their ISVs/HSVs to ensure that OpenGL was fully supported under Vista. You made the difference.

almux
03-20-2006, 04:00 PM
Now that it's a reality, there is one thing that is really interesting:

How will applications perform on a WinMac? ie Adobe After Effects on a Windows PC vs. After Effects on a WinMac vs. After Effects on OS-X.
And as i write this post, i realise there is no longer such a thing as a PC vs. a Mac.

Windows on Mac effectively proofs the fact that Macusers are running a niche market OS on overexpensive hardware. (not that it wasn't already a scientific fact, but hey, the proof just got better.)

I wonder if this is good, or bad for OS-X. This certainly isn't an incentive to write more programs for OS-X.

Hmm not to raise polemics Mac vs PC... yet, before buying a new Computer 4 years ago, i checked between PC and Mac prices for the same type of machine... and a farely approaching PC was almost double the price the Mac i bought... So to my experience, Mac is not an "overexpensive hardware", for professionnal use in any case.

mummey
03-20-2006, 04:15 PM
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/802.html

BigJay
03-20-2006, 04:26 PM
As for cost with these duals the pc is cheaper. I friend just purchased a comparible 17 inch dual core 1.8Mhz with a gig of ram Dell for $1200, with tax and shipping.

I really need my software to work. So I really couldn't care less if it is Windows, OS 9 or X or Linux or even BEos or OS/2. Long as my 3d software works, photoshop can run and my files stay where I put them it really doesn't matter.

I just can't understand all this fighting over the OS when we are still using the same software reguardless.

pixelmonk
03-20-2006, 05:05 PM
Besides me having trouble to understand the double negation in your sentence i tend to disagree. I'm no fan of OS X but the hardware Apple builds is appealing to me.
Cheers
Björn

"Besides me" "to understand" "i". You're having trouble understanding his sentence construction?

Apple has not built appealing hardware in years. They need Intel to help them build new appealing software. I will never buy a Mac, and I hate the smug Steve Jobs, but I'm glad the new Mac Intels are out. I hope it will help foster more competition, including any Mac clones that may pop up over the next few years.

fahr
03-21-2006, 05:05 AM
I found the sleek hardware/awesome software combo so appealing that I ditched windows (which I used for years) for a powermac G5 and have never looked back since, so not everyone feels the same way as certain pc-fanboys on this forum. :P

CupOWonton
03-21-2006, 06:21 AM
Let me phrase my original statement.

This was not worth $13,000 in any way.

The documentation i've seen on this essentialy stated this was an easy process because the mac was essentialy just an intell that needed some bios work. Had they loaded windows on a previous mac, sure, job well done, but this is just stupid.

We have yet to see this thing do anything other than load basic functions. Try and pop a brand new "Hardcore" game on it, see what happens.

Programs arent realy going to run stable on a hardware combo they werent meant to be on. And considering Apple is going to want to distance itself from Microsoft just to keep their own market safe, I doubt theyre going to make it easy to continue doing this in other models. Apple thrives on its brand, if people arent realy interested in its brand and only intells box, Apple isnt going to do very well. If people did start loading Windows onto Mac Boxes that doesnt speak well for mac, because it isnt realy their box, its intell.

Also, what kind of security will you have on said box without any official support for that combination? Its just not a smart idea.

beaker
03-21-2006, 06:37 AM
The documentation i've seen on this essentialy stated this was an easy process because the mac was essentialy just an intell that needed some bios work.
Programs arent realy going to run stable on a hardware combo they werent meant to be on.
You should try not to make two opposing statements.

Apple box uses exact standard hardware that any other core duo pc has(look at the config). All Apple adds is a pretty case to the mix and an OS. So what difference does it make if your running Windows on a Mac or Windows on a Dell? As you said, in your first statement, it is just an intel box with a different bios.


And considering Apple is going to want to distance itself from Microsoft just to keep their own market safe, I doubt theyre going to make it easy to continue doing this in other models. Apple thrives on its brand, if people arent realy interested in its brand and only intells box, Apple isnt going to do very well. If people did start loading Windows onto Mac Boxes that doesnt speak well for mac, because it isnt realy their box, its intell. If Apple is selling hardware, they are making money, so I can't see why they would care.

Also, what kind of security will you have on said box without any official support for that combination? Its just not a smart idea.So according to your logic it is a bad idea to run any OS that the manufacturer didn't make the machine for. So for example you should never run linux on any computer that doesn't offer a linux option on. No Dell's, no home built machines that don't come with linux, no consumer HP, Compaq, Gateway, etc... boxes. Only highend 5-8k IBM, HP, and Boxx machines that offer Linux as an option.

Also on those machines that do offer Linux, you should never run anything but Suse and Redhat WS because all the others don't have "official" support(Gentoo and Debian and Ubuntu).

Sorry, but that logic just doesn't make sense.

parallax
03-21-2006, 09:39 AM
Hmm not to raise polemics Mac vs PC... yet, before buying a new Computer 4 years ago, i checked between PC and Mac prices for the same type of machine... and a farely approaching PC was almost double the price the Mac i bought... So to my experience, Mac is not an "overexpensive hardware", for professionnal use in any case.

You must be joking. It hasn't been that way since the late G3 days or even earlier, and that's like in '98.

almux
04-09-2006, 10:05 AM
You must be joking. It hasn't been that way since the late G3 days or even earlier, and that's like in '98.
Well, it was 4 years ago, when i bought my Dual 1ghz G4 with 2 gb ram, 2 80gb installed hardrives... The equivalent Pc was a Sun Microsystem.
My Mac (with all my alraeady aquired apps running) = less than 5000 swiss francs (around 3500$ at this time change rates) All taxes included
The PC (with some apps not existing on PCs and all others with quite expensive crossgrades NOT inclued) = about 15'000 swiss francs (around 11'000$ at that time change rates).
So to me i even had'nt to think about twice.

Actualy (when ever it can't yet run windows apps - but it will with Leopard's OSX coming virtualisation) The G5 Quad is still the fastest with best price-power workstation on earth...

CGTalk Moderation
04-09-2006, 10:05 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.