« Mossberg on PalmOne Treo 700w | Home | MacBook Pro: What's in a Name? (Updated) »
January 20, 2006
Apple in the Way (Updated)
It looks like my suspicions were correct, Apple didn't put the Compatibility Support Module (CSM) into the final firmware for the iMac. If I had to suspect reasons why, it was probably to motivate Microsoft to continue supporting Mac versions of Office, and give them a market for Virtual PC.
Without CSM, the only future OS that's going to run is Vista, and not until Beta 2 goes GM (EFI support is in the feature set, but the bootloader won't have it until the last minute... if not later). The good news is that if Vista stays on-track, it should make it out about when MacBook Pros start arriving.
But, that said, Apple is clearly standing in the way of running Windows, Linux, or anything other than Mac OS on a Mac. There is no technical reason CSM cannot be in the firmware, and, Intel has said very publicly all Intel Chipset manufacturers (including Apple) have free access to CSM, and Intel will even custom-build CSM for a developer licensing a chipset.
Contributed by: Christopher Price.
UPDATE:
From the EFI Framework FAQ:
What is the Intel Platform Innovation Framework for EFI?
The Intel Platform Innovation Framework for EFI is new software code that allows BIOS vendors to replace the obsolete PC BIOS. It implements the EFI 1.1 interface. It provides the ability to add new features to the pre-boot environment, such as improved platform manageability, serviceability and recovery and improved administrative interfaces, which previously could not operate in the pre-boot environment. The Framework is a product-strength implementation of EFI that is an all-new firmware implementation for platforms all the way down to silicon. The Intel Platform Innovation Framework for EFI, the name of the product, is now Intel’s recommended implementation of the EFI Specification across all Intel Architectures.
Read more about the EFI Framework in this Intel FAQ.
Posted by jasonogrady at January 20, 2006 11:23 AM
Category: Intel
Digg This |
Post to del.icio.us |
Post to Furl
- Apple Begins Licensing Mini DisplayPort for Free
- VMWare Offering "Cyber Monday" Deal
- iTunes 8.0.2 Purchase Bug Located, Workaround Discovered
- Windows Vista Service Pack 2 Update Expected Next April
- Battech Releases iPower SX Solar Charger
- Bevy of Deals Located on App Store
- Black Friday Deals Located for Assorted Apple Products
- Cocktail 4.2.1 (Leopard Edition) Released
- Happy Thanksgiving From O'Grady's PowerPage!
- Sonnet Releases Simply Fast FireWire 800 to FireWire 400 Adapter
- QuickTime 7.5.5 Update Allows for Secure Digital iTunes Playback via DisplayPort
- Microsoft Offering Black Friday Deal on Office 2008 for Mac: Special Media Edition
- Apple to Match Holiday Prices for "Authorized Resellers"
- Aisles of Geekdom: A Return Trip
- Best Buy Announces Collaboration with Apple, Four Day Sale on Mac Product Line
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.powerpage.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/8571
Comments
I hardly think that Apple's failure to include a CSM means it is "standing in the way" of running alternative OSes on the system. Apple builts its Macs to run Mac OS X. Adding a CSM would require them to take affirmative steps to enable alternative operating systems solely because those OSes don't understand EFI. It's obviously something you want to do if you are selling the box as Windows- or Linux-compatible. If you are not, why take the extra step and incur the extra expense of incorporating a CSM? Moreover, adding a CSM might very well require additional testing to make sure it doesn't interfere with Mac OS X and also (optionally) to make sure it actually works with third-party operating systems. I don't see any reason why Apple would want to make this extra effort or how it would serve their interests.
Posted by: Geoff Green at January 20, 2006 3:21 PM
Is EFI sufficiently hackable that an enterprising programmer could add CSM? I have no idea what these bits of software are. Just asking.
Posted by: Andrew Hedges at January 20, 2006 6:02 PM
Until production versions of the MacBook Pro get into people's hands there's still hope that Apple is reserving the implementation of an EFI CSM for their pro level computers. It is something they can hold as an additional selling point for the "pro" level.
Fingers crossed!!
Posted by: John Doe at January 20, 2006 7:30 PM
Including something like the CSM costs money, even if CSM is free. It requires QA resources, support resources and so forth. If Apple doesn't need it to run MacOS, it would be stupid to include it.
Posted by: Mike Kobb at January 21, 2006 2:52 PM
I think it's more a matter of allocating resources and setting priorities. They are 6 months ahead of what they promised, I'm sure they've been busy with other stuff!
Posted by: Dave. at January 21, 2006 3:48 PM
I just wanted to chime in to respond to the original comment that holding back CSM was to aleviate some bugstage burden on Apple Engineering. Uh, no.
CSM only launches in the instance of a priority boot drive partition having BIOS-style boot blocks. If Mac OS X is the primary boot drive, with primary partition status, EFI wouldn't need to call CSM to load the partition. In fact, we know this is what Apple did since the Darwin bootloader used in DTK systems is not called up (you can't call it up). I presume down the road, via Leopard, that deploying the Darwin bootloader will become easy again, but, that is way beyond the subject of this article. The point is, the only bugstage testing involved would be to ensure that the final builds would load, and, that CSM both could load the Mac OS and another non-Mac OS. Finally, Intel has had CSM for years now... it's their code to fix, and, if there was a bug, Apple has had ample time to let people know that there was an issue with CSM and alerted users that it would not be ready at launch. CSM was intentionally not included and not because of any enginnering issues, and until someone from Apple presents a darn good technical case otherwise, I fail to see a valid reason that could hold it up.
Posted by: Christopher Price at January 21, 2006 6:19 PM
I believe(can't remember where I read it) Apple has stated that they will not "stand in the way" of others from running Windows on the new Macs, nor will they asssist others to get Windows running on the new Macs. Apple doesn't need CSM in order for OS X to work on the new machines. So by adding CSM they would be assisting in getting Windows to run on the new Macs. Apple has no control over the fact that current Windows require a BIOS/CSM in order to boot. Instead of blaming Apple for not including CSM try blaming Microsoft for not allowing Windows XP to have EFI compatibility...
Posted by: Steve Bee at January 22, 2006 10:49 AM
'Innovation' has now become a management weasel word, it has worn very thin on presentation slides and in product names. Microsoft and now Intel have certainly killed that word.
Posted by: Innovator at January 22, 2006 10:33 PM
