[Bunga]

Now that we have proof that it can be done... How will Apple react?
Will they really let people install other operating systems run on Apple hardware forever?

I would hate to start relying on my duel boot system then a patch or OS X version upgrade blows XP it away.

Maybe I'm being perinoid?

I'm itching to try it...

Bunga

[julesstoop]

Well, they said they wouldn't discourage nor officially support it.

Don't forget Apple makes the most money of selling hardware. If being able to boot XP means more hardware sales, they'll be more than happy with it.

[colivigan]

Originally Posted by Bunga Maybe I'm being perinoid?

No, I think you're just being paranoid.

[Brad]

Apple VP Phil Schiller stated back at WWDC that Apple wouldn't stop anyone from putting Windows on a Mac, saying that although there would be no official support for Windows, "They probably will. We won't do anything to preclude that."

[Banana]

But maybe a better question would-

Could the present bootloader be broken by any future security updates or something akin to that?

[bassplayinMacFiend]

Funny how Schiller said that knowing there would be no CSM in Apple's EFI.

I wonder if using the hacked boot.efi file used to install/run XP voids the hardware warranty? After all, couldn't this possibly mess up how software & hardware interact since the hacked .efi file presumably (I don't know) emulates BIOS? Couldn't this cause problems if the BIOS emulator wasn't well written?

[Moogs]

Oh I think Apple might even encourage it on a developer level, by providing frameworks or tools of different sorts that will make it easier to do (even though those tools and frameworks may have other purposes, strictly speaking). They'll just never admit to it, nor support it officially. If your system gets trashed for some reason, and XP is on there, you can expect that will void the warranty, etc.


I mean think about the big picture. If the open source movement provides a stable means of installing and running XP, and it works efficiently and with relative stability... that's a big BIG unofficial selling point for running Macintel. Because there won't be any legitimate alternative on Windows, and the performance on many machines might not even match Macintel performance, as we're seeing in other threads.

Apple wants this to happen IMO, they'll just never acknowledge it.

[Moogs]

Tangent question: could Apple add some type of hidden code into OS X for intel, that requires a specific hardware configuration (talking processor batch number, Intel board with some custom circuitry, etc) in order to boot or run smoothly? IOW, they know they will have a very specific, limited set of hardware configurations that other manufacturers won't be using. Why not use that to enforce or make the EULA more difficult to break?

I would think a little good engineering would go a long way towards making the process of hacking OS X for PCs a PITA, and making OS X usage practical for only the most advanced PC nerd-boyz (which is kind of where we're at for now as I understand it, but only as a result of the short time it's been available - not protective measures added by Apple).

True? Thoughts?

[Banana]

I would think it more effective if it was designed so that it would be impossible to replicate; so if, to use your words, PC nerd-boyz, got it running on their $6,000 Quad SLI Alienware with 90 inch display, and they uploaded it to torrent to share with those "less enlightened", it wouldn't just work, period, not even for another dozen who has the identical system. It only take one person to crack OS. It only take one torrent to spew it far flung all over the web. So replication to my mind is more important.

Whether that is possible, I don't know.

[Moogs]

Originally Posted by Banana ....so if, to use your words, PC nerd-boyz, got it running on their $6,000 Quad SLI Alienware with 90 inch display....

That's funny stuff. 90" screen.

[ZachPruckowski]

Someone asked if random updates could mess this up. And the answer is "sort of, yes". Apple updates that are 10.X.y updates and security updates list the files they change. If one of them is "boot.efi", then you need to replace the hacked one with the original, then swap it back in post-upgrade. That's not malice, that's how the upgrade system works. I have the same problem running with Pathfinder as my default Finder in Core Services. You'll likely need to use TDM twice to do this, which is a PITA, but necessary

[Banana]

Well, that makes sense, but what I was thinking more about, could updates actually break it totally? E.g. if you update to 10.4.6 only to find that the bootloader simply just won't run even after doing everything all over?

[DeathChill]

I don't believe any of the EFI files were hacked actually.

A new EFI file was added, but none were hacked.

[thegelding]

i don't think apple cares if you double boot...microsoft might? not sure if they will make it not work on macs...after all they want to sell VPC and also apple is a competitor...and they don't want bootleg copies on macs

i do know that apple will work hard to make sure os x only works on macs and not pc's...or they would lose computer sales and pc kids would likely use bootleg copies of os x since apple copy protection is kinda non existent
g

[jbsengineer]

they never cared about dual booting Yellow Dog Linux on the PPC Macs

[bassplayinMacFiend]

Originally Posted by thegelding i don't think apple cares if you double boot...microsoft might? not sure if they will make it not work on macs...after all they want to sell VPC and also apple is a competitor...and they don't want bootleg copies on macs i do know that apple will work hard to make sure os x only works on macs and not pc's...or they would lose computer sales and pc kids would likely use bootleg copies of os x since apple copy protection is kinda non existent g

Who said anything about the Windows copy being pirated? The great thing about XP on a Mac (ugh, did I just say that?!? ) is that you can have both OSs installed legally. You can't do that on a PC (like you'd really want to anyway? does anyone make a cooler laptop then Apple?).

[Bunga]

Originally Posted by jbsengineer they never cared about dual booting Yellow Dog Linux on the PPC Macs

I forgot about Yellow Dog... the difference here is there are millions more people who use XP.

From the few people who I have spoken to about booting XP on a Mac this seems to just make buying a Mac more of an option. XP on mac Mac will drive some sales for Apple. Apple may end up 'unofficially' encouraging it.

[CD on G5+MBP]

There are a few things that concern me about Dual booting. I would only expect Apple to see running an alternate operating system as a void of warranty. As tempting as it is to run Windows, I'm just not sure if I want to give up such a high level of Hardware/Software integration that Apple Computers have with Mac OS X. From my understading which could be wrong... there are many hardware components of contemporary Apple computers (encl. Intel Macs) that have a certain amount of software based control. Battery management and other things that are upated through Software Update. Could it be possible that running Windows say on your MacBook Pro and possibly further down the road Mac Pro have adverse effects on battery performance and power management as well as fan operations (in the tower).

[Doxxic]

Originally Posted by CD on G5+MBP There are a few things that concern me about Dual booting. I would only expect Apple to see running an alternate operating system as a void of warranty. As tempting as it is to run Windows, I'm just not sure if I want to give up such a high level of Hardware/Software integration that Apple Computers have with Mac OS X. From my understading which could be wrong... there are many hardware components of contemporary Apple computers (encl. Intel Macs) that have a certain amount of software based control. Battery management and other things that are upated through Software Update. Could it be possible that running Windows say on your MacBook Pro and possibly further down the road Mac Pro have adverse effects on battery performance and power management as well as fan operations (in the tower).

On the other hand, Mac OS X modifications by 3rd parties could have the same effects, couldn't they? So if dual booting voids your warranty, other software theoretically could too, I suppose?

[CD on G5+MBP]

Quite possibly... I'm not sure on the specifics though.

[torifile]

There's no way for them to know if you've run Windows on your Mac. The solution consists only of dropping xom.efi in your /System folder. The rest is modifying a windows install disc.