Leopard to Include Virtualization Software?

[MarcelV]

The virtualization (using VT) being discussed does emulate a PC, with emulated devices like graphics, NIC and disks.
Thanks for providing the full detail. Great explanation. I think, however, we will see something different as initially described or even requested by the patent. MS has stated they are porting the Presentation Foundation to the Mac environment. I don't think it is necessary to have Windows installed at all when that has been completed. I think the MS framework will be the key here, and that's why emulation will not be necessary. Just to secure OS/X, I think the Presentation Foundation will run in containers but with access to disks and NIC etc.

[inkswamp]

that's just ignorance right there. Sure, you may not need any of the Windows only apps, but alot of people do. believe it or not, 90+% vs. 3% marketshare does make a difference

Don't bother citing marketshare numbers unless a) you know they are accurate and b) you understand that they don't translate to the user base.

[rayz]

Hmph. So Apple is selling us out at last.

How so?

[rayz]

I don't think that will happen. The GUI is not where the stability is, and while Windows is getting better over the years (XP is really not that instable if we are just honest) it still isn't there compared with OSX.


That's really just an opinion though. I've been working in environments running thousands of XP machines doing development and graphics work. Haven't seen a single machine crash since Windows 2000.

And the stability of Vista is well unknown.

This is very true. It's the same Windows code, but they moved alot of it around to implement better protection and security. In theory, it should be rock solid, but I certainly wouldn't put money on it until I've seen it in action for a few months ... :-|

[Timepass]

That's really just an opinion though. I've been working in environments running thousands of XP machines doing development and graphics work. Haven't seen a single machine crash since Windows 2000.



This is very true. It's the same Windows code, but they moved alot of it around to implement better protection and security. In theory, it should be rock solid, but I certainly wouldn't put money on it until I've seen it in action for a few months ... :-|


why are people making a big deal over EFI. Yes it better than the BIOS but at the same time it just a glorific BIOS. After boot up there is noughting EFI system can do that a BIOS cannt. Now in boot up things can be a little differnt but as soon as the OS is loaded there is no differnce in the system.

[possuvaan]

What

[g0gie]

why are people making a big deal over EFI. Yes it better than the BIOS but at the same time it just a glorific BIOS. After boot up there is noughting EFI system can do that a BIOS cannt. Now in boot up things can be a little differnt but as soon as the OS is loaded there is no differnce in the system.




A LOT of things actually. BIOS Is actually a very old component that has basically been "patched" each time somthing has changed intechnology. BIg word being patched, as it was not originally intended with todays technology in mind. With the development in EFI you get these and other benifits:

* Breaks through fundamental BIOS barriers. For example, preboot RAM (random access memory) can now be greater than 1 MB, which means developers can control how RAM is allocated, and the Option ROM (read-only memory) space crunch is resolved.
* Allows a developer to compile pretested modules into a working BIOS that is more likely to be efficient and error-free.
* Encapsulates system specifics in the drivers. For example, drivers map to software-visible hardware. Also, hardware and platform specifics are isolated to support component-based firmware construction.
* Allows OEMs to add preboot features.
* Framework based on the C language, which will allow developers to use these frameworks quite easily

[Svennig]

Just give me VMWare - I dont have any strong feelings about it being inbuilt other than that they are wasting their time.

I'd much rather that Apple either fixed or (preferrably) replaced entirely the horrible OS X kernel. OS X Threading is horrific and needs to be totally reviewed. Kernel signalling is horrific and needs to be reviewed.

Apple have the best GUI interface. The OS is the easiest-to-use and setup (even my mother managed to setup a printer). The applications they ship with the OS have reputations (and well deserved ones at that) for simplicity, power, and reliability. Shame it's all built on such a horrid foundation. :confused:

[AidenShaw]

why are people making a big deal over EFI. Yes it better than the BIOS but at the same time it just a glorific BIOS. After boot up there is noughting EFI system can do that a BIOS cannt. Now in boot up things can be a little differnt but as soon as the OS is loaded there is no differnce in the system.
The people making a big deal about EFI are the same ones who think that the PC is a horrible relic because it still has a floppy drive.

You are right, though - after the system is running, it simply doesn't matter. EFI is better, it has some advantages, but once the OS is running it just disappears.

Some people, though, are so consumed by feelings of inadequacy that they'll seize on anything that makes them feel superior. Feel sorry for the "my Mac rocks, it boots with EFI - your PC sucks, it uses BIOS" fanbois.... They need to get a life.

[batchthemighty]

Amazing how the RUMOR and the discussion starts about rumors that Apple will possibly include virtualization in OS X 10.5, and somehow weaves it's way to "oh my heck Apple is selling out and switching to Windows!!"

my take....

**Virtualization:**
Most likely.
But will it be virtualization intended to allow running other OS's, or somehow emulate parts of other OS's so the apps will run?
only time will tell.

**Apple's Road map pointing to a complete switch to windows, or even switching to a windows based core:**
Possible not probable.
I'll admit I have a personal bias here, I love OSX, I love the Unix core.
I love the stability I get out of OSX (current versions of windows XP are a bit better than in the past, but in my opinion still doesn't match OSX in this area yet) I love the look and feel of OSX, I love how simple yet powerful it can be, or if you go digging how complex it can be (for us geeks).
in short yes I admit I have a bias.

**OS X 10.5 be universal:**
Most likely, but don't expect to see an exact matching feature set between the PPC and X86 installations.
Having it universal, yet allowing some "Intel only" features allows transition time for users while still providing incentive to switch.

[rayz]

I'd much rather that Apple either fixed or (preferrably) replaced entirely the horrible OS X kernel. OS X Threading is horrific and needs to be totally reviewed. Kernel signalling is horrific and needs to be reviewed.

What's wrong with the threading ....?

[Svennig]

What's wrong with the threading ....?

What's right with the threading?!

Look at the graph (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2520&p=5) on that page. That's how well the OS X threading implementation deals with threads. It doesnt; it just caves in. We have thread layers on thread layers on userland threads. Performance sucks!

Also check out on that site how slow OSX inter process communication and signalling is.

[rayz]

What's right with the threading?!

Look at the graph (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2520&p=5) on that page. That's how well the OS X threading implementation deals with threads. It doesnt; it just caves in. We have thread layers on thread layers on userland threads. Performance sucks!

Also check out on that site how slow OSX inter process communication and signalling is.

Yep. That sucks ... :-(

Thanks for that.

[Undecided]

What's right with the threading?!

Look at the graph (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2520&p=5) on that page. That's how well the OS X threading implementation deals with threads. It doesnt; it just caves in. We have thread layers on thread layers on userland threads. Performance sucks!

Also check out on that site how slow OSX inter process communication and signalling is.

This is why I think the transition to Windows I described in my prior post is not necessarily a bad thing. Mac OS could be built on top of Windows just like it's built on top of Unix. Users won't see Windows any more than they see Unix today.

There is that pesky virus problem on Windows though...

[gnasher729]

I'd much rather that Apple either fixed or (preferrably) replaced entirely the horrible OS X kernel. OS X Threading is horrific and needs to be totally reviewed. Kernel signalling is horrific and needs to be reviewed.

Yawn.

So how much faster would Photoshop, Handbrake, Quake III or whatever is important to you run if OS X Threading and Kernel signalling were reviewed?

[rayz]

Yawn.

So how much faster would Photoshop, Handbrake, Quake III or whatever is important to you run if OS X Threading and Kernel signalling were reviewed?

Dunno. But by looks of that graph, MySQL would run a hell of a lot faster .....

[cgc]

Dunno. But by looks of that graph, MySQL would run a hell of a lot faster .....

I wonder if Apple optimized the threading for "normal" tasks. Has Tiger Server been tested as well and does it show the same issues?

[dernhelm]

What an elitist point of view! What does Adobe gain in this scenerio? Nothing at all. They already have the sale, why bother with a cross grade?

What a pathetic excuse for a post.

What a pathetic excuse for a retort. A lot of companies offer cross-grade pricing (sometimes even free). I've used it for two products myself after switching. It costs the company essentially nothing as long as they trust the user not to pirate the old version. (One company asked me to send in the old disks). The problem for Adobe is there is already a ton of piracy, and they can't afford to do anything that would make it easier. The idea for a cross-grade isn't ridiculous, it just isn't likely for a company like Adobe.

[Svennig]

I wonder if Apple optimized the threading for "normal" tasks. Has Tiger Server been tested as well and does it show the same issues?

I believe that the article says that it WAS tiger server being tested.

Yawn.

So how much faster would Photoshop, Handbrake, Quake III or whatever is important to you run if OS X Threading and Kernel signalling were reviewed?

What a bizarre point of view.

The threading system is disasterous for server environments (where processes that spawn many threads are the norm), and as processors change its going to get worse for desktops. Most of the intel macs are dual core. The future is multi-core (perhaps also multi-processor). To take advantage of this demands that applications are written using threads. If the thread creation and scheduling mechanism does not scale, this is going to be difficult, and as shown by the Mysql graph performance gets WORSE the more threads there are.

Your attitude is astounding. There is a threading problem on OS X that reduces its use in server enviroments. The same problem makes the computer perform less well than it has the potential to do. That same problem leads to older computers being less able to run the OS for no good reason. Your OS isn't as fast as it could be (how about explaining why your fancy OS X kernel gets trounced by a free kernel written by volunteers).

And your reply is, effectively, "meh, I don't care"? You do want to get the most out of your mac, don't you? I know I do!!!

[MikeAtari]

Kids working in their own VM is simple. When you're talking about the same machine then they run VMWare from their seperate account. The benefit (and purpose) is to allow them full use without the ability to completely destory the box.


I set up a special account for my 5 year old son,
and he still screwed up the account by using Safari and kids games on the internet. He got into some safari control key combinations, and then on to the desktop, and other apps.

With a virtual machine, I could simply destroy his current copy and restore an old one.

[MikeAtari]

Anyone care to rebut

Here's the simple answer.
Telling a user he needs to buy Virtual PC on his Mac to run your Crappy Windows applicaion, means he will have to buy TWO PRODUCTS.

That user will more then likely tell you to take a Hike.

This leave your company open to the OS X environment allowing a competitor to GROW in a protected environment where YOU DON'T COMPETE.
Keep your eyes closed, because, you're probably not really spending all that much to develop your Windows app. A Competitor on the MAC can grow and then PORT to Windows destroying your cosy Monopoly on Windows.

The Mac competitor will Compete with you on Windows, but, have the Apple marketshare to subsidize that Attack.

Suckers write Windows Only Code.

[AidenShaw]

Here's the simple answer.
Telling a user he needs to buy Virtual PC on his Mac to run your Crappy Windows applicaion, means he will have to buy TWO PRODUCTS.

That user will more then likely tell you to take a Hike.

This leave your company open to the OS X environment allowing a competitor to GROW in a protected environment where YOU DON'T COMPETE.
Keep your eyes closed, because, you're probably not really spending all that much to develop your Windows app. A Competitor on the MAC can grow and then PORT to Windows destroying your cosy Monopoly on Windows.

The Mac competitor will Compete with you on Windows, but, have the Apple marketshare to subsidize that Attack.

Suckers write Windows Only Code.
You might have an argument here, but it's hard to tell with The strAngE CaPItaliZation, misspellings and name-calling....

[BRLawyer]

I believe that the article says that it WAS tiger server being tested.



What a bizarre point of view.

The threading system is disasterous for server environments (where processes that spawn many threads are the norm), and as processors change its going to get worse for desktops. Most of the intel macs are dual core. The future is multi-core (perhaps also multi-processor). To take advantage of this demands that applications are written using threads. If the thread creation and scheduling mechanism does not scale, this is going to be difficult, and as shown by the Mysql graph performance gets WORSE the more threads there are.

Your attitude is astounding. There is a threading problem on OS X that reduces its use in server enviroments. The same problem makes the computer perform less well than it has the potential to do. That same problem leads to older computers being less able to run the OS for no good reason. Your OS isn't as fast as it could be (how about explaining why your fancy OS X kernel gets trounced by a free kernel written by volunteers).

And your reply is, effectively, "meh, I don't care"? You do want to get the most out of your mac, don't you? I know I do!!!

That was not the point, I think...but it seems like this threading "problem" is linked to MySQL performance and server-specific operations...little else. As the same analysis (and others) show, the PPC is a great real-world performer when compared to Opteron, Xeon and the like...

So if this microkernel issue does not affect 99% of the users in their daily routines, there is not much scope for desperation...Win XP on a brand new Dell is usually MUCH slower and bloated than OS X on G4s/G5s/Intels...and this is real life perception.

[Svennig]

That was not the point, I think...but it seems like this threading "problem" is linked to MySQL performance and server-specific operations...little else. As the same analysis (and others) show, the PPC is a great real-world performer when compared to Opteron, Xeon and the like...

So if this microkernel issue does not affect 99% of the users in their daily routines, there is not much scope for desperation...Win XP on a brand new Dell is usually MUCH slower and bloated than OS X on G4s/G5s/Intels...and this is real life perception.

An interesting point - go to Activity monitor. Sort by threads.

DVD Player 8 threads
Safari 7 threads
ITunes 7 threads
iCal 7 threads
...

In total, I have 209 threads in 61 processes, about 4 threads per process. If those threads suffer the same issues as MySQL does, then the performance of all those programs is being greatly reduced.

This affects users, whether they notice it or not. They'll almost certainly notice it if apple don't fix it and they install Leopard +1, or +2 (where the performance problem could be made more evident by the ageing hardware). It reduces the lifetime of your Mac!

Also, remember that now we have the intel transition people can do a direct apples-to-apples comparison. We're in a position where we can compare the "MUCH slower and bloated" Dell running Windows to a Mac. If OS X doesn't stand up, Microsoft can say "Macs might be pretty, but they are more expensive and don't perform as well as <X BRAND> cheaper PC running our Windows operating system".

[gnasher729]

What a bizarre point of view.

The threading system is disasterous for server environments (where processes that spawn many threads are the norm), and as processors change its going to get worse for desktops. Most of the intel macs are dual core. The future is multi-core (perhaps also multi-processor). To take advantage of this demands that applications are written using threads. If the thread creation and scheduling mechanism does not scale, this is going to be difficult, and as shown by the Mysql graph performance gets WORSE the more threads there are.

Your attitude is astounding. There is a threading problem on OS X that reduces its use in server enviroments. The same problem makes the computer perform less well than it has the potential to do. That same problem leads to older computers being less able to run the OS for no good reason. Your OS isn't as fast as it could be (how about explaining why your fancy OS X kernel gets trounced by a free kernel written by volunteers).

And your reply is, effectively, "meh, I don't care"? You do want to get the most out of your mac, don't you? I know I do!!!

My reply is not "meh, I don't care". My reply is: I write software for a living, and if I were responsible for MySQL performance on MacOS X, then it wouldn't be slow. There is one single thing that is slow on MacOS X, and it is quite trivial to work around that problem. MacOS X doesn't have problems with any numbers of processors, it doesn't have problems with any number of threads, it has a problem with idiot programmers who create and destroy gazillions of threads all the time. To be fair to the MySQL programmers, the whole thing is most likely a benchmark artefact, and real life performance will be much better.

[gnasher729]

An interesting point - go to Activity monitor. Sort by threads.

DVD Player 8 threads
Safari 7 threads
ITunes 7 threads
iCal 7 threads
...

In total, I have 209 threads in 61 processes, about 4 threads per process. If those threads suffer the same issues as MySQL does, then the performance of all those programs is being greatly reduced.

This affects users, whether they notice it or not. They'll almost certainly notice it if apple don't fix it and they install Leopard +1, or +2 (where the performance problem could be made more evident by the ageing hardware). It reduces the lifetime of your Mac!

Also, remember that now we have the intel transition people can do a direct apples-to-apples comparison. We're in a position where we can compare the "MUCH slower and bloated" Dell running Windows to a Mac. If OS X doesn't stand up, Microsoft can say "Macs might be pretty, but they are more expensive and don't perform as well as <X BRAND> cheaper PC running our Windows operating system".

It is not the number of threads that are alive at the same time that is the problem, it is thread creation and destruction. An application that creates thousand threads and then uses them while it is running has no problems. An application that tries to create and destroy thousand threads every second has a problem, and that is something that applications don't usually have any reason to do.

And applications that _do_ have a reason to work that way just create some threads initially, give them work to do, and when the work is finished, the thread is stopped and restarted when there is more work to do. This avoids the problem quite easily.

[Svennig]

My reply is not "meh, I don't care". My reply is: I write software for a living, and if I were responsible for MySQL performance on MacOS X, then it wouldn't be slow. There is one single thing that is slow on MacOS X, and it is quite trivial to work around that problem. MacOS X doesn't have problems with any numbers of processors, it doesn't have problems with any number of threads, it has a problem with idiot programmers who create and destroy gazillions of threads all the time. To be fair to the MySQL programmers, the whole thing is most likely a benchmark artefact, and real life performance will be much better.

That may be the case. However MySQL has no problem with creating "gazillions" of threads under linux and windows. Nor does Apache, which was reported to run poorly in this (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436&p=6) article.

Even if you are correct, that these programmers are idiots, the "one single thing" that is slow is not present on other platforms. Doesn't it therefore present a(nother?) stumbling block to porting (and writing, no matter how trivial the workaround is) software? Should you, as a software writer, be having to create workarounds to increase the performance of your operating system?

[AidenShaw]

It is not the number of threads that are alive at the same time that is the problem, it is thread creation and destruction. An application that creates thousand threads and then uses them while it is running has no problems. An application that tries to create and destroy thousand threads every second has a problem, and that is something that applications don't usually have any reason to do.

And applications that _do_ have a reason to work that way just create some threads initially, give them work to do, and when the work is finished, the thread is stopped and restarted when there is more work to do. This avoids the problem quite easily.
http://arjen-lentz.livejournal.com/50960.html

All versions of MySQL Server have a thread cache (tunable with thread_cache_size). Currently, connection to the server runs in its own thread.

Creating a thread costs time, so rather than killing the thread when a connection closes, the server can keep the thread in its thread cache, so it can be used for new connection later. A very handy feature...

[Mr Skills]

I'm definitely thinking about this as a developer. I write software and I work for a software company. I'm pretty aware of the reasons for releasing an OS X version vs. a Windows only version. The reality is that OS X has very little market share. Most companies developing applications will develop that application for the largest target audience in order to maximize potential profitability. That target market is Windows. While I realize many here don't like that it's a fact of life. Virtualization will have absolutely no bearing on whether or not a company can financially justify porting that Windows application to OS X. They won't look at it as has been suggested and say "gee we don't have to because they can virtualize a Windows environment." What they'll do is determine if it's financially reasonable to build it or not. If it's not reasonable then they won't do it. It's that simple.

I don't mean this to sound confrontational - it is a genuine question to someone who has experience in software development: what went wrong with OS/2 that will not go wrong this time?

[Mr Skills]

THIS IS WHY the Quicktime settlement involved agreements on HOW future software would LOOK AND FEEL !!!


What is the Quicktime Settlement?

[Mr Skills]

OK ... everyone's talking about Windows... what if they build in compatibility with Linux? It would be free (from a licence point of view) and might have an affect on enterprise sales...

Also, I can quite imagine that SJ on stage would go on and on about all the other things you can do with virtualisation and only briefly skit past the Windows thing ... a bit like the whole "iPod that also plays video, not Video iPod" thing.

While we're on the subject, what ARE the other things you can do with Virtualisation? :confused:

[yac_moda]

What is the Quicktime Settlement?

A couple of years after the MS monopoly trails ended, mainly the part Apple was a plaintiff in, ended, where MS was determined to have been unfair in its distribution chain, by having agreements with box makers that stopped them from including other OSs.

Notice the stagnation and dropping of MS stock since a short time after those penalties were imposed.

It was about half a year after JOBs returned, it looked like it was part of the agreement of his return, kind of like the board of directors might have said to Steve, "Hey Steve, we Gates over a barrel if you come run Apple we could make a good business out of it again !!!"

HEREs THE FACTs:

Apple had contracted exclusively with a contract programming company for them to help Apple build the BEST codecs into Quicktime.

These were the days when QT was the best and its use was growing and it continued to grow after that.

Then one to two years after this company helped Apple, Intel and MS contracted with them together, this was when Intel and MS were getting along REALLY WELL :eek: :rolleyes:

Perhaps that was the ONLY TIME that they got along really well.

Then when MS media player and Intel's bundled version of it started to work as well as QT and started to take marketshare back quickly, Apple sued :eek: :eek:

And they EASILY WON, then Jobs agreed to settle out of court FOR CERTAIN UNDISCLOSED CONCESSION from MS :eek: :eek: :eek:

What WAS disclosed was certain cash penalties, and long term agreements on the look and feel of future OSs -- they had actual pictures and explanation made public of how Mac and weWINyouLoose would look and feel.

A LOT of Mac people were disappointed because the Mac SEEMed to be getting closer to openWINsLetaDaftWaftThroughTheHouse and that was the first time Mac people heard anything about a dock !!!

One or two years later you could hardly get a WINlover to admit ANYTHING vaguely resembling that case had EVER occurred. :eek: :eek: :eek:

[yac_moda]

OK ... everyone's talking about Windows... what if they build in compatibility with Linux? It would be free (from a licence point of view) and might have an affect on enterprise sales...

Also, I can quite imagine that SJ on stage would go on and on about all the other things you can do with virtualisation and only briefly skit past the Windows thing ... a bit like the whole "iPod that also plays video, not Video iPod" thing.

While we're on the subject, what ARE the other things you can do with Virtualisation? :confused:

YES, of course, virtualization to run LINUX, this is most likely a given.

What I would have done from a business standpoint if I WERE RUNNING APPLE many years ago, would have built an APPLE cell phone that would be set up to call Macs and administrate the server, perhaps a home control device for consumer Macs, and for ALL a personal voice mail server that converts voice mail to text and sends it to the users APPLE cell phone automatically.

Notice with this kind of setup the Mac itself would be able to alert the user automatically, generically, and VERY CHEAPLY with text messages.

This maybe what they have planned for Leopard, and I suggested this to Apple MANY years ago, the APPLE cell phone has been one of my biggest and earliest ideas for them.

The reason I got HOT on this idea around 2000 and suggested to them many times to build it is because I had found out that consulting companies were charging HUGE fees to add a little bit of tech to servers that would automatically alert admins with pagers that the server had gone down, or allow them to reboot them remotely.

Apple nearly had this ages ago, with just a little bit more tech they could have had it all working from a cell phone very easily.

Virtualization and having a SECOND Mac OS X running to observe the User will make for very robust remote administration.

Since Jaguar their remote administrate app has been available and built in, I have not had a chance to use that, but as far as I know it is conventional, no cell phone client, no automatic notifications.

[truz]

Something I would like to see is a "Switch OS" option for easy os switching ;)

They have the User Switching for multi users, I would like to have windows running and mac at the same time and switch back and forth without them shutting down or closing there internet connection.

To be honest tho, I'll always be on a windows box as I purchase cheap laptops from sams club (returns) for $300-$400 open boxes (no problems with warranty). I'll always keep an updated mac desktop in my house tho but I keep my laptops for windows as my business support system runs on windows and HL2 runs on windows :)

[Tupring]

Something I would like to see is a "Switch OS" option for easy os switching ;)

They have the User Switching for multi users, I would like to have windows running and mac at the same time and switch back and forth without them shutting down or closing there internet connection.

To be honest tho, I'll always be on a windows box as I purchase cheap laptops from sams club (returns) for $300-$400 open boxes (no problems with warranty). I'll always keep an updated mac desktop in my house tho but I keep my laptops for windows as my business support system runs on windows and HL2 runs on windows :)Then it looks like you're all set, can't be hard to switch between them, when you have both :D

[AidenShaw]

Originally Posted by Mr Skills
OK ... everyone's talking about Windows... what if they build in compatibility with Linux? It would be free (from a licence point of view) and might have an affect on enterprise sales...

YES, of course, virtualization to run LINUX, this is most likely a given.
Actually, MacYoda, it's much simpler than that.

Since OSx86 has a Unix-like core and the x86 instruction set, it would possible to run x86 Linux applications directly under OSX with just a thin compatibility layer. No need to run the Linux OS.

Sun has this capability for Solaris x86 - unmodified Linux binaries can run via a lightweight API layer - see http://www.sun.com/software/linux/compatibility/lxrun/ for more info.

This is similar in concept to WINE, but it's much easier to run Linux on another *nix than to run Windows on a *nix.

Of course, any full virtualization solution that can run the Windows OS in an emulated PC (VM) could run a Linux OS in a VM as well.

[gnasher729]

I don't mean this to sound confrontational - it is a genuine question to someone who has experience in software development: what went wrong with OS/2 that will not go wrong this time?

OS/2 was initially developed by Microsoft and IBM together; IBM paid, Microsoft was supposed to do most of the work. When Microsoft got Windows 3.0 ready, they were not really _that_ interested in doing a good job for IBM. At some point, IBM had enough, they threw Microsoft out and finished OS/2 themselves.

So what is different now? For starters, Microsoft doesn't have its dirty fingers anywhere in MacOS X. Second, Microsoft has much less chances nowadays to play dirty. The have lost so many court cases, I think they lost count and if anyone sues them, the whole world, including Microsoft management, will automatically assume they are guilty.

[AidenShaw]

OS/2 was initially developed by Microsoft and IBM together; IBM paid, Microsoft was supposed to do most of the work. When Microsoft got Windows 3.0 ready, they were not really _that_ interested in doing a good job for IBM. At some point, IBM had enough, they threw Microsoft out and finished OS/2 themselves.

So what is different now? For starters, Microsoft doesn't have its dirty fingers anywhere in MacOS X. Second, Microsoft has much less chances nowadays to play dirty. The have lost so many court cases, I think they lost count and if anyone sues them, the whole world, including Microsoft management, will automatically assume they are guilty.
I don't think that either of your points (however true) are relevant to the lesson of OS/2.

It doesn't matter whether or not MS had a part in OSX development (or OS/2) - the point is that the ability to easily run Windows apps on OS/2 reduced the advantage (and profits) of making OS/2-specific ports.

While some of the Apple purists (and fanbois) will pay extra for a more-polished, integrated native app - for the majority of users a computer is a tool, not an obsession. They'll buy what does the job for them, and some minor UI differences won't matter. I'd prefer the nice shiny chrome-plated drill bit, but if the only bit in the size that I need is black that's the tool that I'll buy.

(Case in point: iTunes. It looks like a fish out-of-water on Windows - completely inconsistent visuals and UI. Yet it's a tool that does what many people want, so they learn to use its quirky interface.)

As fas as "evil deeds" from Redmond, Microsoft has much less power here to do anything. Maybe they could make Vista apps so good that people would prefer Vista apps to OSX native apps (the fanbois are "throwing up a little" here). Maybe they could introduce special Windows pricing for VM-specific versions (they already have many licensing breaks for running Windows in VMs, many times you don't need a separate license for the OS in the VM).

The real power and concern is with the whole ISV industry - the issue is if Adobe, Oracle, Autodesk, SAP, CA, Symantec and many of the others decide to drop OSX-native apps in favor of Windows-on-OSX apps. What about Web Services, just code to .Net and run IE on W-o-OSX - no need to make a dumbed-down Java version that will run like molasses in Safari.

Photoshop (and other large apps) should be especially worrisome. It follows its own UI standards. Once you make Photoshop full-screen, does it even matter which operating system or API set Photoshop is hosted on? It's like a virtual machine itself.

The 3rd party ISVs were the core of the OS/2 problem - not any collusion on Microsoft's side.

[toaster_oven]

someone might have speculated this already... but...

reading about this on engaget - they allude more to the possibility of running windows apps without switching OSes. I'm thinking running windows will be more like the classic environment - where you don't see the windows desktop, but you can run windows apps while you are running your mac apps... and still have the OS X UI.

Anyway- that is what I'd like to see...

-to

[rayz]

While some of the Apple purists (and fanbois) will pay extra for a more-polished, integrated native app - for the majority of users a computer is a tool, not an obsession. They'll buy what does the job for them, and some minor UI differences won't matter. I'd prefer the nice shiny chrome-plated drill bit, but if the only bit in the size that I need is black that's the tool that I'll buy.


Then why has the Mac platform lasted this long?

[AidenShaw]

Originally Posted by AidenShaw
While some of the Apple purists (and fanbois) will pay extra for a more-polished, integrated native app - for the majority of users a computer is a tool, not an obsession.

Then why has the Mac platform lasted this long?
Because a minority of about 3% *is* obsessed.... :D

Or at least are more concerned about form and less about function and price.

[rayz]

Because a minority of about 3% *is* obsessed.... :D

Or at least are more concerned about form and less about function and price.

Fair enough.

Then why won't this 3% continue to be obssessed?

[AidenShaw]

Fair enough.

Then why won't this 3% continue to be obssessed?
The question might be how many of the hard-core Mac fans are design-driven, and how many are application-driven?

A lot of graphics/music folks would be app-focussed.

Imagine the extreme case of Adobe dropping Mac native for W-o-OSx apps. How many people would decide that the "Apple tax" no longer had any benefit, and switched to Windows?

Multiply that effect - market share drops a little due to the Photoshop exodus. Another major app decides that W-o-OSx is good enough, and a few more leave.

Or killer new apps in Internet or multi-media/entertainment just never come to the Mac, because W-o-OSx is good enough.

That's the OS/2 lesson....
______________________________

Note that by "Apple Tax", I am not arguing that an Apple is more expensive than a comparably equipped Dell or HP.

Apples have a lot of bundled features - when you don't need those features, you can find a much cheaper solution elsewhere.

Find the cheapest Wintel with 500 GB of disk and a 23" or 24" monitor. Compare that to the cheapest Apple with those specs.

Apple needs a Conroe mini-tower in the lineup....

[steelfist]

do you know why apple is annoying us with secrecy?

if we know, then microsoft will know. what's going to happen? :rolleyes:

[yac_moda]

The question might be how many of the hard-core Mac fans are design-driven, and how many are application-driven?

A lot of graphics/music folks would be app-focussed.

Imagine the extreme case of Adobe dropping Mac native for W-o-OSx apps. How many people would decide that the "Apple tax" no longer had any benefit, and switched to Windows?

Multiply that effect - market share drops a little due to the Photoshop exodus. Another major app decides that W-o-OSx is good enough, and a few more leave.

Or killer new apps in Internet or multi-media/entertainment just never come to the Mac, because W-o-OSx is good enough.

That's the OS/2 lesson....
______________________________

Note that by "Apple Tax", I am not arguing that an Apple is more expensive than a comparably equipped Dell or HP.

Apples have a lot of bundled features - when you don't need those features, you can find a much cheaper solution elsewhere.

Find the cheapest Wintel with 500 GB of disk and a 23" or 24" monitor. Compare that to the cheapest Apple with those specs.

Apple needs a Conroe mini-tower in the lineup....


What you are suggesting is SILLY, its LAME, its OBGUS, its SCIKAINERY, its BAZARE, its WEIRD, its NOT TO BRIGHT, its A MISTAKE, it WOULD NOT BE A GOOD IDEA :eek: :eek: :eek:

Why would anyone do what you suggest :confused:


Why did you call me MacYoda its YacMODA -- Siden Ahaw !!!

[yac_moda]

Actually, MacYoda, it's much simpler than that.

Since OSx86 has a Unix-like core and the x86 instruction set, it would possible to run x86 Linux applications directly under OSX with just a thin compatibility layer. No need to run the Linux OS.

Sun has this capability for Solaris x86 - unmodified Linux binaries can run via a lightweight API layer - see http://www.sun.com/software/linux/compatibility/lxrun/ for more info.

This is similar in concept to WINE, but it's much easier to run Linux on another *nix than to run Windows on a *nix.

Of course, any full virtualization solution that can run the Windows OS in an emulated PC (VM) could run a Linux OS in a VM as well.


YOU don't seem to understand the MAIN reason they are including virtualization, read the rest of my previous post to find out why.

Won't the Mac Linux venders ship exactly what YOU suggest, probably for free but not very exciting, because if it ran in its own virtual layer instead of as an APP it would be MUCH MORE STABLE AND COULD HAVE ITS OWN FIREWALL :eek:

VIRTUALIZATION ROCKS Rocky :eek: :eek:

How LONG do you think it will REALLY take until MS ships something like Leopard :confused:

I think the Mac OS X AFTER Leopard will ship at the same time that MS ships something close to Leopard :eek: :eek: :eek:

[yac_moda]

do you know why apple is annoying us with secrecy?

if we know, then Microsoft will know. what's going to happen? :rolleyes:

APPLE ALWAYs annoys us with SECRECY :eek: And AMAZEs us with COMPETENCE :D

MS ALWAYs annoys us with INCOMPETENCE :eek: And AMAZES us with its EMBARRASSING PUBIC DISPLAYs :D

[AidenShaw]

Why did you call me MacYoda its YacMODA -- Siden Ahaw !!!
...because that's the handle that you've used in the past.

[yac_moda]

...because that's the handle that you've used in the past.

Maybe YES maybe NO :eek:


Its obvious who let 911 happen, and it WAS NOT BUSH !!!

It was the USA military, the leaders at the TOP, the Pentagon.

And its also looks like US Presidents have been held hostage or murdered by the military since Eisenhower !!!

[Phil A.]

The question might be how many of the hard-core Mac fans are design-driven, and how many are application-driven?

A lot of graphics/music folks would be app-focussed.

Imagine the extreme case of Adobe dropping Mac native for W-o-OSx apps. How many people would decide that the "Apple tax" no longer had any benefit, and switched to Windows?

Multiply that effect - market share drops a little due to the Photoshop exodus. Another major app decides that W-o-OSx is good enough, and a few more leave.

Or killer new apps in Internet or multi-media/entertainment just never come to the Mac, because W-o-OSx is good enough.

That's the OS/2 lesson....


Not strictly true - OS/2 was a dying operating system with virtually no applications at version 2. IBM released Warp (version 3) in a last desperate bid to save it. Unfortunately, they added Windows 3.x support just before MS released Windows 95 (for which it had no support) - OS/2 was then perceived as an outdated OS and died the death that had been nothing more than delayed with OS/2 Warp.
OSX is a strong OS in it's own right and adding virtualisation isn't, IMO, going to weaken it - the opposite could well be true because more people may buy Mac hardware if it can run Windows at a decent speed, thereby also increasing the penetration of OSX

[AidenShaw]

Not strictly true - OS/2 was a dying operating system with virtually no applications at version 2. IBM released Warp (version 3) in a last desperate bid to save it. Unfortunately, they added Windows 3.x support just before MS released Windows 95 (for which it had no support)
OS/2 Warp History (http://www.os2bbs.com/os2news/OS2Warp.html) says:

"OS/2 2.x won over many Windows 3.x users because of it's [sic] ability to run Windows programs seamlessly, while maintaining a stable system, something that Windows had trouble doing. IBM even went so far as to trademark the term "Crash-Proof.""

This sounds like Win16 support was available before 3.0 to me....
_________________________

But the true moral of your story is even more worrisome for Apple - a 32-bit OS died because it could seemlessly run 16-bit applications.

So much for the idea that the masses will choose the "better" applications.

[rayz]

The question might be how many of the hard-core Mac fans are design-driven, and how many are application-driven?

I would say that most should be app-driven, but you do get the occasional chap who picks his OS for some other reason. But relatively speaking, they're few in number, which is why Windows maintains such a high share, despite its flaws.

A lot of graphics/music folks would be app-focussed.

Imagine the extreme case of Adobe dropping Mac native for W-o-OSx apps. How many people would decide that the "Apple tax" no longer had any benefit, and switched to Windows?

What if they had no reason to drop it? What if they could create a single Windows application that would look like a MacOSX application when it was deployed on MacOSX? What if everyone could?

That's the OS/2 lesson....

I'll have to disagree here.

The OS/2 lesson is that if you're going to build an operating system, then make sure your ENTIRE company supports it.

Building in Windows support did not cause it to fail. Windows support was added, in an attempt to stop it from failing .... but it was already well on the way for that to make any real difference.

[AidenShaw]

I'll have to disagree here.

The OS/2 lesson is that if you're going to build an operating system, then make sure your ENTIRE company supports it.

Building in Windows support did not cause it to fail. Windows support was added, in an attempt to stop it from failing .... but it was already well on the way for that to make any real difference.
Fair enough.

If you Yahoo! for "why did os/2 fail", there are lots of hits. Win compatibility wasn't the only reason, true.

Here's one opinion:

"Why did OS/2 fail? The first is marketing, i.e., Nuns and surfers! I'm sure most people here remember those ads for OS/2 Warp. One featured nuns who wanted to surf the web. Another featured surfers who apparently had more time to surf because the networking features of OS/2 Warp allowed them to spend less time at work.

One extremely funny thing about those ads was that they contained no information about what OS/2 Warp was. Was it a browser/email client? Was it some sort of networking software?! Was it some sort of dial-up client (back when OSes relied on third party dial up programs, wow am I old!)?

At no time did the ads ever say, "If you're running Windows 3.1, you can upgrade to OS/2 Warp and get a real 32 bit OS complete with multitasking and stability." Also, not only did the ads fail to tell us that it was an OS, but they utterly failed to even SHOW us the product!

A little while later Microsoft started advertising Windows 95. Microsoft did something really brilliant, from a marketing point of view. It introduced the "Start" button. The ads featured users clicking that one button. What could be easier to learn than one simple button? It was marketing genius!

(Ironically, the new OSX "switch" ads remind me a lot of those old Warp ads. The ads claim that OSX is easier and more intuitive, but never show us how. If OSX is as elegant and user friendly as Apple claims, why do they keep it hidden?!)"

http://discuss.pcmag.com/forums/165111008/ShowPost.aspx

[yac_moda]

Fair enough.

If you Yahoo! for "why did os/2 fail", there are lots of hits. Win compatibility wasn't the only reason, true.

Here's one opinion:

"Why did OS/2 fail? The first is marketing, i.e., Nuns and surfers! I'm sure most people here remember those ads for OS/2 Warp. One featured nuns who wanted to surf the web. Another featured surfers who apparently had more time to surf because the networking features of OS/2 Warp allowed them to spend less time at work.

One extremely funny thing about those ads was that they contained no information about what OS/2 Warp was. Was it a browser/email client? Was it some sort of networking software?! Was it some sort of dial-up client (back when OSes relied on third party dial up programs, wow am I old!)?

At no time did the ads ever say, "If you're running Windows 3.1, you can upgrade to OS/2 Warp and get a real 32 bit OS complete with multitasking and stability." Also, not only did the ads fail to tell us that it was an OS, but they utterly failed to even SHOW us the product!

A little while later Microsoft started advertising Windows 95. Microsoft did something really brilliant, from a marketing point of view. It introduced the "Start" button. The ads featured users clicking that one button. What could be easier to learn than one simple button? It was marketing genius!

(Ironically, the new OSX "switch" ads remind me a lot of those old Warp ads. The ads claim that OSX is easier and more intuitive, but never show us how. If OSX is as elegant and user friendly as Apple claims, why do they keep it hidden?!)"

http://discuss.pcmag.com/forums/165111008/ShowPost.aspx

So I have a MORE contemporary question for you ...

And I don't buy all these OS2 rules because I have noticed most of my life all the rules that old senile people make and how they claim to KNOW because they have EXPERIENCE, but when you ask them about what they know you will find they DON'T have EXPERIENCE they are repeating what some other old guy told them, and in essence are doing what kids do, just listening to a different crowd, they do this when there are no rules to be made or learn.

The rule is, one generations failure is the next generations success and means of rebellion, distinction, or proving their worth !!!

Probably the main reason OS2 failed is because network managers were still smarting from when IBM tried to take over the IT market with their proprietary mainframes and support -- and almost succeeded and were very arrogant about it.


So my question is:

Why do YOU think MS is falling apart internally, and why are their development efforts so weak, getting weaker, and how bad can it get :eek:

Will their developement teams become soo devisive that they for all practical purposes won't be able to produce ANYTHING of market value :confused:

[weldon]

Does anyone know if "Chameleon" was the code-name for Boot Camp, or is there more virtualization software coming in Leopard?

[crees!]

Does anyone know if "Chameleon" was the code-name for Boot Camp, or is there more virtualization software coming in Leopard?
How 'bout this. You have Boot Camp installed and in Leopard there is Fast OS Switching. That would be sweet. Though I'd want my Windows install on a external drive.

[Peace]

How 'bout this. You have Boot Camp installed and in Leopard there is Fast OS Switching. That would be sweet. Though I'd want my Windows install on a external drive.


you are very close!! ;)

[crees!]

you are very close!! ;)
Sounds like someone knows something :eek: Hopefully WWDC will show Apple's current cards in hand.

[balamw]

Sounds like someone knows something :eek: Hopefully WWDC will show Apple's current cards in hand.
I was just thinking about "fast OS switching" on the way home last night and I'd even be happy with a situation where I could "Safe Sleep"/Hibernate two different OSes and switch between them as easily as waking up from sleep.

Almost makes me want to sign up as a developer so I can preview Leopard in August...

B

[macpastor]

Maybe its been mentioned, but does anyone think they did this, and will also bring out Leapord faster since VISTA is dragging its butt getting out? I see Apple capitalizing on MS's blunder.

[Cabbit]

if there puting in a VT i would much rather it work like wine or rosseta with windows apps not haveing to switch to a diffrent destop or anything, but i dont want X11 popping up ether. Just let the apps load in there native form on the screen, games in full screen and hurry up and do it. it cant take much to fix up wine a little bit.

[crees!]

Maybe its been mentioned, but does anyone think they did this, and will also bring out Leapord faster since VISTA is dragging its butt getting out? I see Apple capitalizing on MS's blunder.
It's possible. We'll just have to wait and see what the boss says.

[sparksinspace]

These are the types of radical features that make a new OS sound very compelling. :)

I'm curious to see when the day will come where we can run multiple operating systems on one system at the same time. Fast OS Switching!

I've heard that some of the IBM servers (i.e. iSeries) can do this and run multiple OS's on one box at a time, so it probably will just be a matter of time when we can do it on a personal computer.

ehm.. I've been doing this 5 years ago on my Linux server using VMWare, running various Windows machines and other Linux distros...

[nmirza]

Put me in the Wine camp. It would be soooo much better to run a single OS, and have a compatability layer (Isn't that how Classic runs on PPC's?). You wouldn't have to load a gigantic OS (XP), and you would be able to change the look and feel of Win32 apps to better fit in to the Mac environment. Boot Camp is a good stop gap measure, but I just want a consolidated desktop that does everything (and doesn't BSOD). Heck, even Microsoft did it with the transition to the NT based kernel (16 bit apps run under a single parent process called WoW... not the game...). By making it all blend well, MS was able to eventually transition to XP from the old DOS kernel. Worst case scenario, the WINE folks are already working on an implementation for OSX, they just have a lot of work to do.

[unemployed]

did you see this article?

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060413.html

[Bosunsfate]

did you see this article?

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060413.html

very good read. I'm happy to see where things lead....it will only be good for me the consumer... :)

[secondplace]

i'm actually pretty happy using parallels desktop for my Mac virtualization right now. I feel as though by the time leopard is out, many people will be set in parallels and will just stick with it anyways.