Why would EFI be the reason Vista doesn't work with IntelMacs when XP relies on Bios as well and it works. I am sure there is something preventing the beta from functioning with BootCamp like XP, but how can it be the EFI scenario?

Quote

Websnap wrote:
Why would EFI be the reason Vista doesn't work with IntelMacs when XP relies on Bios as well and it works. I am sure there is something preventing the beta from functioning with BootCamp like XP, but how can it be the EFI scenario?

It isnt the EFI scenario, bootcamp does solve this. The article was just pointing out that EFI is the first hurdle that had to be solved for any of the Windows OS to run.

It would maybe be clearer if the line read:
"Experts have felt that there are serious hurdles to overcome before Windows would install ..." (not Vista)

Bootcamp will be restricting its install because Apple are working with Microsoft to support Vista properly.

macs are for really brilliant people.

[edited by Intruder because guest cannot play well with others]

Vista should write all its boot files to the install partition if it cannot see the MacOS partition. Try hiding the MacOS partition with something like PQboot, a little utility from Partition Magic. Then you should be able to dual boot.

farangcm

Could you use PQboot to install Vista on a MacBook?
If so, how?

I installed Vista RC1 using BootCamp 1.1.1 on my MacBook
(2GHz processors, 1GB Ram, 80GB HD).
No problems during the installations.
I installed all the drivers with the bootcamp drivers cd.
Vista works really fine!!!!
Even the mac keyboard is recognized
Only few problems:
- built in iSight webcam doesn't work.
- My MacBook is really HOT!
- 2 hardware founds but not installed.

I really think that with the final Vista and the final BootCamp there will be no problems ;o)
CIAO!

Hey folks. What I did to make Vista RC1 (and beta 1 and 2) run smooth on my Mackbook Pro is...:
1.Update OSX
2. Update your firmware
3. Get the latest version of bootcamp.
4. Partition your hdd. (Remember to give Vista at least 5 gigs more than recommended.)
5. Start the installation prosess.
6. Let Vista do the installation as it should(Read the manual!)
7. Boot ut your Macbook after the installation holding down the option (alt) key so you get up 2 disks to boot from.
8. Choose booting from the Windows disk, and let the machine start up... this can take some mins first time.
9. Grab a coffe while Vista configures, and enter whatever it wants(Username etc.)
10. run Vista and enjoy!
11. Insert your Mac-driver CD (if you havent done yet.. read the Boot Camp manual)
12. Install your drivers... This will fail at some point!! But you still get drivers for the graphic card and soundcard.


My Vista Ultimate version run like h.... rendering 3D and software as h...
This is in my opinion the fastest Windows ever, and even the RC1 is more stable than eny before it. I have to mention that I run OSX and Linux on a Daily base, but Vista will make me try windows again:)
If u have any questions about this, feel free to contact me at thomas@bybroen.no.
IÒ‘ll try to help u if I can:)
Cheers!!
-gonzy-

Interesting, especially since Microsoft has told game publishers that Vista will run 10-15% SLOWER than XP due to the 3D graphics for the desktop.

BTW, those are the instructions to get XP to install too. So, not exactly sure where you were going with the post, but c'est la vie. Maybe you are just trying to convince everybody that Vista is the s***, but I don't think you will find many believers here.

i ve loaded the winndows vista.but the driver cd burnt by boot camp is not loading. i am using a network for internet.i need the driver.so pls help me out.my email kumaranEKS@gmail.com

I wish people would stop bashing the pc as "old" and "boring" after all, while Macs are better for creative work (Which is more common in the careers of older ppl i might add) macs are more for the middle aged or students, after all Mac games are practically unexistant, wher as ther are litteraly millions of games for the pc. PCs are used because of their compatability or power, macs are used fo rcreative work, they each hav a different job. dont get me wrong i luv mac, but im a gamer as well as a creaative designer which means PC for games and Mac for my work

Macs are also for people who can put sentences together, spell and also create a cogent argument (preferably one related to the topic).

Wanna try again?

These are just a few reasons that I use both Mac and PC. You can take them how ever you like. With all due respect, I don’t care what anyone else thinks! It’s how I get work done.


Mac

Pros…
Well engineered (quiet, stable, sexy, stunning design); geared towards creative professionals who care about details, color, and intuitiveness. OS has an insightful and elegant interface, making it easy as pie for novices and pros alike to acclimate to and navigate. A decent number of powerful 3rd party tools.

Cons…
Price; Floating windows/palate interface is undesirable to many; Less customizable options (i.e. no option for a 10,000 rpm hard drive that many PC vendors offer, and pros want); Some inferior hardware (single click mouse); Somewhat visually gratuitous UI that can hamper productivity. Poor networking capabilities compared to PCs.

An aside…
Perhaps the biggest con of the Mac is its power-user base. These individuals tend to have an elitist position despite what their open-minded (and equally creative) personas would suggest. Often times I hear spurious and uniformly ignorant contempt for PCs: That without understanding even the surface of what these machines can do, often far better than the Mac. My experiences have shown me that neither platform is worth conforming to exclusively. I use both, depending on the job requirements.


PC

Pros…
Powerful, customizable, compatible. Geared towards everyone and no-one. Gamers’ get customization, power, and large title selection; Business and IT professionals get compatibility and seamless network integration; Many web designers/developers (like myself) prefer the way web apps such as Flash, Dreamweaver, Visual Studio, After Effects (etc) run on the OS, making much more efficient use of the GUI’s real estate. Web browsing is superior and predictable hands down; A plethora of powerful 3rd party tools; Once you are a power user, the OS is highly efficient and productive; the Windows “Taskbar” is far superior to the Mac's "Dock"; Much longer learning curve than the Mac OS.

Cons…
Cheap construction; Built with "the bottom line" in mind; Thousands of potential Viruses and corresponding security threats and bugs; Can crash from time to time (though very rare); Unintuitive OS (To shut down, you to go to the "start" button!); Terrible color integration (has no color consistency solution such as ColorSync on the Mac OS)

An aside…
PC users tend to be too trustworthy of vendors who monopolize the industry (2 guesses). Mac users tend to appreciate and understand the value of freedom and flexibility. On the other hand, companies like Microsoft who have a foothold on the PC industry, try to force its’ user base to conform to its principles. An example of this is MS SharePoints Portal Server- A browser-based portal that renders perfectly in IE, but deliberately poorly in Firefox. In the new and developing world of standards, there is no place for single platform/browser applications. This is the crux of Microsoft.

In conclusion…
Mac users need to get off their high-horses and realize the power and efficiency the PC brings. PC users need to realize that the Mac is a viable, and above all, safe business tool, not just a proprietary platform for artsy people and those who just want to hit the on button and go like my mom. Who consequently turned her Dell in for a new iMac and is happy as a happy mom could be. Hmm. Must have been that green “start” button.

Therefore my “perfect world” scenario is to have Mac hardware running both OSX and Windows XP, with hopes that Vista eventually runs smoothly. One not on Vista, I hope it doesn’t go too far down the gratuitous GUI route. And if they do, it would behoove them to create a way to shut off all the bells and whistles.

Just a couple of points to the last post...


1) You can put a 10,000 rpm drive in if you wish. Apple doesn't offer them as a BTO option, but any third party drive will work just fine. And the new machines make it very easy to do. Takes about 5 minutes from unplugging the machine to turning it back on again.

2) Apple hasn't shipped a machine with a one-button mouse since just after the release of the Mighty Mouse. Also, any multi-button mouse will work just fine.

3) Poor networking capabilities? What does that mean? Built-in wireless (now apparently 802.11N capable cards, but 802.11a/b/g as a minimum for anything that is currently shipping) plus gigabit ethernet standard. Also works with Windows filesharing. and MS Active Directory. What, exactly, are they missing?

I agree on all points you've made, except for the networking bit. It is now easier to upgrade your mac than in the past. More vendors are now making cross-platform hardware. My mac has a 10,000 rpm Raptor, as well as my PC. In general however, I prefer having more customization options available on the PC. For example, my Lian Li silent aluminum case has 4 bays in the front: 2 for my smoking fast Plextor DVD/CD burners, 1 multi-port media card reader, and an aditional panel with 2 IEEE (Firewire) port /2 USB 2.0 ports (which mac was VERY late to adopt btw- remember?!)., vid-in, audio-in, headphones-in and mic-in. I've installed quiet fans as well as a host of other top-of-the-line hardware the mac towers simply don't use. The best part is that this machine cost me over 1k less to build to order than my new Core Duo Mac box.


I prefer my mac on many levels, but honestly, I get more done on my PC. While Windows XP has SO many things left to be desired, I find it to be more productive when designing and developing. It is native to our networking environment (Windows Server 2003 / Active Directory / Exchange), making it effortless to set up, work from mapped drives on the network, share info, remote desktop or VPN in, access Outlook and CRM accounts, etc. The key terms are compatibility, robustness (a word?), accessability, and speed. Sure, I've set my mac up to access parts of this network, but it took me and IT a lond time to confugure, and is very limited in scope of how it can interact within the environment.

On it's own, the mac is great. You're right- SUPER wireless capabilities and gigabit ethernet hardware makes the box able to connect at high speed, but the OS integration just isn't there b/c Macs aren't designed for entrbrise level sharing and network integration. It's that simple.

Also, I'm not into gratuitous graphics (read- special effects within my OS). They look pretty in a novel sort of way but waste real time and deter me from being productive. Unfortunately Vista looks like a big pile of eye-candy too. I hope they have options for turning all that crap off.

hi,

I've succesfully installed win Vista next to my mac os x. Everything works perfect, i just don't have any sound and i have to restart using the alt button to get back to mac (becase the controlpanel doesn't allow you to open the startupdisk app. So maybe anyone of you can tell me the manufacturer of the soundcard, or wether it's an integrated one. and maybe then everything will work.

Hi if anyone og you smart guys/girls know how to install vista RC 2 on a macbook...pleeeease tell me

Alright, LaurieF, but punctuation and using words that exist seem to be a challenge for YOU.

There should have been a comma after the word "spell" and the combination of letters "wanna" is not a word.

Not a challenge at all. I'll concede "wanna"; but, with a collection of words and phrases, where the last one is separated by an "and" and there is no potential confusion, the comma is not required.

As a system administrator I used windows for a long time. I agree that windows is necessary to run some software. What most users don't realize is that high end networks generally run some flavor of unix. I just recently switched to OS X and find it much easier to do my job. The backend BSD subsystem makes management of linux servers very easy. Plus the ability to dual boot windows XP makes other hardware somewhat unnecessary. Moreover, with the remote desktop client I can connect to the few windows servers I have and manage them right from my macbook pro. I would say end users only really need to use windows if there is a specific program or game that isn't made for the mac. In terms of functionality they are basically identical, especially now that vista has adopted a bunch of the mac's foofy effects like window transparency and expose-like window management. In terms of configurability I find the mac is actually much more flexible since I can use the BSD back end to fix any problems (of which there are very few). As far as server OS's go I prefer linux for its stability and security but there are definitely times when windows can be useful...usually when the administrator is too lazy to learn how to use Unix

I just got finished reading a bunch of posts that almost put my (mac) laptop into thermal overload from all the hot air coming from between the lines. I am an IT service provider that regularly integrates macs into windows networks. I own a macbook pro running parallels with XP, Vista and even Small Business Server 2003! I use it to teach how it all goes together. No other machine can do this as easily and as well.

That said, I feel macs are built with the individual in mind and Windows machines are built around supporting the organization.

I've found Linux users to be incredibly elitest, followed closely behind by mac users with a false sense of computer superiority. Funny because when a mac does break, these users are generally the most helpless. PC users are "the working class" of computer users. They complain less probably because they expect less from their operating system with regard to stability. I've found ALL of these operating systems to be very stable, when setup PROPERLY. The main reason Windows machines are less stable has to do with the number of different hardware combinations they are EXPECTED to run on. If you could only buy a Windows machine from one manufacturer, it would be every bit as stable (and MUCH more expensive).

I've been installing MACS for years on Windows networks. Let's face it, if you're going to bring your mac to work, you're very likely to at some point have to connect to a Windows server and even an Exchange server. Mac's mail clients are TERRIBLE when used for anything but IMAP and POP. No MAPI client? That's just unrealistic in the working world. Sure they have WEBDAV (using OWA to connect), but it is a poorly conceived solution that is incredibly slow and brings an exchange server to its knees. Mac should suck it up and (RE)release a MAPI mail client. Please don't comment on how Exchange is a piece of junk, because you either don't know what you're talking about or are working on one that is improperly setup and you are not using the incredible features it provides. I loved Entourage, but Outlook 2007 kills it!

With regard to connecting to Windows servers, Macs must be manually reconnected to individual network shares EVERY time they are started up. Annoying.

The problem with Windows Servers is the software is SO powerful and everybody who can click a mouse thinks they know how to set one up properly. Trust me, I see "handyman" installations all the time.

As for the Linux people itching to jump in, sure Linux is stable, but any money you save in software and hardware is eaten up in administration costs many times over. Sorry, but 1 in 10000 techs is can efficiently manage a Linux network (and I'm being generous!). Even if your tech knows Linux, odds are he has no standardized certifications to guage his knowledge. It may be great to be in the "club", but as a business owner, I don't like those odds when I need to get service or user training. I also don't like that most LINUX techs I work with (I am one also) are arrogant and have almost discust for the organization and the users they support.

As far as the way Linux connects to Windows networks, it is MUCH better.

Okay, I've taken enough of your time. . . In short, Intel Macs are VERY EXCITING because they are the only computer that actually can run all of the above off the shelf with an inexpensive software solution. For that reason alone, it provides the only TRULY flexible solution.

Signed, a Microsoft Solution Provider

It works because Vista is just XP with better video driver.

Vista runs fine on Parallels, a bit sluggish, did not remove XP from another VM, so currently I am running Tiger, XP and Vista on my Macbook ! Sorry forgot to mention that I am running another partition with XP on it - just because I can !!!
Mac's are still the best - OK.

JarJarT

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Vista runs fine on Parallels, a bit sluggish, did not remove XP from another VM, so currently I am running Tiger, XP and Vista on my Macbook ! Sorry forgot to mention that I am running another partition with XP on it - just because I can !!!
Mac's are still the best - OK.

JarJarT

Which version of Vista do you have running?

I've got a macbook pro Core Duo and I'm running Vista Ultimate. Its very fast on the system. If its not faster than OSX, its pretty damn close. The biggest problem I've had is the heat as the fans don't really run. Hopefully that'll be fixed when apple comes out with new drivers.
The other complaint I've got about Vista, is no firewire networking. WTF? Firewire networking is an awesome way to transfer large files quickly between computers.

I do have to agree with Guest MSP.
The new Intel Macs are wonderful if you're in a mixed environment. Otherwise they're really overpriced for what they do. They're not designed with management and security in mind. They are for the individual, who is really only going to be doing a few things. If you're trying to do more advanced stuff, like configurations and management, you're gonna have to use 3rd party stuff, or use the command line. They can be a total pain to troubleshoot.
And I totally agree with you on the Linux stuff. What you save on the OS, you spend in the countless hours trying to configure it. Although Linspire's CNR helps a bit, it has a massive way to go.
And think about it, WIntel PCs have been running multiple operating systems for years. On all sorts of hardware. Apple just made it sexier.

I too am an adventurous soul and have already installed windows vista on the macbook. I had no problems with the dual boot, or having the vista as the only OS. Only problem I found was getting the audio drivers to work correctly and getting the firewire to install properly. It runs great and I dont really see what the problem is. I basically upgraed my windows xp to vista and that was that.

I am using vista and tiger without flaw

The tech people at my school just reformatted a macbook's hard drive and stuck in the Vista install disc, and it worked, but without some drivers. Apparently it's that easy- i think a recent macbook firmware upgrade allowed using BIOS to boot.

I'm glad to read that people are successfully running Vista on their MacBooks. I am wondering what else will run... I use Visual Studio 2005, Coldfusion, and some other dev tools for work and would like to know if anyone is running these. Either using Parallels or Boot Camp (preferrably Parallel, so I would have to reboot everytime I had to check Safari).

Thanks.

hey guys !
its as simple as to run windows in intel based macbook!!
just download the beta version of bootcamp n extract the driver installing it in mac OS which then u can create the driver cd!!!
then u have an option u wanna keep Mac OS or not if not then just boot macbook by keping the xp cd in th slot n o thriugh setuo as the same u do in pc.
so after finishing setup simply just install the driver from the driver cd that u have created before by bootcamp.
done then u nomore need bootcamp..
enjoy

Can you try that again in English, please? Sprinkling in a little punctuation in the right places would help as well...

I dont know what everyone is talking about. You just put in a Vista disc instead of an XP when bootcamp asks for it. All works great!

I installed Vista ultimate on my macbook with boot camp. everything worked fine, except the drivers cd i burned creates an error when the auto .exe runs to install all the drivers. i believe they were created for xp, is that my problem? if so, where did everyone get their drivers for network card, sound card, etc?

i have the latest gen black macbook...if that helps for hardware identification.

thanks,
your latest pc to mac convert.

I also installed Vista RC1 on my MBP with no problem using bootcamp. I have heard that the final production version of Vista has some trouble with bootcamp because of the EFI partition. I haven't shelled out to test this yet, but probably will be in the future.

So Laurie, does your life pathetically consist of lurking on a mac board and systematically commenting on others grammatical choices to help serve your own insecurities? I mean really, it is a internet forum and usually in "internet forums" messages are exchanged with efficiency and speed in mind, not perfect grammatical execution. So may I suggest if you do not have anything relative to the "Boot Camp Used to load Vista on MacBook Pro" discussion to contribute, keep your hands away from the keyboard.

pompous tit. Get a life.

Where I can download all the drivers for MacBook Pro to be
used under Vista. Please advice.

Does anyone know if you can install windows on a Xeon quad Xsever?