A few Ideas

[sud0n1m]

Here are a few links to get started.

ELILO (http://elilo.sourceforge.net/)
OSx86 Project (http://forum.osx86project.org/index.php?showtopic=7168)
Nakfull Propaganda (http://nak.journalspace.com/?cmd=displaycomments&dcid=407&entryid=407)
Neosmart Solution 1 (http://neosmart.net/blog/dual-booting-windows-xp-on-a-macbook/)
Neosmart Solution 2 (http://neosmart.net/blog/hardware-mods-to-get-xp-on-a-macintel/)
More out of the Vista CD (http://forum.osx86project.org/index.php?s=&showtopic=7168&view=findpost&p=51204)

[booksta]

http://neosmart.net/blog/dual-booting-windows-xp-on-a-macbook/

[Narfmaster]

Heh yeah, I was about to link to that. Bit of a long-assed method though, and requires a new pc to work...I suppose if someone made the clean xp install cd iso available for download then it could be done. P:

[sud0n1m]

4. The first person to post complete instructions, including pictures of the boot process to The Forum will be the winner. Instructions will be peer reviewed once they are received and once the solution is guaranteed working, the prize money will be transferred via paypal

The solution only qualifies if you can prove it works - show me pictures, and be clear enough that others are able to replicate the process.

[das]

That is NOT a solution. And now the guy is asking for money! (Not to mention, with no accounting, either! No knowledge of how much money he gets, no statement on what he'd do with the money if he didn't get enough to even buy an iMac, what he'd do with the extra money if he got *more* than he needed, etc! I'd be concerned about these things if I actually had confidence in a person, but it's even worse in this case. And the worst part is, people are eating this up as if it's a "solution" because it sounds "technical".)

To echo something I said elsewhere:

-----

Please do NOT donate any money to the neosmart guy. It will be money down the drain. (Note: I am NOT talking about the winxponmac.com contest, I'm talking about the neosmart.net guy now asking for "donations" for "research", i.e., an iMac, an Intel 945 motherboard, etc.)

All of his ramblings so far are extremely vague and have fatal flaws in most of the steps.

I mean, Christ, half of the steps are like:

"4. Hack the Darwin bootloader to chainload Windows XP."

Whaaaa??? That step might as well be:

"4. Create a cold fusion reaction on your kitchen table. When done, then..."

Yeah, if we could hack Windows and then hack the Darwin bootloader to load Windows, we'd be all set!

Please do NOT give any money to this person.

Someone who doesn't even know enough about Apple to even know what the name of the company is (he calls Apple "Mac", as in, the name of the company) isn't exactly the first person I'd be falling all over myself to give money to. And after looking at his ramblings, I'm even less convinced. "Remove the EFI chip and replace it with BIOS." Yyyyeaaaahhhh, rrrrriggggghtt. I'll get right on that. (Not to mention even if that WERE possible as easily as he makes it out to be, now we have a machine that can't even boot Mac OS X! Yay!)

I have no problem with people wanting to contribute, but almost everything he's said so far is utterly useless. For all I know, he may legitimately think he's trying to "help", and I'm sure he does, but suggesting to replace motherboards, or acting like you can just replace the "EFI chip" with a "BIOS chip" and voila, you can boot Windows, is totally not helpful, at all.

Please, anyone who sees this: do NOT give the neosmart.net guy any money, and please spread the word in other forums.

Now, if there was a person who had a lot of experience with low level Windows booting, worked for Intel, and was an EFI developer, and *he* was asking for donation for research money, I'd say, sure, why not. In fact, Colin from winxponmac.com would probably even be interested in combining efforts to help out. But from this person, I have seen nothing beyond blog ramblings that gloss over or completely overlook critical steps to success.

- Dave Schroeder
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu/

[AnttiV]

Hi all, I just had to register for this one thing. I've been lurking around the net awhile now, reading things conserning this dualboot, and I'm all for it, I'd like to be able to do that too, mainly for gaming, since most of the games I play will never get a Mac version.

but, to the point: I wonder why nobody has pointed out one glaring point in that guy's list, namely

"9. Use the Bootable Vista DVD to boot on the MacBook."

I thought that that was tested a LOT and awhile ago already, and proved that it (at least the iMac, why would the MacBook Pro be different) WON'T boot from a Vista DVD. So there goes that plan. If it would indeed boot, that would make most of the other stuff much easier, since the DVD would contain a Win-compatible bootloader that the Mac will boot, but as it is, it doesn't.

So, why didn't anyone else notice that?

[Zer0]

Personally, what I think is that you guys should not listen to this sorta junk. If he wants to charge you guys for a guide, I wouldn't listen to it. Anyways, good luck!

[BoUK]

completely rewrite os x from scratch to read windows file systems from install or vice-versa, then you could partition and install both os

or

build a do-it-yourself machine, put a pc's internals and a mac's internals in the same box, put 2 power buttons on the front, one with a mac os symbol the other with a windows symbol on, have a kvm or similar for monitor, keyboard, mouse switching.

without opening it it would just look like one machine.

lol. k maybe not. :rolleyes:

[lcninja]

In some ways this contest seems to have had a negative effect. I have a 20 inch iMac, an unopened copy of xp, another mac with virtual pc on it (win 2k), and a fat formated firewire hard drive. I figured over the weekend I would spend some time messing around with booting windows, so I did the research and looked to see what people have done. Well all the best information (read: nakfulpropeganda) was done BEFORE the contest came out. Now that the contest has started, and the prize has become staggering, people aren't sharing what they have tried at all.

I hate replicating efforts for no reason. This weekend (I have zero time during the weeks) when I try to boot xp I'll keep a detailed account of what I've done and post it in the forum. Hopefully you all can try the same!

[das]

I found a guy over the net that has succed intalling XP on a MacBook Pro. He gives out a complete set of intruction, but no image, so those with the hardware try it.

Here's the link : http://neosmart.net/blog/dual-booting-windows-xp-on-a-macbook/

Those are NOT instructions. They're just really bad guesses that will NOT work. Please read up a couple of posts where I explain this.

First of all, this exact URL was already posted about 4 posts above yours.

Second, he DID NOT install Windows XP on anything. It's his (really bad) theory on how one might do this, but it's so ridiculous that I can't believe anyone believes it.

Third, the MacBook Pro is not even shipping.

(Did you even read anything above this?)

[IdeaHamster]

Alright, so...I don't have the money nor the time to undertake this project, but I would still like to contribute. I decided that I would rather help this project than keep my information to myself, because it occured to me that someone might attempt to turn this into a commercial application (just imagine "Get the latest release of iLoader from XSoft, boot XP on your Mac for only $79.99!"....ugh). I personally love OS X for its embrace of the Open Source community, and I'd like to keep things that way...

Ok, enough rambling...where's the beef?

So, from looking at the EFI spec and the BIOS spec from MS and Phoenix, I've deduced a few tidbits:

1. The only option is to completely emulate BIOS. Contrary to what I had previously believed, the OS can and will access the BIOS many times during operation, not only during boot. Therefore, simply pulling up the XP boot loader or using the Vista boot loader to bring up XP won't work. It might appear to work for booting, but chances are that it will collapse the first time the OS attempts to access the BIOS (which may or may not occur, but the risk is there).

2. It's true, in the EFI spec Intel did include a portion for CSM (Compatability Support Module) in order to retain backwards compatibility with BIOS. The problem is that Intel created the spec, anyone can create the EFI, and creation of the CSM is left to the creator of the EFI.

3. AFAIK, BIOS opperates through interrupts. Essentially, there are memory addresses in the CMOS ROM that the OS can query or update to affect a change in the BIOS. EFI is more elegant, actually providing a rudimentary programatic interface for an OS. In order to create the CSM, all that is required would be an EFI module that could catch any BIOS Interrupt requests and translate them to the appropriate EFI calls. Simple, right?

4. EFI for Mac OS X is written in FORTH (a language about which I know nothing)...not so easy I guess.

There was a comment on powerpage.org stating that perhaps Apple had developed a CSM and was simply withholding it for now, but I think this idea is ridiculous! Why would Apple waste it's engineer's time in writing a module which an Apple app would NEVER USE?!? So, I'm pretty sure that means it's up to us!

Here's what's needed:

1. Someone with a knowledge of programming in FORTH.
2. A list of the defined words in Apple's EFI (essentially, the FORTH "library" of possible system calls).
3. A list of BIOS interrupts, and what they do/store.
4. A FORTH module to convert BIOS interrupts into EFI calls.

The good news is that, once someone has this module written, it should be pie to install. Actually, Intel's own examples of how to add OS's to EFI indicates that EFI eliminates the neccessity of a bootloader like Grub or Lilo. Hope someone can put this info to better use than I!

(BTW...I do have references for everything mentioned, I just lack the time to put them all in right now. If anyone is curious I would be more than happy to point people in the same directions I've gone...)

[das]

I think there's a little confusion here. First, it's kind of meaningless to say EFI "for Mac OS X". There's no EFI "for Mac OS X". Perhaps you mean "EFI in Intel-based Macs"? Also, it's not "written in FORTH". Open Firmware was FORTH-based. EFI is not.

And yes, EFI eliminates (or, more accurately, can eliminate) the need for a higher level boot *picker*...as long the OS(es) you're booting (and their bootloaders) fully support booting on EFI!

The general problem is as follows:

1.) EFI, when used in mainstream computing, is relatively new, and

2.) Apple's EFI implementation includes no legacy (e.g., CSM) support, because Apple has no need for it.

[IdeaHamster]

Das, thank you for the correction. You are right, I did mean to indicate the EFI for the Apple Intel Mac chipset (which I believe is either the same as or related to the Intel 945 chipset). Also, as for the FORTH comment...I was under the impression that Apple was still using FORTH because of it's easy conversion to firmware byte code. However, now looking at the Intel EFI Driver Writer's guide, I see that Intel does have a EBC (EFI byte-code) compiler for C. That should be good news, as I think more people have experience with C.

BTW, on p. 143 of the guide (downloadable at http://www.intel.com/technology/efi/dg.htm) it mentions that EFI does not support hardware interrupts (BIOS technology)...might make use of a simple EFI driver to model BIOS difficult...hmmm....this guide is good stuff, just wish I had time to read all 424 pages...

edit: Das, since EFI can choose any ".efi" EBC file for loading, don't you think that you could create an EBC file for those OS's that don't support EFI? Then the boot selector is not required at all...at least, this is what I'm thinking might provide the WinXP solution...

[IdeaHamster]

Ok, having run into a few potential problems with my first idea, I have come up with yet another idea (hence the name...). First, the problems (please take all of this with a big grain of salt...I am by no means an expert!):

1. EFI is part of the whole "trusted computing" paradigm. As such, it is implicitly designed to make reverse engineering impossible (though I'm sure someone with enough talent could still make due).

2. Apple has not included a CSM with their EFI (if they did, we should have XP up and running by now). After all, CSM is not a requirement of EFI, and Apple has no use for it. Also, writing an add-on CSM might actually prove near impossible (see #1).

3. Apple is most likely using some aspect of EFI to keep OS X off of other PCs. In other words, if your chipset uses Phoenix EFI, you cannot run OS X. This rules out the possibility of flashing an Intel iMac's EFI with the EFI from another OEM that does include CSM.

4. The Intel Driver Writer's Guide states that EFI does not handle hardware interrupts (see previous post). As far as I can tell, this means that they are counting on any legacy BIOS calls to be handled by the CSM (which, I think it's clear by now, is not on the iMac).

BTW...my assumptions on the lack of CSM (or ability to create a CSM) is based on a number of statements on Intel's site that the CSM is part of the "Firmware". EFI, as the name implies, is not firmware, but rather a way to interface with the firmware. If the firmware ain't there...nothing to interface with...

Ok, the idea! I got to thinking about VPC...I mean, somehow VPC is able to emulate BIOS on machines with nothing even close to BIOS. So how does it do this? (and how can we copy the idea?) Well, VPC does more than just emulate BIOS, it has to translate every line of Intel assembly into PowerPC assembly...that's when it hit me! Calls to BIOS interrupts must be made using assembly commands. Instead of trying to emulate BIOS by putting a layer on top of EFI, why not put a layer beneath the OS? A kernel hook! So, here's the strategy I would propose:

1. Write a kernel hook that catches every assembly call to a BIOS interrupt. The hook would then instantly translate the call to the equivalent EFI call, and then return control to the OS.

2. Load XP onto a removable drive, and add in the hook.

3. Connect the drive to the iMac and tell EFI to boot off of the traditional XP boot sector.

I'm no expert on OS boot loaders, but so long as the hook was there to catch even the earliest BIOS calls by the boot loader, this should avoid the need for an alternative to the traditional XP boot loader. In other words, you should be able to boot directly to an unaltered (except for the hook) XP install. Additionally, if one could create a bootable XP CD-ROM including such a hook, then you should even be able to install XP directly onto the internal iMac drive...

For those that want to criticize this as a lot of hot air...don't bother. I will readily admit that it is! However, without the time or money to try these ideas myself, I figured I could at least donate them to the collective conciousness and see if someone can do something with them. They are only ideas...not solutions!

[ML8]

http://neosmart.net/blog/dual-booting-windows-xp-on-a-macbook/

[lcninja]

ML8: Die, die, die!!!

[IdeaHamster]

http://neosmart.net/blog/dual-booting-windows-xp-on-a-macbook/
OY VEY!!!

Some people! It's like ML8 was walking down the street when he finds two people having a conversation and he hears the word "Bush". So he goes on a long tirade about what a horrible president Bush is and how we shouldn't be in Iraq without realizing the two unsuspecting strangers were actually talking about landscaping!

If you want to be a part of this conversation please at least have the common courtesy of reading the previous posts in the thread. THIS IS THE THIRD TIME THIS LINK HAS BEEN POSTED!!!!

...enough already...

[Kelson]

Unless Apple chooses to add CSM to the EFI, the only solutions are going to be:

1. Vista if they add GPT support.

2. Write a boot loader, that will load up a very lightweight emulation environment to handle the BIOS calls and ACPI. This emulation layer would sit between Windows XP & the HW.

3. Rip the Apple EFI code from the EEPROM, add in the CSM module, and re-flash the PROM.

So...to those who have looked into EFI in more detail....

Would it be possible to create two GPT partitions and an NTFS partition. Put OS X on one GPT, then put the Boot Loader/Legacy Architecture Emulator on the other GPT, then Windows XP on the NTFS partition.

At boot, it will default to the first partition and load OS X, but then if you wanted to boot Windows, you would need to target the secondary GPT partition to load the BL/LAE shim, which would then load XP?

- Kelson

Apple has a tendency to do things that will just piss you off. It would have cost them almost nothing to add CSM to the EFI. Sure, they don't need it, but it sure would have made life a heck of a lot easier for their customers. While for the most part, I love their products, they are arrogant with little respect for their customers needs.

[IdeaHamster]

Kelson,
I'm not sure that you would need to create a full fledged partition to hold the BL/shim. EFI allows you to write drivers and load them into memory before booting the OS, and they can reside on the same partition as the OS.

Such an EFI driver would need to do two things:
1. Either emulate BIOS (seems to be impossible...see my previous post about lack of support for hardware interrupts) or load a rootkit to hook BIOS calls by the XP kernel.
2. Pull up the Windows kernel.

I don't know enough about the XP kernel or programming root kits, but I'm guessing that one might be able to load the hook/emulation, then hand control over to the default XP BL. The only bit of BIOS that might be difficult to emulate would be the INT19 call to start the OS, but, from my understanding, this call puts the BL into memory and dumps the location to INT19 so the BIOS can hand control to the OS. There should be a way in EFI to also load the BL into memory and then hand it control, and if the hook is there, any future BIOS calls would, in effect, be emulated.

BTW...I don't think that arogance is the reason Apple didn't include CSM. I think it has more to do with their "neutrality" in the XP on Mac effort. If they had included CSM, it would only be there to support XP on the Mac, as Apple products have no need for it. This would be against their "we're not helping it but we're not standing in the way either" philosophy. I'm sure there are legal and business issues involved here. For one, by including a CSM, Apple would basically be signaling a lack of confidence in their own OS to their shareholders. I know it's anoying, but I think they had their reasons...

[iSee]

...

Such an EFI driver would need to do two things:
1. Either emulate BIOS (seems to be impossible...see my previous post about lack of support for hardware interrupts) or load a rootkit to hook BIOS calls by the XP kernel.
2. Pull up the Windows kernel.
...

In the other Formum here (the Virtualization one) there was a post about using XEN that can sit below several OSs and prentend to be BIOS or whatever - that sounds a bit like your idea - unfortnately, OS X does not like to boot within XEN (yet?). So one possible solution would be to dual boot between XEN and Mac OS X.

If XEN is too much of al layer to qualify for the contest, then your approach, emulating a BIOS is too, but I think if it works - it should be ok.
BTW, I would also rather like to see a nice non-dual-booting solution, and hope I will be able to get a IntelMac for work from my employer by the end of this year. I think, however, this method might well work (and qualify).

The fun part is this method does tinker with EFI, so you probably won't damage your shiny new IntellyMac beyond repair trying.

Enjoy, iSee

[sud0n1m]

Please stop posting links and plagiarized copies of the Neosmart "Theoretical" solution - they will just be deleted. It doesnt work as is, and we have all seen it many times already.

[IdeaHamster]

In the other Formum here (the Virtualization one) there was a post about using XEN that can sit below several OSs and prentend to be BIOS or whatever - that sounds a bit like your idea - unfortnately, OS X does not like to boot within XEN (yet?). So one possible solution would be to dual boot between XEN and Mac OS X.

If XEN is too much of al layer to qualify for the contest, then your approach, emulating a BIOS is too, but I think if it works - it should be ok.
BTW, I would also rather like to see a nice non-dual-booting solution, and hope I will be able to get a IntelMac for work from my employer by the end of this year. I think, however, this method might well work (and qualify).

The fun part is this method does tinker with EFI, so you probably won't damage your shiny new IntellyMac beyond repair trying.

Enjoy, iSee
iSee...I see...(sorry, I had too!)

Actually, the news about Xen and virtualization is really quite exciting. I forget which tech mag it was, but I remember they gave out year end awards to Mac OS X, and in their article they positted that virtualization was the future of computing. Actually, now that I'm thinking about it...

So part of the idea behind EFI is that you can write device drivers that load before the OS boots, and reside in a different location than the OS. This means that they don't suck resources from the OS the way a traditonal driver can. I wonder how far this paradigm can be pushed? Maybe an EFI kernel?!? Who knows...

Ok, I realize this is off topic and doesn't help the contest much, but it is some more motivation to go out there and learn more about EFI

[iSee]

iSee...I see...(sorry, I had too!)
That's how the nick i_see was originally born in '97 on irc, becoause, i found myself typing i see too often ;-)


So part of the idea behind EFI is that you can write device drivers that load before the OS boots, and reside in a different location than the OS. This means that they don't suck resources from the OS the way a traditonal driver can. I wonder how far this paradigm can be pushed? Maybe an EFI kernel?!? Who knows...

Oh that sounds like the original Mac Toolbox - but maybe on the same level that USB sounded like ADB to me when I first heard it. On the Mac, that shouldn't cause problems, and might indeed be a way to tie Mac OS X to Macs (?).
However if the OS can not override dirvers or routines, than every other update would require re-flashing the EFI-Chip. A crucial part of the classic mac, was that the OS _could_ override Toolbox routines. See http://www.folklore.org/ for details. Even if it is totally off topic, its a great read for the rest of us geeks :cool:

Enjoy, iSee

[iSee]

I have just been back to the contest page, and I don't know if Xen was originally ruled out, but now it is. So my reply to IdeaHamster might not help for the final solution, (but would give clues nevertheless). If BIOS emulation (outside of EFI) is forbidden by the rules of the contest. Then I expect noone to win for a long time even after all practical obstacles of using all x86-based OSs on Macs (in sequence or simultaneously) have been removed.

iSee

[AnttiV]

-clip-
However if the OS can not override dirvers or routines, than every other update would require re-flashing the EFI-Chip.
-clip-


Erm, no. That's just one of the points of EFI vs. BIOS. EFI, in itself, IS NOT only a chip, EFI resides in the HARDDISK, as a separate partition. EFI is designed from the ground up partly just for that, to be easier to update and/or add features to it. Updating any drivers on the EFI wouldn't be much harder than to update them on the OS - Just boot to EFI, choose update or load or whatever it's called, and point it to the file (as the EFI can read harddisks, the files can remain on the disk, even an USB one, not needing to be transferred to bootable floppy or anything.)

I'm not an EFI expert by anymeans, having learned of it the moment it was written on MacRumors.com (heh), but that's one fact I'm sure of.

-A

[sud0n1m]

I have just been back to the contest page, and I don't know if Xen was originally ruled out, but now it is. So my reply to IdeaHamster might not help for the final solution, (but would give clues nevertheless). If BIOS emulation (outside of EFI) is forbidden by the rules of the contest. Then I expect noone to win for a long time even after all practical obstacles of using all x86-based OSs on Macs (in sequence or simultaneously) have been removed.

iSee

Virtualization (and therefore Xen) has been ruled out as a solution since the beginning because I wanted to keep the prize money accessible to all - and envisioned something along the lines of people hacking GRUB to boot Windows XP & OS X. As it turns out the contest seems a little more complicated than initially thought. If Xen is able to boot Windows XP and it is possible to extract elements of Xen to enable a boot of Windows XP (still natively and not through Virtualization / Emulation) then I would certainly accept that. Feel free to be creative in the solution! Windows XP should still have the same access to the hardware that Mac OS X does though.

Hope this helps to clarify!

Colin

[iSee]

Virtualization (and therefore Xen) has been ruled out as a solution since the beginning -snip- If Xen is able to boot Windows XP and it is possible to extract elements of Xen to enable a boot of Windows XP (still natively and not through Virtualization / Emulation) then I would certainly accept that. -snip- Windows XP should still have the same access to the hardware that Mac OS X does though.

Thanks Colin,
I just was not quite sure specificly Xen was in from the beginning, since its different from other VM solutions in that it does not run under control of another OS. Since I don't have the time or money to fool around with a new Mac right now, I just try to be helpful for others who have.
As unexpected problems have turned up regarding interrupt handling in EFI modules, I'd recommend using Xen as a "save playground" for anyone who wants too get the 10K$s.
With the clarification it should be well possible to draw the price using parts of Xen for BIOS emulation or at least for interrupt handling. Since the critical hardware access for performance today is the graphics card* (that might cause problems as well), faking BIOS hardware does not prevent "dircet hardware access".

*I am not sure if the IntelMacs GraphicCards use different firmware then their windows siblings, but Windows should prabably at least work in "safe mode" and that would work for the contest (while not for real life).

Good luck to all of you, iSee

PS: I am not out for donations of intel hardware, but if someone gets the pot using the suggested method I wouldn't mind gratification :D

[lcninja]

From Macaroo Banzai
posted 02/07/06
Here's how you get XP to load on the new Intel Imacs (albeit booting from an external firewire harddisk):

1) Get an evaluation copy of Insyde's InsydeH20 software.

2) There is a full blown CSM module included, that implements a soft BIOS, as an .EFI shell loadable file.

3) Copy the entire XP SP2 installation disk on to a USB harddisk (format it with default settings using the OS X disk formatter). Also copy the InsydeH2O CSM file onto the USB drive. Plug in the USB harddisk, as this will act as your proxy installer CD.

4) You need an external firewire harddisk as the target disk (sorry, this method does not currently allow dual booting from the same main drive, only from this FW external HD)

5) From the EFI shell, load the CSM module from the USB harddisk

6) The XP installer will start loading up.

7) Using the installer, choose the firewire disk as your target drive.

8)Install XP as per normal.

9) XP will reboot a number of times as part of the normal install process. You need to load the CSM module each time and redirect the subequent booting from the firewire drive.

10) Enjoy XP on the Intel Imac.

[das]

Insyde's products are only for OEMs looking to incorporate additional technologies into EFI-based systems. There aren't any pieces that can be loaded or used on an Intel-based Mac in the fashion described.

There's not just some magic piece that lets you load Windows XP. If there were, or if it had already been done, this would qualify for the prize money.

[danielcharif]

Y have windows XP on my Mac G4, I don`t understand how is the problem. Run very well

[baz]

Dell uses EFI for some of its servers, and documents the multi boot configuration process :

http://support.dell.com/support/topics/global.aspx/support/kb/en/document?dn=1081496&l=en&langid=1&c=us&cs=&s=gen


Hope this helps...

Baz.

[BillGates]

Just give me your $11,000 and you can have your EFI booting... :D

[soisauce001]

They did a study on survivors of the Holocaust... They wanted to find out what was the single most factor that helped them survive when many of their peers who went through similiar conditions died. The study found that they held on to HOPE longer.

Sooooo here's a picture of hope! (False hope but hope none-the-less).

http://www.thinksecret.com/archives/inteldevmac/3.jpg

[soisauce001]

it's been rather quiet in here recently.. Either people are hard at work or flat out given up.. there's a saying in chinese that goes, "JAI YO" it mean to keep going.. But more literally it means to THROW FUEL ON SOMETHING.. LIKE FIRE!.

I wish I knew more about computers so that I could help out.. For those of you who are hard at work.. keep it up!

[sud0n1m]

I just saw on Digg (http://digg.com) that Hexus.net has an article that the Core Duo is actually a 64-bit processor (http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=4604)? I wonder if there is any way to unlock these features to enable us to use the 64 bit edition of Windows XP and its EFI bootloader?

[SiliconAddict]

I just saw on Digg (http://digg.com) that Hexus.net has an article that the Core Duo is actually a 64-bit processor (http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=4604)? I wonder if there is any way to unlock these features to enable us to use the 64 bit edition of Windows XP and its EFI bootloader?

I wouldn't. Think about it a second. There are really only one of two possibilities why Intel would turn off this feature, not document it, and not advertise the crap out of it.

1. The 64-bit implementation was buggy and as such they disabled it.

2. They weren't able to complete the feature in the timeframe they wanted for shipping the CPU and disabled the feature.

In either case even if you could somehow enable it via EFI (Which I doubt.) it would, in all likelihood, be messed up.

[SiliconAddict]

They did a study on survivors of the Holocaust... They wanted to find out what was the single most factor that helped them survive when many of their peers who went through similiar conditions died. The study found that they held on to HOPE longer.

Sooooo here's a picture of hope! (False hope but hope none-the-less).

http://www.thinksecret.com/archives/inteldevmac/3.jpg


$10 says that is Virtual PC running on a G5. :(

[dippyskoodlez]

I just saw on Digg (http://digg.com) that Hexus.net has an article that the Core Duo is actually a 64-bit processor (http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=4604)? I wonder if there is any way to unlock these features to enable us to use the 64 bit edition of Windows XP and its EFI bootloader?

No its not possible to enable 64bit on the cpu. just like its not possible to enable EMT64 on early prescotts.


$10 says that is Virtual PC running on a G5. :(
or its hooked up to a pc :p

[fred260571]

Hello
you should visit this link

http://www.linuxbios.org/index.php/ADLO

ADLO emulates a BIOS = better than nothing :-)

my 2 cents

waiting to buy a x86 Mac Mini

Fred

[elfurbe]

I wouldn't. Think about it a second. There are really only one of two possibilities why Intel would turn off this feature, not document it, and not advertise the crap out of it.

1. The 64-bit implementation was buggy and as such they disabled it.

2. They weren't able to complete the feature in the timeframe they wanted for shipping the CPU and disabled the feature.

In either case even if you could somehow enable it via EFI (Which I doubt.) it would, in all likelihood, be messed up.

OR they designed it into the die now so they won't have to significantly alter the die when they start producing 64-bit enabled versions. Reworking a die is a pain in the ass. The Pentium 4 had EM64T long before they started turning it on in shipping chips. This just makes the transition easier on them later.

[sozkan]

http://xbox-linux.org/mactel/index.php/Main_Page

[Steve1496]

http://xbox-linux.org/mactel/index.php/Main_Page



If Linux is really running, we can use VMware to virtualize Windows XP at full speeds within Linux, right?

Never the less this is very good progress.

[sud0n1m]

The OSx86 Forums have been shut down due to a DMCA violation. There was a lot of good information there regarding progress dual booting Windows on the Intel Mac. In the meantime, feel free to continue in here. Sorry to see all that hard work disappear!:confused:

[poundsmack]

i have figured it out. i do not have an intel mac of my own but i will be willing to tell someone and spit the prize money 50 50. to anyone who agrees to that and has an intel mac contact me at poundsmack@yahoo.com and i will tell u how do do it

[na247]

1.

They've got Linux booting on an iMac (intel). story @ slashdot (http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/16/2025243). Just noticed this was already reported, sorry.

2.

Has anyone tried working with Windows 2003? It has a 32-bit version, supports EFI (unless only the 64-bit version does???) and is stable production code unlike Vista. Also, 180-day evaluations can be had for FREE straight from microsoft's website.

It's likely XP is too formidable a task, but an OS that will work with EFI w/o the need for BIOS emulation or whatever should be looked at. (i.e. Win 2003, Linux, etc). Then, once done, can try XP. Though if Windows 2003 server were to work, hell with XP. It's a newer code, allegedly the code Vista is being built from. Though there's no eye-candy, though I'm sure it's easy to Luna-ize it.

Ideas, thought?

Nick

[na247]

i have figured it out. i do not have an intel mac of my own but i will be willing to tell someone and spit the prize money 50 50. to anyone who agrees to that and has an intel mac contact me at poundsmack@yahoo.com and i will tell u how do do it

If you don't have a machine to verify your method, how can you be sure it would succeed?

Plus, if you're confident, go buy a machine. A $1300 investment for a $11,900 return is ridiciously profitable. They do have 14 day return periods as well. Though a 15% fee may apply.

-Nick

[poundsmack]

EFI suport is only in the itanium version and 64 bit enterprise edition. besides taht it still wont work for other reasons.

[poundsmack]

i am broke but i am the lead technition for best buys geek sqaud. i am rather compitent. i am offering my adive for a 50% cut of the winings. if my advice doesnt work then i dont expect anyhting in return. i have gotten other operating systems that cant boot on mac to boot on mac, for example MorphOS. so i knwo how to do this kind of thing.

[Skade]

Hi, has anyone yet considered to boot a prebootable environment for testing (BartPE [http://www.nu2.nu/pebuilder/] for example)? This would take away the hassle of installing the system on several drives and give you the possibility to concentrate on booting it. If this works, you can take further action to install a full XP.

[iSee]

I just had a (maybe stupid) idea:
What about waking up Win XP instead of booting it?

I mean, for a temporary solution, instead of actually booting Win XP without a BIOS, one would create a hibernation image from a system running on a virtual platform (like Qemu). Then someone could use the Darwin/Linux bootloader (maybe inserting some hook for runtime BIOS-requests - this could even be a priviliged task within XP).
I would think the wake-up process should be simpler to handle than normal booting.

This idea may of course be complete rubbish, but maybe you can get a XP working for a few secs before crashing this way.

Good luck,
iSee

[sozkan]

I wish you goodluck for windows.

Power of Linux
http://www.osxbook.com/book/bonus/misc/knoppix/

[Steve1496]

Wow they've made some great progress with Linux! The only trouble is Knoppix is a Live CD distro, no? It doesn't seem ideal for real use, only testing.

[clay]

So part of the idea behind EFI is that you can write device drivers that load before the OS boots, and reside in a different location than the OS. This means that they don't suck resources from the OS the way a traditonal driver can. I wonder how far this paradigm can be pushed? Maybe an EFI kernel?!? Who knows...

Ok, I realize this is off topic and doesn't help the contest much, but it is some more motivation to go out there and learn more about EFI


It's more relevant than you might think. The solution requires an EFI run-time driver to emulate BIOS services. This is tricky to do, as Windows XP accesses BIOS services from real mode and EFI drivers run in protected mode, but it's not an insurmountable problem.

[sozkan]

I am so sory that although I have belived in this project the truth is that this project is officially dead.

http://forum.osx86project.org/index.php?showtopic=10184

as you can see from the above link people have posted many images proving that thay have achived alot since this project has started but no one has posted anything like linux projects or vista, xp projects out there.

[sud0n1m]

One of the interesting things about this is that a lot is happening behind the scenes. Remember what Mashugly posited: "nothing is getting done because the sharing of information has stopped". Well, he was wrong about both parts of that. Sharing of information has not stopped. That implies that there (http://www.osxbook.com/) is (http://www.osx86project.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=129&Itemid=2) no (http://nak.journalspace.com/?cmd=displaycomments&dcid=407&entryid=407) information on the net that could be used to help people figure this out. And as for nothing getting done - also not true. He is frustrated (as are many) that we dont have a solution yet. In our ADD society, most people lose patience very quickly. That is expected. Just because you cant see it, it doesnt mean it isnt happening and it is wrong to assume so. Just because I cant see apple developing the successor to the Powermac, it doesnt mean they're not doing it.

Unfortunately putting Windows XP on the Intel Mac is not a simple task, but rest assured that people are working on it. Most likely, if people are complaining that other people are not sharing info with them, its because other people are smart and they are not. It's much easier to copy someone else's work than it is to create your own. Also, as a small criticism of the open source development method - with a singular path, you may get to your goal, but it may be the long path there. With different people travelling different paths, we will have a better understanding and be better off at the end of it - whether or not the deadline is met.

Oh, and just to clarify - I am so sory that although I have belived in this project the truth is that this project is officially dead. Sozkan cannot declare the project officially dead

[everyaa]

*before you beign, if you screw up, dont blame me, it worked on my MacBook

The Required Programs (links at bottom)

Acronis Disk Director Bootable CD
Acronis True Image
Another computer with a clean install of XP. No programs installed at all.
A MacBook obviously!
A Windows Vista DVD (not for installation purposes!)
Vista boot files
bcdedit.exe
BCDedit restore file


1. Using the Bootable Acronis Disk Director CD on the MacBook, shrink the Mac partition. Create a new partition of type NTFS/HPFS in the remaining space.

2. Setup XP on a PC.

3. Extract Boot.7z to the root drive of your XP installation. C:\Boot\

4. Copy bcdedit.exe to the root drive of your XP installation. C:\BCDedit.exe

5. Copy MacBook.bcd to the root drive of your XP installation

6. Use sysprep to reseal your XP install and remove all hardware info from the setup.

7. Use Acronis TrueImage CD to make an image of your XP install.

8. Use the bootable Acronis True Image CD to recreate the image on the partition you just made on your MacBook.

9. Use the Bootable Vista DVD to boot on the MacBook.

10. Select “Repair Startup” -> Next -> CMD -> Run too.

11. Browse to drive C:\Boot (which is the partition you created on the MacBook and then extracted the Acronis TrueImage file to). (cd C:\boot)

12. Run “fixntfs.exe -lh” without the quotes

13. Browse back to drive C:\ (cd \)

14. Run “bcdedit.exe /import MacBook.bcd” without the quotes

15. Eject the CD and restart.

16. In Mac now, hack the Darwin Bootloader to add another entry that chainloads Drive(0) Partition(2). With GRUB it would look something like this… I’m not sure if Darwin is the same, but this step is very simple, and has nothing to do with EFI.
title Windows XP
rootnoverify (hd0,1)
chainloader +1

17. Restart

18. By selecting “Windows XP” on the Darwin Bootloader you should be chainloaded to the Vista bootloader, which should in turn boot the entry “NeoSmart Windows XP”

19. If everything went good, XP will boot!!


Vista Boot Files

http://neosmart.net/downloads/boot.7z

bcdedit.exe

http://neosmart.net/downloads/bcdedit.exe

BCDedit restore file
http://neosmart.net/downloads/MacBook.bcd

[sozkan]

"*before you beign, if you screw up, dont blame me, it worked on my MacBook"

Would you please take some pictures and post. I hope i am not asking too much :)

if this solution boots xp i will buy you a top of the line macbook pro as a gift.

[allmightylittleone]

Roumor has it that the MacBook Pro's use the 2.5 in. laptop harddrive. Install elilo to choose the partition, yet give you the ability to boot windows natively Try plugging it into a Windows PC via an enclosure. Resize the partition with OSX on it to the proper size, and create a new NTFS partition using partition magic. Use an imaging software, such as Acronis TrueImage, to create an image of your harddrive. Boot under a Linux live CD (such as Ubuntu) on your regular machine, and DD the image to the enclosure. You should find an elilo configuration on the drive, so while you are at it, configure it so it boots to hda2, the second partition on the first harddrive. It should boot up fine, and your MacBook should be running Windows:) . Now if this works, don't give me any money. Give the money to the charity of your choice. :eek: shocking isn't it. I am a nice computer geek right :D .
I hope this works
Michael

[tmoney]

"*before you beign, if you screw up, dont blame me, it worked on my MacBook"

Has anyone else verified that everyaa's solution above really works???

[Steve1496]

"*before you beign, if you screw up, dont blame me, it worked on my MacBook"

Has anyone else verified that everyaa's solution above really works???



It's not his solution and no it doesn't work. Its that same Computer Gurus solution again. Many have verified it won't work.

[allmightylittleone]

can somebody please verify my solution to see if it works. I wonder, because the theory wouldn't work
feel free to modify my theory as much as you want, as long as some of it goes to a charity, and i'm talking about not just $1, so feel free to use my theory
see if it works
waiting to see if it does or not
Michael :D

[iSee]

can somebody please verify my solution to see if it works. I wonder, because the theory wouldn't work
feel free to modify my theory as much as you want, as long as some of it goes to a charity, and i'm talking about not just $1, so feel free to use my theory
see if it works
waiting to see if it does or not
Michael :D
If I understood you right you are just moving a Windows install to a Mac Hard drive - that is not sufficient. You need some special bootloader and something to handle the BIOS requests Windows XP issues at runtime. It might work for Vista though, but I won't be able to verify that either.

BTW: I would not be surprised if Apple "silently" upgrades their EFI for new machines, so its entirely possible newer machines "just work" and there is a way to transfer Apple's solution to "older" IntelMacs. (But they'll probably wait for the deadline to pass by ;-/

iSee

[Rayne]

1. How about someone gets either xp or vista to install on an external firewire hard drive using a computer that has EFI(or code the EFI bott files yourself). and use the option key to select the firewire hd as the boot drive on the mac?

2. Use linux to install a bootloader and use it to boot xp/vista.

3. replace the vista boot files on the cd/dvd image to boot.

[Steve1496]

BTW: I would not be surprised if Apple "silently" upgrades their EFI for new machines, so its entirely possible newer machines "just work" and there is a way to transfer Apple's solution to "older" IntelMacs. (But they'll probably wait for the deadline to pass by ;-/



So they'd pay a company such as AMI or Insyde for a BIOS layer when they don't need one (and these don't come cheap)?

[allmightylittleone]

If I understood you right you are just moving a Windows install to a Mac Hard drive - that is not sufficient. You need some special bootloader and something to handle the BIOS requests Windows XP issues at runtime. It might work for Vista though, but I won't be able to verify that either.

BTW: I would not be surprised if Apple "silently" upgrades their EFI for new machines, so its entirely possible newer machines "just work" and there is a way to transfer Apple's solution to "older" IntelMacs. (But they'll probably wait for the deadline to pass by ;-/

iSee

Yes I understand, what you are saying, but you can put elilo in front of it, so windows doesn't need the bios it is just loaded by elilo, becuase elilo supports efi machines, I know it won't boot plainly, but have like eLilo as an extra layer. I don't know, I do not have a macbook, or iMac to try this out. But, if you really need to use windows programs on a mac (i know this doesn't count for the contest,)since you have booted linux, you can run QEMU, and use that to simulate the windows enviornment.
Goodbye:D

[allmightylittleone]

1. How about someone gets either xp or vista to install on an external firewire hard drive using a computer that has EFI(or code the EFI bott files yourself). and use the option key to select the firewire hd as the boot drive on the mac?

2. Use linux to install a bootloader and use it to boot xp/vista.

3. replace the vista boot files on the cd/dvd image to boot.
That isn't the problem
The only windows that supports EFI bios is Windows Vista, which doesn't yet because it's in beta (I think), Windows XP 64-bit edition (but the MacBook Pro isn't 64 bit), Windows Server Itanium edition (also 64-bit, and once again the MacBook Pro isn't 64 bit)
If somebody could get it to install with EFI, then you would have no problem booting Windows on the MacBook Pro, that is basically the only problem. Small changes can cause big problems :)
Michael

[sozkan]

http://forum.onmac.net/showthread.php?t=57

[iSee]

Yes I understand, what you are saying, but you can put elilo in front of it, so windows doesn't need the bios it is just loaded by elilo, becuase elilo supports efi machines, I know it won't boot plainly, but have like eLilo as an extra layer.
While this is repeating what has been written here before, XP needs BIOS not just for booting, but also at runtime. If you read the whole thread, you will find a link to a BIOS emulation project on SourceForge, that might indeed work given the progress with elilo (it works on sub-os-level). But then you could also do a normal installation.
Hope this is useful for someone,
iSee

[yogi]

Hi ,
there was some discusssion and development about efi for longhorn.I am posting the link here if it is any help may be???
sincerely, yogi

link is http://www.intel.com/technology/efi/efi.htm

[allmightylittleone]

While this is repeating what has been written here before, XP needs BIOS not just for booting, but also at runtime.
Thanks iSee, well, I just recently heard from somewhere that windows vista isn't planning to realese 32 bit EFI oses, well, what can u expect from microsoft
well, i don't no how to work my way around the need for bios at runtime
thanks for all your help
michael
P.S. I should've read majority of the forum
-----------------------------------------------------
Just think what life would be like if you could dual boot a Mac