Hackers get windows xp running on Apple/mac

smeggle

Just picked this up over at the bbc news site technology section

Hackers have managed to get Microsoft's Windows XP operating system running on an Apple Mac computer.

The success ends a competition started to see if the feat was even possible when Apple unveiled computers that used Intel chips.

The pair who managed the feat won $13,854 (£7,895) in prize money for their trouble.

The software used to put Windows on the Mac is now being circulated so others can try to replicate the success.

Custom care

In January 2006, the first Apple Mac computers using Intel chips were unveiled at the Macworld show by company boss Steve Jobs.

Soon after the unveiling, Mac enthusiast Colin Nederkoorn kicked off a competition to see if it was possible for the two operating systems to run independently on the same machine.

To tempt entrants, he put up $100 of his own money - a prize fund that gradually grew as news about the competition spread.

The rules of the competition stressed that to win hackers must get both Windows XP and Apple's OSX running on the same machine and neither operating system must conflict with the other.

more at src: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4816520.stm

Rollo Tamasi

its the end of the world!

KdjaCL

Are they not programmers? And really good ones at that?

Credit where credit is due.


kdjac

K.O.Kiki

It's only WinXP. I'm impressed, but in the end, XP is elderly.

If someone gets Vista running on an Intel Mac (after MS said they don't support EFI on 32-bit), though... I'd call them minor deities

MaxBax

I was just wondering about the quality of performance? Is there anywhere that explains what applications they got working? Did they get some games to work etc?

**Timbuk2**

Amazing

Cake Fiend

I can understand the interest in this from an academic point of view - but now that they're distributing the software to do it, I have to wonder: who in the name of Jaysus would want to run Windows on a Mac?!

/me goes searching for his idiot-mallet....

unklerosco

They need to do it the other way round n get OSX on a pc.. Give microsoft some decent competition...

Nevyn

Cos the mac is a better machine in terms of not crashing and being overall better engineered.

KdjaCL

Thaedydal wrote:

Cos the mac is a better machine in terms of not crashing and being overall better engineered.

Machines dont crash software does, Windows has a hell of a lot more 3rd party support than a Mac so the possibilities of crashes increases greatly.

A dual booting Mac would be a strong selling point if Apple promoted it.


kdjac

astrofool

Surely by hacking the software to work on a machine it wasn't meant for is going to increase the chances of the machine crashing? People want OSX for their PC cos of the flashy interface, and the apple programs (and possibly the fact its built on Unix), but stability would not be the reason with a hacked version.

On the subject of Windows, most crashes are due to dodgy software drivers, Mac's don't have as big a problem here due to having a set hardware standard for all their machines. Also you have to laugh at them being "better engineered" when they share basically all the same problems as a PC, including things like faulty capacitors, the iPod, for example, would be relatively feature-less and non-robust compared to most competing MP3 players from the likes of IRiver or Creative.

Capt'n Midnight

KdjaC wrote:

Machines dont crash software does, Windows has a hell of a lot more 3rd party support than a Mac so the possibilities of crashes increases greatly.

A dual booting Mac would be a strong selling point if Apple promoted it.


kdjac

Apple may not mind so much if people run windows on the MAC as people would then buy MAC's. Having MAC OS run on a PC is a totally different thing and I would like but won't hold my breath.

Novell Netware 3.x had even worse memory protection than windows XP and guess what ? As long as you used certified third party NLM's (drivers) you'd rarely have crashes. So windows crashes are down to buggy drivers, bad testing AND flakey OS. Remove any one from the equation and it would be far more stable. I still think the change between NT 3.51 and NT 4.0 of allowing the video drivers in Ring-0 was not a good thing.

RANT The problem with most microsoft software is that too much attention is spent on speed and usability and not enough on security and reliability, even though improvements in the later pair would yield substantial improvemnts in the first pair. I can remember using window 3.11 and NEVER closing an app if I ever thought I'd open it again because of all the memory leaks. And something similar happens with Windows 2003 server if you copy lots of files at the same time (server !) /RANT

But will be interesting to compare crashes and stuff between MAC OS and XP on the same hardware.

PS. if you pop on a copy of PRO then you can also upgrade to an intel DUO chip too.

Cake Fiend

Thaedydal wrote:

Cos the mac is a better machine in terms of not crashing and being overall better engineered.

Er, that's a rather fetching hat you're talking through. Also, you clearly haven't experienced the HORROR that is pre-version-10 MacOS.

art

Sico wrote:

Er, that's a rather fetching hat you're talking through. Also, you clearly haven't experienced the HORROR that is pre-version-10 MacOS.

Pre version 10 was far more stable than pre version XP... Likewise Apple machines have, up to this point anyway, been far better engineered than competitor Win based machines. You just need to stroke a present day iMac to be convinced of that, they are fantastically put together.

art

astrofool wrote:

the iPod, for example, would be relatively feature-less and non-robust compared to most competing MP3 players from the likes of IRiver or Creative.

That's total nonsense altogether.