On CNET: Apple TV gets HD and Genius
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet

By Ina Fried
Posted on ZDNet News: Jan 20, 2006 8:05:00 PM

Apple Computer's announcement of new Macs based on processors from Intel raises an interesting question: Since both the Mac and Windows operating systems now run on Intel-based hardware, shouldn't it be easy to run both on the same computer?

That simple question deserves a simple answer. But there isn't one--at least not right now. Reaching the nirvana of running the two most popular desktop operating systems on one machine is a lot harder than you might expect.

Apple has said that it wasn't planning to support Windows on the "MacTel," but the company also said it wouldn't try to stop people from doing so. Still, some of the technical choices Apple has made in designing the new Intel-based Macs have made running Windows a challenge.

Intel iMac impressions

Ten thoughts for anyone considering whether to pick up the newest twist on the Apple machine.
Click here for story

The good news? Plenty of people have been working to break down the barriers, so it should only be a matter of time before Windows shows up on the iMac's 20-inch widescreen display.

Even after solving the technical challenges, there are also legal hurdles. Just because you might get Windows running on a Mac, or Tiger running on their Dell, doesn't mean it's legal.

Finally, even if the legal and technical obstacles are overcome, many people say just being able to boot both operating systems independently is not the answer. Most people will want the systems to interact, which means some form of emulation or virtualization. Some small developers are making promises in this area, but just how quickly this will happen--or how quickly the emulated OS will run--remains to be seen.

We're not engineers or lawyers, but here's our best stab at answering some common questions:

Q: So if the Mac runs on Intel chips and Windows runs on Intel processors, what's the holdup?
A: The challenge comes in the technical means by which the operating systems load. Windows loads itself using something known as the Basic Input/Output System, or BIOS. Apple's Intel Macs, however, use a newer technology known as Extensible Firmware Interface.

"These different firmware environments will separate MacOS and Windows environments almost as effectively as instruction set architecture did when Macintosh software ran only on PowerPC chips," chip analyst Nathan Brookwood said in an e-mail.

Related video
CNET editors' review
Watch CNET's video review of the Apple iMac Core Duo.

But not everyone is convinced the obstacles are so insurmountable. Envisioneering analyst Peter Glaskowsky noted that Gateway had a Windows Media Center PC back in 2003 that used EFI rather than BIOS. Gateway, Glaskowsky said, had to change the boot loader that manages how operating systems load.

"It's just not a big deal," Glaskowsky told CNET News.com. "At some point, I expect it would be in the next week or two, somebody will figure out how to change boot loader on those Macs so that it is smart enough to do the same thing."

In any case, word is that the next version of Windows, called Vista, will support EFI. Enthusiasts claim to have made some progress in loading test versions of Vista onto an Intel Mac, though the work is not yet complete.

Q: OK, that sounds complicated. So what about running Linux on an Intel-based Mac?

A: Discussions about the idea quickly cropped up on a mailing list for Red Hat's Fedora version of Linux. The verdict: Again, it's a matter of writing the right code, but it's not simple.

The challenge here is not the chip, but the way that the operating systems boot. Most Linux versions use a boot loader called GRUB that doesn't support EFI at present, though Itanium versions of the operating system use a different one called Elilo that does.

Q: What about going in the other direction: How about running the Mac OS on other Intel machines, like a standard PC?

A: Apple has said that it will take steps to prevent this from happening. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," Senior Vice President Phil Schiller said in a June interview. The company has not gone into specifics, but appears to be using a TPM (trusted protection module) chip as part of its authentication mechanism.

Q: OK, how about programs like Virtual PC, then, that run under the Mac OS but allow Windows emulation?

A: Microsoft, which now owns Virtual PC, has been a bit cagey on when, or even if, it will bring out Virtual PC for the Intel Mac. The company's public statement is that it sees a need for such software, but hasn't decided whether it will do it. However, the Wall Street Journal's Walt Mossberg said Microsoft is doing a version and will have it ready next year.

Other emulation makers have been more direct. One small company, iEmulator, has promised that it will have an Intel-native version of its software by the end of February. "We're already in early testing," said general manager John Czlonka. "The performance increase is staggering."

Q: Technical issues aside, is it legal to run Windows on a Mac?

A: It seems so, but only by purchasing a full copy of the OS, not the upgrade versions typically bought by consumers. Microsoft says that a fully licensed copy of Windows XP Professional can be properly licensed if run on an Intel Mac.

Q: What about running the Mac OS on a non-Apple PC?
A: There isn't a legal way to do that, given that Apple doesn't sell standalone versions of its operating system. Because all Macs come with some form of the Mac OS, the retail boxes that Apple sells are only licenses to upgrade from one version to another.

CNET News.com's Stephen Shankland contributed to this report.

  • Talkback
  • Most Recent of 169 Talkback(s)
There were win95/98 upgrades that were bootable
When will everybody learn that legal definitions have no relationship with reality?

The license can say whatever it likes, a bootable OS/X CD that loads every single file onto the hard drive ca... (Read the rest)
Posted by: wolf_z Posted on: 02/15/06 You are currently: Logged In | Log out
Q: What about running the Mac OS on a non-Apple PC? nomorems   | 01/20/06
You are wrong - it was an upgrade! zaphod@...   | 01/20/06
Is that spelled out in the license? tic swayback   | 01/20/06
That's a great question Real World   | 01/20/06
And thus Duel Boot lyjahbaer   | 01/22/06
There's a big problem with dual booting. olePigeon   | 01/23/06
Not exactly lyjahbaer   | 02/03/06
Misunderstanding Bill Snebold   | 01/20/06
Read for yourself tic swayback   | 01/20/06
Mac OS X prtaylor@...   | 01/20/06
Not an answer tic swayback   | 01/20/06
Jargon aside, sound and fuy DevinAt3Sharp   | 01/21/06
But, What's an "Apple-labled" Computer? GeneBuettner   | 01/24/06
You can boot OS X from the CD ejsecco   | 01/22/06
There were win95/98 upgrades that were bootable wolf_z   | 02/15/06
It's not an upgrade Fred Fredrickson   | 01/22/06
re windows upgrades Llandros Loressin   | 01/23/06
You are wrong, I own several copies ajole   | 02/01/06
How about this IceTheNet@...   | 01/22/06
One advantage ajole   | 02/01/06
how about Linux? Linux Geek   | 01/20/06
I don't know tic swayback   | 01/20/06
Knock me over with a feather. hulse_kevin   | 01/20/06
High quality hardware is always nice tic swayback   | 01/20/06
Booting XP on EFI tic swayback   | 01/20/06
64 bit XP won't run on Yonah Still Lynn   | 01/21/06
32 bit chips are obsolete... wizzzer   | 01/21/06
Emulation is a pain lyjahbaer   | 01/22/06
Faster than a PC? ajole   | 02/01/06
macbook pro lyjahbaer   | 02/03/06
Linux on Macs taliesinangelus   | 01/20/06
Because the demand is not high. Suicida|   | 01/22/06
Ubuntu does Mac too ajole   | 02/01/06
Silly question NonZealot   | 01/20/06
Not a silly question Bill Snebold   | 01/20/06
Blue is a pretty color pwalters@...   | 01/20/06
What about triple booting? Michael Kelly   | 01/20/06
Nothing wrong with that lyjahbaer   | 01/22/06
Lot's o' reasons tic swayback   | 01/20/06
Proprietary OS... 314   | 01/20/06
Proprietary OS... 314   | 01/20/06
Not really being satirical NonZealot   | 01/20/06
Word choice tic swayback   | 01/20/06
I'm totally serious NonZealot   | 01/20/06
Numbers tic swayback   | 01/20/06
Works the other way too. tygeverink@...   | 01/20/06
But that doesn't help Apple much tic swayback   | 01/21/06
Grow up or change your name ajole   | 01/20/06
Reality lyjahbaer   | 01/22/06
Very good question dwjunix   | 01/20/06
More software than WIndows? Are you dreaming No_Ax_to_Grind   | 01/20/06
More software, not the same software NonZealot   | 01/20/06
Apples and Oranges tygeverink@...   | 01/20/06
MacDraft, HighDesign, PowerCADD, and VersaCAD tic swayback   | 01/20/06
Laughing matter lyjahbaer   | 01/22/06
Best option tic swayback   | 01/23/06
but doh123   | 02/01/06
One puny program? Pshaw. tic swayback   | 01/20/06
Useful to many lyjahbaer   | 01/22/06
*Edit lyjahbaer   | 01/22/06
Because many of us need Windows ejsecco   | 01/22/06
One word for you: GAMES voska   | 01/23/06
Oh good grief! dshealey_z   | 01/27/06
Two birds, one is stoned pwalters@...   | 01/20/06
Amen alterxerxes   | 01/20/06
OOps alterxerxes   | 01/20/06
Since "everyone" thinks the new chip is faster ajole   | 01/20/06
Intel doesn't make 64-bit chips? ejsecco   | 01/22/06
Except apple went the dumb intel route.. wizzzer   | 01/21/06
Intel route SMART in bigger picture Mr_Dave   | 01/21/06
Drivers? alexsi71   | 01/20/06
Drivers? NonZealot   | 01/20/06
Drivers prtaylor@...   | 01/20/06
Question finally answered tygeverink@...   | 01/20/06
perfect! 314   | 01/20/06
Since it's responsive to the question Still Lynn   | 01/21/06
I'll bite People   | 01/20/06
Maybe you don't understand the problem Still Lynn   | 01/21/06
A zealot is just that Interfecus   | 01/21/06
Oh please... BFD   | 01/22/06
my opinion Networktelecomguy   | 01/24/06
Why? supoman   | 01/20/06
Lot's o' reasons NonZealot   | 01/20/06
Wait a second! tic swayback   | 01/20/06
Exactly! duane.wills@...   | 01/20/06
What if you want more than one OS? tic swayback   | 01/20/06
Still cheaper... duane.wills@...   | 01/20/06
Not good enough tic swayback   | 01/20/06
Ehh. People   | 01/20/06
Im confused lyjahbaer   | 01/22/06
Open questions tic swayback   | 01/23/06
XP no, Vista yes lyjahbaer   | 02/03/06
Not a Porsche, more of an Infiniti. ajole   | 01/20/06
Hahaha IT Scion   | 01/20/06
Porsche=Mac??? Pyvent   | 01/21/06
not really true paul oberman   | 01/22/06
VMWare for the Apple Mac? csburris   | 01/20/06
Just run Linux VMware kokuryu   | 01/20/06
I agree 100% radstat77   | 01/22/06
Emulators are a pain lyjahbaer   | 01/22/06
there are poeple doing it paul oberman   | 01/22/06
Apple, Smapple 314   | 01/20/06
Monopolies are legal tic swayback   | 01/20/06
Apple is NOT a monopoly Narg   | 01/20/06
Apple will not die! MacGeek2121   | 01/23/06
But what if I sold a new OS for their box? ajole   | 01/20/06
Wrong tic swayback   | 01/20/06
apple has no more legal right to wizzzer   | 01/21/06
You are correct . . . A/UX   | 01/20/06
MS vs. Apple and monopoly status. ky_druid   | 01/20/06
ABSOLUTELY! ajole   | 01/20/06
ABSOLUTELY! NOT!!!! Pyvent   | 01/21/06
ABSOLUTELY! NOT!!!! ...... NOT!!! BFD   | 01/22/06
Perhaps he meant one of the overcharging lawsuits tic swayback   | 01/22/06
Not at all Fred Fredrickson   | 01/22/06
Good Riddle Krazyken39   | 01/20/06
Virtualization already running at "near native" speeds A/UX   | 01/20/06
A Better Question tic swayback   | 01/20/06
Guessing here People   | 01/20/06
Maybe, but... ajole   | 01/20/06
Yowza! ajole   | 01/20/06
Heresy! An_Axe_to_Grind   | 01/20/06
Virtual machines are the way to go tic swayback   | 01/20/06
Two Operating Systems hhudson@...   | 01/20/06
Wait ... isn't it already done?? Virtual windows already on mac OSX? Reelly Off-tmark   | 01/20/06
No People   | 01/20/06
crash... allcritters   | 01/20/06
Slight exceptions to the article... ky_druid   | 01/20/06
Windows on MAC.. easy! ursulus   | 01/20/06
YES! ajole   | 01/20/06
I knew I hated MAC Krazyken39   | 01/20/06
No! Think about this! ajole   | 01/20/06
hey now, I'm a mac user... ky_druid   | 01/20/06
Hey now, I'm a Windows User pwalters@...   | 02/01/06
Hmmm Krazyken39   | 02/03/06
We hate You, You hate us lyjahbaer   | 01/22/06
Racist hmmm Krazyken39   | 02/03/06
living in the past Rod Hagen   | 02/02/06
Legal? smegz   | 01/20/06
Windows on MAC.. easy! Legal? sdwood   | 01/20/06
Will Mactels run Windows toodevastate   | 01/20/06
Why? IT Scion   | 01/20/06
Now working yet? Sure is! mattarnett   | 01/20/06
Dur lyjahbaer   | 01/22/06
Mac and Intel Tritem   | 01/20/06
RedHat ipfresh@...   | 01/21/06
Where is Solaris? kmguru   | 01/21/06
Run Windoze on my mac? labarker   | 01/21/06
Lot's o' reasons NonZealot   | 01/22/06
Why would you want to run IT Scion   | 01/22/06
Absolutely! jtalarico   | 01/25/06
Enhanced security PhilippeV   | 01/27/06
S. Jobs: Still Sleeping after all these years HankFriedman   | 01/22/06
YEAH!!! Laff   | 01/22/06
Reality check!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! rebrinsonmd@...   | 01/24/06
Sleep on, Steve Userama   | 01/22/06
blah Suicida|   | 01/22/06
Mac OS installing TokyoPete   | 01/23/06
Apple could provide itself the VM PhilippeV   | 01/27/06
I want an AMD x64 Mac PhilippeV   | 01/27/06
Me, too with 64 bit pwalters@...   | 02/01/06
Compatibility note PhilippeV   | 01/27/06
Intel/Mac Aualchemist@...   | 01/27/06
OSX and Windows playing together wchristian1   | 01/27/06
Dropped the Ball??? eweingartner@...   | 01/31/06
Mac OS X on non-Macs geke   | 02/01/06
Nothing is in rom anymore An_Axe_to_Grind   | 02/01/06
Boxed OS X is not an upgrade emiliosic@...   | 02/01/06
Boxed OS X upgrade does not exist! mbrierley   | 02/02/06

What do you think?

advertisement
advertisement

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads