No EFI for Vista

[Bizkit]

For the most part, I can sort of see why Microsoft wouldn't want people to duel boot and the Intel Macs. They are having a huge problem with people just downloading XP, and if I have OSX, and just wanted Windows to play games, or a few programs, then it would be hard to fork out $100 to buy it when I can just get it from a friend for free...

It would still be very nice to have OSX and Vista on an iBook or something like that. Too bad. I still have some hope for those smart people that are writing the programs to have something close to the duel boot going.

All we can do is cross our fingers at this point.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

I don't know if anyone mentioned this already, but I believe Vista, and XP64, and possibly Server 2003 already or will natively support booting with EFI on 64-bit chips. The problem is that the Mac implementation boots with a 32-bit chip, so it isn't as much as Vista scrapping or not having features as it is that the Mac isn't using 64-bit chips.

This is Vista not supporting something, yes EFI started with the Itanium chip, but it's not limited to 64bit chips, i have seen 32Bit media center pc's with EFI, only difference is they have a CSM.

The Intel Mac's aren't special, or have some modified "Wont work with Windows" form of EFI, the burden shouldn't be put on Apple in this situation (it really has nothing to do from Apple, apart from the fact it wont boot on 32Bit Intel Macs, like any other 32Bit EFI system without a CSM)

[Gaius Baltar]

ha,

another reason i love my mac,

well i do, it sits there and takes it as i recompose and filter another 3000 or so images and doesn't whine or moan one bit.

but i think this is a major disappointment on microsoft's part.

i mean if they got it working for 64-bit chips why can't they give it out to 32-bit platforms (e.g. laptops).

it's like "hey heres the new os you've been waiting 6 years to see, but sorry it won't be as advanced as the mac....... now will that be cash or card?"

people have a tendency to like having the newest most elitist kit, and i hate the bios, one reason i switched to a mac.

don't have windows, pretty glad too.

just have it for work.

[Vykranth]

This is Vista not supporting something, yes EFI started with the Itanium chip, but it's not limited to 64bit chips, i have seen 32Bit media center pc's with EFI, only difference is they have a CSM.

I did try EFI on HP Itanium boxes with Windows ages ago. Boy, that was a nightmarish clumsy MS-DOS look-a-like at the time. Don't know if that thing evolved but none of the field engineer I worked with could come up with a good thing to say about EFI.

[Gaius Baltar]

.......actually

rethinking that,

it sort of appears like microsoft is giving us all the things we didn't really want that much and not the stuff we did want.

sort of explains ms office :D

ms dog : hey you want to search for files, woof woof?

me : no now go away and leave me in peace...

ms dog : please i can help and get in the way too!!!

me : yes you do

ms dog : aw come on, one more click?

me : NO! just let me search!

ms dog : aw please, here's some more options

me : no, just give me a search box and a button, not all this s##t!

ms dog : awwwww, but i was trying to help, here, have some more option dialogs........

me : RIGHT!

BLAM! BOOM! KAPOW!

knock knock......

me : hello?

police : hello sir?

oh dear,

Edited March 10, 2006 by Gaius Baltar

[TheElite]

Then forget about OSX and talk about Linux, which runs on far more hardware architectures than Windows and supports EFI.

Running on more hardware is certainly not the reason why they're dropping this feature.

how can it "run" more hardware when it doesnt even support drivers for half of the peripherals/hardware that windows supports?

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

I did try EFI on HP Itanium boxes with Windows ages ago. Boy, that was a nightmarish clumsy MS-DOS look-a-like at the time. Don't know if that thing evolved but none of the field engineer I worked with could come up with a good thing to say about EFI.

I assume your talking about the shell?

most of the "cool" things in it are stuff like the EFI Driver Model, or the Universal Graphics Adapter Protocol, just my opinion though.

[ichi]

how can it "run" more hardware when it doesnt even support drivers for half of the peripherals/hardware that windows supports?

Linux runs on about every piece of hardware, not just PCs, and in the PC area Linux supports most part of the available hardware devices.

[madnuke]

Damn EFI could of saved pc technicians a lot of time no more trawling the net to download drivers for old hardware when a flash memory chip could hold them all....

And yeah this is just a jibe at Apple and all the gullible people that thought you would be able to run Windows on a mac. Use linux instead.

[Vykranth]

I assume your talking about the shell?

most of the "cool" things in it are stuff like the EFI Driver Model, or the Universal Graphics Adapter Protocol, just my opinion though.

Indeed, I was refering to the shell: it was the first thing I saw from that machine late 2002 and I was "Oh My God? is that MS-Dos on Itanium"

Yes, EFI is an interesting specification to replace the decaying BIOS but that's still a evolving tech: the UEFI 2.0 specs have only recently been posted.

[SnowRanger13]

Someone will figure it out. They need to recreate Virtual PC for mac. Since it dosen't have to emulate acutecture anymore there should be a good preformance boost.

[freeeekyyy]

Service Packs shouldn't have to exsist.

Well, all Oses have them, just by different names. Get the stick out of your butt.

[MrA]

EFI can load any program, including a traditional BIOS.

If Apple junkies want to run XP on their new Macs, they can write a no-frills BIOS. XP only needs a few Interrupts to set up and boot.

This isn't a problem. A compatibility module (CSM) can be used to give BIOS functionality. The problem is the partition table that the macs use. They use a GPT (the EFI parition table) while windows only support the old (and very bad) PC partition table. So you can't dual boot. Now that raises the question of if you were to remove OSX and repartition, could you install windows?

Just like GRUB can chainload the Windows bootloader, you could just write a EFI bootloader, I haven't looked into the differences between EFI and standard BIOS, but I'll see.

The two are VERY different. The windows bootloader needs the BIOS.

[ThePitt]

Because the Apple Intel Mac platform is entirely new, it does not have any legacy support concerns.

Enough to say

[chopyaedoff]

Instead of Vista being a next-gen OS - it'll be no better than XP because of all the stuff the have scraped (so that they get it out and start making money).

P.S. I will be sticking with good ol' W2K3 until Vista offers something worthwhile.

[Simon Veteran]

I think Microsoft should take the time to set this up. It can't be too hard, and they'd get a bit more money off of it.

Or charge extra for a CD that will get it to run on EFI.

[chisss]

it does suck that MS took most of the "new and good" stuff out of the actual release of Vista. I see many ppl saying "i wont move to Vista" but I bet any amount of money that they will be the first ones to move :D

[scyphe]

People are forgetting one thing in the "OSX has it, why not Windows?" argument. That OSX is designed to run on a fairly minimal amount of hardware, where as Windows is designed to run on every possible configuration of computer... old or new.

I was quite looking forward to this EFI stuff, although I know little about it.

You nailed that one right on the head. Apple tailors everything from the hardware to the OS to work which makes the whole deal a LOT easier. MS have the task of making Windows work on a million+ different hardware combinations.

edit: I just read this statement from one of Apple's higher software developers, Cameron Esfahani:

"Apple chose not to include many of the functions that EFI defines to support backwards compatibility because they're not useful to OS X while they're probably fundamental to Windows."

Hmm....

Edited March 11, 2006 by scyphe

[Peter McGrath]

They have a point, do any of you have a PC with EFI? I doubt it. It's useless right now. BUT...

Some IBM servers have it but its BIOS and EFI so you can mix and match. Of course all the MACTEL people have PC's now with EFI :)

[gigapixels Veteran]

You nailed that one right on the head. Apple tailors everything from the hardware to the OS to work which makes the whole deal a LOT easier. MS have the task of making Windows work on a million+ different hardware combinations.

Once again, take this argument to Linux if you think it holds up, because it doesn't. Linux supports EFI yet can run on as many different configurations as Windows can.

[Peter McGrath]

the burden shouldn't be put on Apple in this situation (it really has nothing to do from Apple, apart from the fact it wont boot on 32Bit Intel Macs, like any other 32Bit EFI system without a CSM)

Apple could very easily release an update to the MACTEL PC's BIOS so it would be either EFI or BIOS.

"Apple chose not to include many of the functions that EFI defines to support backwards compatibility because they're not useful to OS X while they're probably fundamental to Windows."

Hmm....

LOL - I can see the photo's now. Bill Gates uses an Apple Mac at the office (runing windows!).

[Si Veteran]

Well as far as the Intel Macs go, Apple appear to have left open the ability for people to write their own BIOS compatibility mode plugin for EFI...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32436196@N00/110650771/

:D

[BajiRav]

EFI might be very important...but I don't care about something which I don't see for weeks (if not months). Seriously, what are the advantages of EFI for day-to-day usage ? :blush:

[viciv]

Well as far as the Intel Macs go, Apple appear to have left open the ability for people to write their own BIOS compatibility mode plugin for EFI...

i see hope :)

[Peter McGrath]

Apple could very easily release an update to the MACTEL PC's BIOS so it would be either EFI or BIOS.

And they did :)