Leopard to Include Virtualization Software?

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

MacOSXRumors claims (http://www.macosxrumors.com/articles/2006/03/23/leopard-to-include-vmware-like-virtualisation-software/) that according to "reliable sources", Apple is developing virtualization software to be incorporated into the next version of Mac OS X - Leopard.

According to the rumor site, the upcoming software is code named "Chameleon" and is being developed alongside both Intel and Microsoft.

Virtualization software would potentially allow users to run alternative operating systems alongside their Mac. There has been previous discussion about Virtualization Technology support (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/12/20051221214050.shtml) in Intel's processors.

[Shamus]

Wow, that would be really handy, I never thought Apple would do something like that though.

It would certainly save all the fuss concerning hacking Windows onto the Mac. :)
The article specifies Intel chips though, so would they disable the feature on PowerPC based releases of the OS?

[timswim78]

Sounds pretty cool for people that need Windows applications. Its a much better solution than trying to setup a dual boot Intel OS X / Windows system.

[timswim78]

Wow, that would be really handy, I never thought Apple would do something like that.

It seems to make perfect sense. I'm sure that they could sell many more Macs if the Macs could run important Windows apps.

However, it would be nice to see some more software ported to OS X.

[topgunn]

If Microsoft is indeed working along side Apple on this, it may explain why they have not been very quick to say anything about VPC just yet.

[Shamus]

Its a much better solution than trying to setup a dual boot Intel OS X / Windows system.

The only downside to emulation is that it is slower. Dual booting would allow the programs to run in native format, right?

[edenwaith]

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.

[RichP]

woh. this could be very good news. I am running dual boot on my macbook pro, and while its great for letting me run solidworks on a mac machine; I much rather have windows under full control of OSX and able to quick switch.

There are fears that allowing windows on macs is going to make new users simply default to running windows all the time rather than apple apps. Let me say this: I forget how hokey windows is until I go to use it. If OSX gets the snappiness of windows in its GUI (which the intel stuff does help) and along with its ease of use and eye candy, people wont want to use windows unless they need to.

OSX is strong enough to stand on its own.

[Veldek]

The article specifies Intel chips though, so would they disable the feature on PowerPC based releases of the OS?I think they have to as long as people don't have a Windows version for PPC lying around. As far as I understood, this is no emulation but more a side-by-side running of OSes.

[DeepDish]

I don't want to rull windows and all of its crapware.

I just need a couple of windows apps every once in awhile.

Why? Because some lazy programers make their software pc only.

This is great news. Apple will do it right and make it built into the core.

[Shamus]

I think they have to as long as people don't have a Windows version for PPC lying around.

But what about other OSes, (i dont even know if there are any) where it would be possible to emulate using the PowerPC architecture.

[Daveway]

This news + MS announcing its opening up the Windows Presentation platform to mac = very good news for virtualization.

I think we're going to see Windows apps that will just run in Mac OS.:cool:

[timswim78]

The only downside to emulation is that it is slower. Dual booting would allow the programs to run in native format, right?

I'm guessing that emulation would be slower.
Yes, dual booting would allow programs to run natively.
Both statements assume that Windows can be configured to correctly use all of the Apple hardware.

[Platform]

No PPC :(

C'mon......:o

[topgunn]

I'm guessing that emulation would be slower.
Yes, dual booting would allow programs to run natively.
Both statements assume that Windows can be configured to correctly use all of the Apple hardware.
Windows is X86 and Intel is X86 so there is no emulation.

[Dr.Gargoyle]

This news + MS announcing its opening up the Windows Presentation platform to mac = very good news for virtualization.

I think we're going to see Windows apps that will just run in Mac OS.:cool:
I can't wait... I am getting fed up nagging the company (http://www.mackichan.com/) behind Scientific Workplace for a Mac version. Last time they told me they might have a version ready in 18 months...

[colin6969]

The only downside to emulation is that it is slower. Dual booting would allow the programs to run in native format, right?

This is virtualization, not emulation. Emulation includes the machine code translation of PPC <--> intel. (PPC is what's called "Big Endian", where intel uses "Little Endian" byte ordering systems)

Since the new intel Macs are "little endian", virtualization software can be developed to essentially run near-native x86 OSes (like windows) within OSX. No machine-code translation (emulation) required.

Depending on how far they take it...and if they optimally virtualize the graphics drivers...even Windows games will become runable via Virtualization software.

If this is the case for Leopard...this is definitely what I'm waiting for to get an intel mac.

[jamin]

Virtualization is not emulation. The Virtual Computer would share system resourses with the Host OS passing up most instruction directly to the CPU. So Applications running in the Virtual Computer should run at almost 100% full speed depending on what is happening in the Host System at the time.

Currently VPC on PPC needs to Emulate the X86 CPU to run Windows. Running VPC or better Virtual Server on x86 runs great. Granted the Video drivers in the Guest OS suck so Gaming will not be that great. We use Virtual Server running Win2k3 in the Host and the Guest systems and the guest performance is pretty near native speed.

Edit >> LOL Colin6969 beat me to it :)

[byokitis]

A lot of developers would stop making native Mac Apps if this happens. Why port to the Mac if users could use Window versions?

[blasto333]

I don't see it happening. It is almost like saying "Our OS can't do everything, so we are providing a solution for you to install other operating systems." I don't think Apple thinks like that. If it happens I will be very surprised.

Anyways, I am very happy with the dual boot, it works perfect. (I have an intel iMac 20'.)

[SpankWare]

A lot of developers would stop making native Mac Apps if this happens. Why port to the Mac if users could use Window versions?

Can you cite some examples of who would stop making Mac Apps? This is just the same old FUD. If a company wants to cater to Mac users it will make Mac software.

[AtHomeBoy_2000]

Someone please clearify this for me. WOuld this be running WIndows within OS X or running Windows Apps withing OS X. THere is a differance. THe first requires you to own WIndows, the later does not.

[ajbrehm]

But what about other OSes, (i dont even know if there are any) where it would be possible to emulate using the PowerPC architecture.


Use Mac-on-Linux. http://www.maconlinux.org/

I believe they had a Mac OS X version out at some point.

Runs Linux, Mac OS, Mac OS X, possibly any other PowerPC OS except BeOS (and proprietary IBM systems). Runs on Linux and, as mentioned, possibly OS X.

ShapeShifter did something similar for BeOS.

I used both. They are really good.

[SpankWare]

I don't see it happening. It is almost like saying "Our OS can't do everything, so we are providing a solution for you to install other operating systems." I don't think Apple thinks like that. If it happens I will be very surprised.


Are you suggesting that Microsoft DOES think that way? They don't and neither does Apple. Both companies realize that in today's world Virtualization is necessary. I use it EVERY single day for a variety of purposes from application development to systems testing to actual production use. Virtualization is not an admission that you can't do everything, it's a tool to allow you to do whatever you need.

[timswim78]

Windows is X86 and Intel is X86 so there is no emulation.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Just to make sure that I am clear:
- If a Windows app is running inside of OS X, on an Intel Mac, then it is called 'virtualization' and not 'emulation.' Is that correct?

Thanks!

[Thataboy]

I get confused between emulation and virtualization. Doesn't virtualization here mean that one could run exe files without the Windows OS?

If so, why on earth would Microsoft help? They want people to buy Virtual PC and a Windows license.

[colin6969]

I don't see it happening. It is almost like saying "Our OS can't do everything, so we are providing a solution for you to install other operating systems." I don't think Apple thinks like that. If it happens I will be very surprised.

Anyways, I am very happy with the dual boot, it works perfect. (I have an intel iMac 20'.)


The market is there for it, and Microsoft has a very clear philosophy....the more PCs that can run Windows, the better. Apple has been pretty clear on their stance too, "they won't disallow it"...because they know they're going to sell more Apple PCs as a result....

[CrazyWingman]

Before we get in over our heads talking about how Apple could make it easy to run MS apps on their desktops, let's first remember that Apple also sells servers.

Virtualization is a big deal in the server industry. It allows things like mail and web servers to be run in safe areas (sometimes called "sandboxes", "jails", or "zones") where they can crash without affecting any other apps on the system.

I'm not familiar with Apple's current server products, but this new rumor about virtualization technology could be nothing more than a new implementation meant for server use. It might even just mean that they're doing a lot of work to bring the same type of virtualization to the desktop (so every app you run is safe from every other app).

I'd hesitate before getting too used to the idea of simple Windows-Mac integration - even though this is a rumor site. ;)

[Porchland]

Sounds pretty cool for people that need Windows applications. Its a much better solution than trying to setup a dual boot Intel OS X / Windows system.

The dual boot idea doesn't do much for me, but I like the idea of running Windows applications natively on my Mac. I guess the only difference is whether you're seeing the XP/Vista "guts," i.e., the UI, Windows-specific preferences, etc.

[Thataboy]

Another thing...

If Apple does this, Microsoft will totally turn around and do virtualization of Mac programs (namely, iLife).

iPhoto and iMovie will be torrented from here to high heaven!

That said, it does seem like virtualization is inevitable... seems that the positives would outweigh the negatives.

[cbigfoot1987]

Knowing their current record they will find a way to emulate windows at 115% native speed!!!:rolleyes:







Cant a man dream!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D :D

[jamin]

Virtualization still requires the Guest OS installed. The difference is that Emulation requires the CPU/Bios etc to be emulated by the Host CPU. Qemu is an example of an Emulation.
Virtualization sends the CPU calls directly to the host CPU to handle. This is faster then emulation as the CPU is able to handle the intructions natively.

[crees!]

This is virtualization, not emulation. Emulation includes the machine code translation of PPC <--> intel. (PPC is what's called "Big Endian", where intel uses "Little Endian" byte ordering systems)

Since the new intel Macs are "little endian", virtualization software can be developed to essentially run near-native x86 OSes (like windows) within OSX. No machine-code translation (emulation) required.

Depending on how far they take it...and if they optimally virtualize the graphics drivers...even Windows games will become runable via Virtualization software.

If this is the case for Leopard...this is definitely what I'm waiting for to get an intel mac.

Another thought could be that Steve is thinking from a selling point running Windows would mean he could sell more hardware... but he's not going to let Windows have free reign so they decide to build a shell (like VPC) to run Windows in. That way when Windows crashes it won't affect OS X and any other part of the system.

[socamx]

Bring on PPC GNU/Linux on my G5. Can't wait for that, exactly how I'd like to run Linux or a BSD/Unix on it.

[colin6969]

I get confused between emulation and virtualization. Doesn't virtualization here mean that one could run exe files without the Windows OS?

If so, why on earth would Microsoft help? They want people to buy Virtual PC and a Windows license.

Good question. Back in the day, some virtualization systems allow you to basically "run an exe" like you're suggesting (but it the background it's literally launching the virtual environment....think OS9 support in OSX)....but we're probably talking about something similar to the current VirtualPC software...just with no emulation.

[jamin]

One thing that would be interesting for this Virtualization is to run Mutiple instances of OSX or OSX Server. It would be a great tool for testing without having to potentially screw up your OSX install.

[colin6969]

Another thing...

If Apple does this, Microsoft will totally turn around and do virtualization of Mac programs (namely, iLife).

iPhoto and iMovie will be torrented from here to high heaven!

That said, it does seem like virtualization is inevitable... seems that the positives would outweigh the negatives.

Another good question, thataboy. Don't count on it. Apple has publicly stated that they will 'rigorously disallow' OSX to be run on anything other than a Mac. Virtualizing OSX within a Windows OS would be technically doing this.

That's not to say someone clever couldn't virtualize a near a near perfect hardware spec of a mac and load OSX on it......you're diving into an unsupported land though...

[inmotion]

from potential switcher to "when are those !*&!^@ macbooks coming out!?":D

[AeronPrometheus]

I don't see it happening. It is almost like saying "Our OS can't do everything, so we are providing a solution for you to install other operating systems." I don't think Apple thinks like that. If it happens I will be very surprised.

Anyways, I am very happy with the dual boot, it works perfect. (I have an intel iMac 20'.)

It looks to me more like Apple saying, 'Go ahead, compare Windows to Mac OS side by side and see which one you end up using more and more... Mac OS.'

It also sends a clear message to computer buyers. Which machine would you buy? A Dell that runs Windows? Or a Mac that runs Mac OS and Windows? I'd buy the machine that has suddenly become the most universal platform to run any consumer and business application. Wouldn't you?

Edit: And don't think that Apple would do something like that without holding something to their advantage. Perhaps they'll lock Windows out from accessing things like the core fuctions or the second core of the processor. Telling software developers that they'd better program in Universal Binary if they want to take full advantage of the systems power.

[AidenShaw]

The article specifies Intel chips though, so would they disable the feature on PowerPC based releases of the OS?
The newest Intel chips contain special features and instructions to make virtualization faster and easier than the way that traditional packages like VMware and VPC(x86) had to implement it. (But those products are changing to exploit the new features in the future.)

The PowerPC doesn't have those Intel-specific features, and isn't able to execute the Intel instructions directly. You'd need a completely different solution that ran in OSX on the PPC, and emulated a complete Intel system.

Oh wait - that already exists, and it's called Virtual PC for Mac. ;)
_________________________

So, it's not a matter of "disabling" the feature for PPC - it just wouldn't work.

[glassbathroom]

It looks to me more like Apple saying, 'Go ahead, compare Windows to Mac OS side by side and see which one you end up using more and more... Mac OS.'



I completely agree. I switched to Mac a couple of years back because I liked the hardware. I now realise how good OSX is. This is great news for all those possible switchers who are a bit worried about leaving Windows for ever.

[AEMV]

I don't see it happening. It is almost like saying "Our OS can't do everything, so we are providing a solution for you to install other operating systems." I don't think Apple thinks like that. If it happens I will be very surprised.

Anyways, I am very happy with the dual boot, it works perfect. (I have an intel iMac 20'.)


Or Apple could say, Our computers can do everything, they can even run Windows apps.

[Fotek2001]

I wonder if this has anything to do with the Windows Presentation Foundation that Microsoft are allegedly porting to Mac OS X...?

[thefunkymunky]

Has anyone else noticed this technology is codenamed Chameleon and that is going to be part of Leopard.

A chameleon can change its colour on the fly, similiar maybe to a Mac changing the OS it is running on the fly.;)

Chameleon, Leopard (Mac OS X), Windows.

Maybe a Leopard can change its spots after all.:p ;)

[Lollypop]

It looks to me more like Apple saying, 'Go ahead, compare Windows to Mac OS side by side and see which one you end up using more and more... Mac OS.'

It also sends a clear message to computer buyers. Which machine would you buy? A Dell that runs Windows? Or a Mac that runs Mac OS and Windows? I'd buy the machine that has suddenly become the most universal platform to run any consumer and business application. Wouldn't you?

Edit: And don't think that Apple would do something like that without holding something to their advantage. Perhaps they'll lock Windows out from accessing things like the core fuctions or the second core of the processor. Telling software developers that they'd better program in Universal Binary if they want to take full advantage of the systems power.


IBM took that route with... what was it called again? Oh, ye.. OS2Warp.

I really thing virualization is a nice idea for servers and lab testing envorinments, but currently for the real consumer world there is little use. Apple shouldn't make it to easy to run windows side my side wiht the mac os, IBM allowed that by allowing warp users to run windows apps inside warp, end result was that all the apps were windows apps and nobody really developed warp apps. While I know its not exactly a apples to apples comparison i think the point im trying to make holds.

[AidenShaw]

Virtualization still requires the Guest OS installed. The difference is that Emulation requires the CPU/Bios etc to be emulated by the Host CPU. Qemu is an example of an Emulation.

Virtualization sends the CPU calls directly to the host CPU to handle. This is faster then emulation as the CPU is able to handle the intructions natively.
Virtualization and emulation are not mutually-exclusive.

Virtual PC for Mac provides a virtual computer environment, and emulates the ISA of an x86 processor.

Virtual PC for Windows provides a virtual computer environment, and lets the processor execute the instructions natively without (much) emulation. (VMware, Xen and Virtual Server also do this.)
_________________

"Virtualization still requires the Guest OS installed." This is a good distinction.

WINE runs Windows apps by providing a library and API environment, but it doesn't run a GOS in a virtual computer.

VPC/Mac and VPC/Windows both run the GOS in a virtual computer, but only VPC/Mac does (much) ISA emulation.

ps: The "(much)" qualification is because a few privileged instructions have to be emulated on x86. The big advantage of the new VT features in Intel is that it becomes much simpler and faster to handle those oddball instructions.

[SpankWare]

I really thing virualization is a nice idea for servers and lab testing envorinments, but currently for the real consumer world there is little use.

That's not entirely true. While I'm definitely not the average user I have a real purpose in running VMware at home. My primary box runs Linux and I have VMware installed running among other things Windows XP. This VM is setup for my work environment with my VPN, CRM and other tools to allow me to work from home. The benefit of virtualization to the home user is seperating out tasks. Before my kids had their own computers they could easily run inside a virtualized environment for their protection and mine. One of my coworkers is moving his wife and kids to their own VMs.

[DTphonehome]

Has anyone else noticed this technology is codenamed Chameleon and that is going to be part of Leopard.

A chameleon can change its colour on the fly, similiar maybe to a Mac changing the OS it is running on the fly.;)

Chameleon, Leopard (Mac OS X), Windows.

Maybe a Leopard can change its spots after all.:p ;)

You know, I wouldn't be surprised if that's a tagline they use if this is true.

[DTphonehome]

If this is true, Dell and HP must be quaking in their booties. Besides for those going for the absolutely cheapest PC on the market (which Dell and HP don't make much off of anyway), or the most powerful gaming PC possible, who wouldn't seriously consider a Mac for their home?

[aegisdesign]

I can't wait... I am getting fed up nagging the company (http://www.mackichan.com/) behind Scientific Workplace for a Mac version. Last time they told me they might have a version ready in 18 months...


They may not do it at all now though, and just tell you to run the Windows version.

[aegisdesign]

I'd point out that none of the current Intel Macs support Intel's virtualization technology so you early adopters are screwed.

[SpankWare]

If this is true, Dell and HP must be quaking in their booties. Besides for those going for the absolutely cheapest PC on the market (which Dell and HP don't make much off of anyway), or the most powerful gaming PC possible, who wouldn't seriously consider a Mac for their home?

Built in virtualization isn't going to get the average consumer to switch. Despite the many myths about Dell here the make a PC product in a PC world. No amount of virtualization will cause a consumer to spend more money on a machine that requires more effort to run the apps they need just because it's considered pretty by some.

[mark88]

A lot of developers would stop making native Mac Apps if this happens. Why port to the Mac if users could use Window versions?

YAWN:rolleyes:

[Peace]

While virtualization is great and all I still can't understand why a developer would bother to make an OS X version when the Mac could just run the Windows version.Seems to me this would put the brakes on any porting to OS X.

[bilbo--baggins]

Windows can rot in hell. I'm not running that stinkin OS on MY mac. It's bad enough having to use it at work...

[SpankWare]

While virtualization is great and all I still can't understand why a developer would bother to make an OS X version when the Mac could just run the Windows version.Seems to me this would put the brakes on any porting to OS X.

Because anybody who would WANT the OS X version wouldn't be interested in running the windows version. This idea is FUD, pure and simple. Companies that make OS X software now will continue to do so. Those that don't aren't doing it anyway so it's not like it's going to stop anything.

[AidenShaw]

My primary box runs Linux and I have VMware installed running among other things Windows XP.

This VM is setup for my work environment with my VPN, CRM and other tools to allow me to work from home.
I do the same - even though the host OS is XP. It runs an XP VM that's set up with VPN and other clients.

I have troubles with the VPN if I try to run it on the main box - the VPN routing conflicts with my normal network. (The VPN routes 192.168.0.0/16 to private internal networks, for example.)

[Lollypop]

That's not entirely true. While I'm definitely not the average user I have a real purpose in running VMware at home. My primary box runs Linux and I have VMware installed running among other things Windows XP. This VM is setup for my work environment with my VPN, CRM and other tools to allow me to work from home. The benefit of virtualization to the home user is seperating out tasks. Before my kids had their own computers they could easily run inside a virtualized environment for their protection and mine. One of my coworkers is moving his wife and kids to their own VMs.

Im not a VMWare expert, the little ive used it was in a testing enviroment, but my question to you is, as far as I understand it to access a VM you actually need to log into a physical machine to access the VM, so if you have one computer at home your still going either have each user have their own account or a single account where everyone can access VMware from, so how do you enforce your kids to work in their own VMs rather than their own or the family accounts?

Even of you access the VM over a network, you need to to that from a physical machine eliminating the need for the VM because you most likely have your own machine then. And like you said, most people these days have their owm personal PC completely making the discussion a thing of the past.

My point is that I see no real reason for apple to provide this feature to the average consumer, most people dont really have to share a PC, and if thats the case they have their own accounts, so unless a member of the family has a critical app running there is no use for the protection that a virtual or virtualized OS will provide. Its my opinion that IF there is a critical app that you want to run and actually make money of off, why not get that app its own machine where it can run safely isolated from everything with no performace hit and with no limitations?

If its to easy to run windows and mac apps side by side what will stop mac os x becomming the next os@Warp?


edit: Ok, I see the point of being able to run multiple copies of the same OS, that way if someone with an account does screw it up the other people will simply run their own OS as if nothing happened, but I really think apple shouldn't allow other operating systems to be virtualized. this entire thread makes me think OS2Warp, wonderfull OS screwed up by being able to run software form anohter OS.

[kalisphoenix]

You know, I wouldn't be surprised if that's a tagline they use if this is true.

I wouldn't be surprised either. It's quite clever. I dig it when Apple makes pop culture references ("This one goes to 11" on their X11 page, for instance) and their taglines generally are at least mildly memorable, so :) Here's hoping we'll get some sort of virtualization or hypervising in Leopard. I'm hoping for hypervising, personally.

[aegisdesign]

Because anybody who would WANT the OS X version wouldn't be interested in running the windows version. This idea is FUD, pure and simple. Companies that make OS X software now will continue to do so. Those that don't aren't doing it anyway so it's not like it's going to stop anything.

Not entirely. If you've already got a Windows version, it's pointless buying a Mac version or an alternative.

So all those companies that provide Mac products where the Windows developer hasn't bothered with porting it to OSX have now suddenly got to contend with competing with Windows now also.

[kalisphoenix]

I'd point out that none of the current Intel Macs support Intel's virtualization technology so you early adopters are screwed.

Uh, yes they do. http://www.intel.com/performance/resources/briefs/mobiletechnology.pdf (page 6, middle of the page)

[SpankWare]

Im not a VMWare expert, the little ive used it was in a testing enviroment, but my question to you is, as far as I understand it to access a VM you actually need to log into a physical machine to access the VM, so if you have one computer at home your still going either have each user have their own account or a single account where everyone can access VMware from, so how do you enforce your kids to work in their own VMs rather than their own or the family accounts?


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. Some applications still need full access and restoring a VM snapshot is a lot easier than reinstalling the OS. If they have their own machine you simple do a thin Linux install with VMware and their environment running in the VM. Again you have the benefits of the quick restore from the snapshot. Other alternatives (depending on use) would be GSX or ESX server where the VM is running on a dedicated host and they have a thin install of whatever and remotely access the system that way. My wife did that for some time before I bought her a new laptop. She had a crappy laptop with software to remotely login to the dedicated VM running on a dedicated host. Gave her portability and a faster platform on which to run her core apps despite the less than appealing specs on the craptop.

There's a ton of ways to use virtualization, you just have to think of how you can best use it yourself.

[thefunkymunky]

I'd point out that none of the current Intel Macs support Intel's virtualization technology so you early adopters are screwed.

I thought they did support it but it was just disabled in the EFI or something. A firmware/software update will just turn it on.

[aegisdesign]

Uh, yes they do. http://www.intel.com/performance/resources/briefs/mobiletechnology.pdf (page 6, middle of the page)

ok, my mistake. They'd renamed it. It used to be called Vanderpool and I could have sworn reading that Yonah wouldn't support Vanderpool.

[mark88]

It also sends a clear message to computer buyers. Which machine would you buy? A Dell that runs Windows? Or a Mac that runs Mac OS and Windows? I'd buy the machine that has suddenly become the most universal platform to run any consumer and business application. Wouldn't you?


Only if I wanted to use both Operating systems! Not that many people would even give OS X a second thought so why would they even bother with the extra expense? Wannabe switchers are likely to buy Intel Macs who otherwise wouldn't have, but I can't see the average joe who doesn't know much about computers being at all swayed by the fact that Macs can run two Operating Systems.

This is win win for both Apple and Microsoft. The hardware company sell more hardware, the software company sell more software for that hardware. That's pretty simple business IMO.

I'm sure Apple and MS both have their own spin on it on how they hope to gain but who knows what's gonna happen. One thing I'm sure of is that PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO STOP MAKING SOFTWARE FOR OS X, I wish people would stop saying this. That will only happen when people stop using OS X altogether and how likely is that?

[adamfilip]

The only downside to emulation is that it is slower. Dual booting would allow the programs to run in native format, right?

there is no emulation..

[kalisphoenix]

ok, my mistake. They'd renamed it. It used to be called Vanderpool and I could have sworn reading that Yonah wouldn't support Vanderpool.

It still is called Vanderpool. I don't blame you, though -- Intel has apparently gone back and forth on it. One guy whose site I visited got four different answers from four different customer service people (the ones who asked their supervisors, at least).

[xterm]

THIS IS A BAD IDEA.

why? becouse it will kill off mac native software. Developers will have the mentaliy of "why port it to mac when it can run the windows version fine?"

[Lollypop]

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. Some applications still need full access and restoring a VM snapshot is a lot easier than reinstalling the OS. If they have their own machine you simple do a thin Linux install with VMware and their environment running in the VM. Again you have the benefits of the quick restore from the snapshot. Other alternatives (depending on use) would be GSX or ESX server where the VM is running on a dedicated host and they have a thin install of whatever and remotely access the system that way. My wife did that for some time before I bought her a new laptop. She had a crappy laptop with software to remotely login to the dedicated VM running on a dedicated host. Gave her portability and a faster platform on which to run her core apps despite the less than appealing specs on the craptop.

There's a ton of ways to use virtualization, you just have to think of how you can best use it yourself.

Ive installed a lot of beta/alpha software on my powerbook, and in a period of 2 years ive had to reinstall the OS once, and that was because the harddrive failed not software failure. I admit that snapshots are really cool, and ive personally used them to get my ass out of the fire, but what apps do you really run in the home environment that needs that kind of protection, especially for the mac os? In the windows environment I would be behind you 10000%, but given my experience with the Mac I dont see why apple would put in the development time to provide a additional (redundant) failsafe into the mac when they could rather spend it on reworking the finder?

I find the mac os stable as can get despite my best attempts to bring it down via software, and I dont want to run windows. As cool a technology as virtualization is, I dont have the need for it, and I would guess that many mac os users would agree wiht me that the security isnt really required in the home environment, rather give us more cool stuff to get the poor windows users to switch.

[adamfilip]

I'd point out that none of the current Intel Macs support Intel's virtualization technology so you early adopters are screwed.

i bet the core chips have Virtu built in. and intel just hasnt enabled it yet
a simple. firmware upgrade and its off and running

thats what happened with intels Xeon. if i remember correctly

[adamfilip]

THIS IS A BAD IDEA.

why? becouse it will kill off mac native software. Developers will have the mentaliy of "why port it to mac when it can run the windows version fine?"

It is a risk. yes. but the same could have (and probably was said) when virtual PC arrived.. why develope Mac apps with people can run windows with VPC

I think. once more of the public works with a Mac and sees how much better and more productive it is. and that they can still play games.. they will go mac.. and then stay

[g.hobi]

Maybe a Leopard can change its spots after all.:p ;)

The question would be which are the spots. But the good news is that the whole thing will be handheld

http://www.pnhs.net/Events/Shows/PSC2002/027%20Frank%20with%20Leopard%20Gecko.JPG

ghobi

[corywoolf]

As long as XP isn't emulated that's cool. If it's not full speed I wouldn't touch it. I think they should/are going to change the name from Virtual PC to something that better defines it. When I think Virtual, I think Emulated, when I think Emulated, I think overpriced Celeron speed OS. :D

[maya]

ROTFLMAO, Mac OS 10.X is like a virus. It's taking over the entire PC bodies at large at a slow and stead pace.

Windows OS just sits there like a host and waiting for any virus to infect it with open arms.

You will eventually see Apple Dominating the gadget, hardware PC and OS market. Steve Jobs is not making the same mistake as in the past, however he is going to make it so that any OS and software can run on Apple hardware with the except of the iPod at present.

Only time will tell. ;) :D

[mark88]

Not entirely. If you've already got a Windows version, it's pointless buying a Mac version or an alternative.

But if you've got a Windows version then you're probably a windows user already? Hence, nothing is lost. You weren't gonna buy the Mac version in the first place.

I think Software companies like Adobe need to get wise and start offering cross platform upgrade paths. Scenario:

Windows User(interested in OS X) has Adobe CS for Windows. The news about Intel macs has finally convinced him to buy a Mac and try out OS X while at the same time he can still run Windows just like he always has.

After using his Intel Mac for a while, he decides he much prefers OS X. Therefore he wants all of his software on his prefered platform, settling for Windows versions isn't gonna make him happy. It's like having a HDTV and your favorite movie is only available in SD.

He wants to upgrade to CS2, he wants it for OS X. Therefore Adobe should make this upgrade path available. If they don't, then he might have to settle for the XP version, given the costs involved.

---

If people are so confident that OS X destroys windows then I don't understand this scared reaction regarding developers stopping making software for it.

[topgunn]

THIS IS A BAD IDEA.

why? becouse it will kill off mac native software. Developers will have the mentaliy of "why port it to mac when it can run the windows version fine?"
I don't agree. With the transition to Intel, porting apps to Mac OS is not nearly as complicated as it was before. Developers are going to take the little bit of extra time required to make a Mac port.

[mark88]

THIS IS A BAD IDEA.

why? becouse it will kill off mac native software. Developers will have the mentaliy of "why port it to mac when it can run the windows version fine?"

It's still the windows version! OS X users want software for OS X not for Windows! Please try and understand.

[kalisphoenix]

I don't agree. With the transition to Intel, porting apps to Mac OS is not nearly as complicated as it was before. Developers are going to take the little bit of extra time required to make a Mac port.

Gah!

It's just as complicated as it was before. The processor only matters for about 5% of the work, if that. The OS makes all the difference in the world.

[Manatee]

If it can run versions of Windows, and offer the conveniences of Virtual PC, then it's exactly what I'm looking for. :)

[Lollypop]

I don't agree. With the transition to Intel, porting apps to Mac OS is not nearly as complicated as it was before. Developers are going to take the little bit of extra time required to make a Mac port.

I agree that there will be a lot less work to do to port a app, but only for really processor intense apps, "normal" apps wont port any faster if they dotn really do any low level stuff, they will still have to rewrite most of the stuff anyway because of the different API's used.

Apple should be carefull what they do now that they are on the x86 platform, yes it is easier for certain apps to be ported but for most there isnt really much difference in port times I think, if they want to encourage development of OS X apps they should make it even more easy to port apps. Making windows to easy to run on a mac will make any potential developer think twice before choosing the mac os.

[Meemoo]

Did OS X dual booting with OS 9 kill OS X apps? Did OS 9 "Classic" emulation kill OS X apps?

Answer a] no
Answer b] no

By either cube effecting into Windows or Dual booting nothing is going to be lost. The typical user will use windows just like early adopters in OS X used OS 9.. When nessecary. By building a superior OS apple will communicating to the end user that OS X is the way to go, however your cushion is there if you need it.
When OS X first released if they had not supported an OS 9 dual boot many early adopters would have stayed away - just as many possible NEW mac users are scared away by the thought of not being able to run many apps they already own.

Infact that market that was scared away is now going to be met with open arms.

[Eraserhead]

Look if Apple are clever they'll do two things

#1 take your old windows OS off your old computer and 'virtualise' it on your new Mac

This stops MS getting hold of any more of your cash.

#2 they won't give Window's internet access, unless you specifically enable it possibly totally (with terminal) or on an app by app basis in OS X.

this stops Windows viruses/malware spreading from Mac's but allows gamers/advanced users to play network games (and other software that *needs* network access) with a Mac.

The Windows app's also wouldn't have the Mac UI, this is annoying enough with X11 to stop me using Open Office for Mac (i have got the fonts working with it too...), people with Macs would also be exposed to the Mac alternatives for most software and because of this would find windows app's 'annoying' to use and when they re-bought they'd get the mac version.

[achie25]

I don't want to rull windows and all of its crapware.

I just need a couple of windows apps every once in awhile.

Why? Because some lazy programers make their software pc only.

This is great news. Apple will do it right and make it built into the core.


I agree. I really only seeing myself running a couple of windoze based apps that I can't get for the MAC. I would love to see developers port more to the MAC

[Peace]

As far as ease of port is concerned, porting Altivec-heavy apps to Intel SSE has proven to be a daunting task.

Not something that can be done just by changing a "couple of lines of code"..

[Eraserhead]

Did OS X dual booting with OS 9 kill OS X apps? Did OS 9 "Classic" emulation kill OS X apps?

Answer a] no
Answer b] no

By either cube effecting into Windows or Dual booting nothing is going to be lost. The typical user will use windows just like early adopters in OS X used OS 9.. When nessecary. By building a superior OS apple will communicating to the end user that OS X is the way to go, however your cushion is there if you need it.
When OS X first released if they had not supported an OS 9 dual boot many early adopters would have stayed away - just as many possible NEW mac users are scared away by the thought of not being able to run many apps they already own.

Infact that market that was scared away is now going to be met with open arms.

To support this further, why don't all applications for OS X use X11? if they did they'd sell more copies as Linux/Other UNIX users could use them too, however X11 does allow you to use UNIX app's like Matlab that never had a Mac version before.

[EGT]

This sounds like good news. But hopefully we'll only need it for 5 - 10 years. During that time people could realise, "Hey, why am I making this run on Windows?!"

Yes, Mac OS 10.X is the worlds most thoughtful virus. :D

[Lepton]

My question is, will this require any hardware changes, will the original Intel Macs be able to run it? Will there need to be a new CPU with virtualization? I'm guessing it will run on original hardware, and that we will see this show up around the time Vista arrives, and it will be sold as a software product with Vista as part of it.

[aegisdesign]

I'm sure Apple and MS both have their own spin on it on how they hope to gain but who knows what's gonna happen. One thing I'm sure of is that PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO STOP MAKING SOFTWARE FOR OS X, I wish people would stop saying this. That will only happen when people stop using OS X altogether and how likely is that?

Perhaps.

But already one of my customers who has bought a MacBook Pro has done so because he wants to run AutoCAD. That's one sale to AutoDesk who have never supported the Mac and one less sale of VectorWorks.

It'll get worse when users can run Windows software alongside OSX.

[AidenShaw]

there is no emulation..
Actually, there's still emulation. The GOS is running in an emulated PC - not a real PC.

A few instructions are emulated - the guest cannot be allowed to do direct access to the entire machine, when it tries the VMM (virtual machine monitor) emulates the instruction appropriately.

There's no wholesale emulation of one ISA (instruction set architecture) by a processor with a different ISA, like in VPC/Mac.

In common English, a "virtual environment" is clearly an "emulated environment" - that's what "emulation" means.

[Meemoo]

To support this further, why don't all applications for OS X use X11? if they did they'd sell more copies as Linux/Other UNIX users could use them too, however X11 does allow you to use UNIX app's like Matlab that never had a Mac version before.

I can't tell if this is an argument or not... but Linux is not a threat. It's not commerical, not user friendly and since people can't profit off of it the OS has no direction and it's nothing but a hobbyist OS or a bragging right.

[Bonte]

Also interesting, MS may need to rewrite 60% of Vista. XP will stay an important OS for the next few years if this is true.

http://www.smarthouse.com.au/Computing/Platforms?Article=/Computing/Platforms/R7G5G6U4

[aria505]

Ok, so since this is Apple, we know that they will do something different than just a normal window running windows inside of it.

Think of the many options they might have. I love the "Fast OS Switching" idea. We could have a little drop down menu in the top bar that we select an OS from and the screen spins downward to show the new OS. Or maybe the Mac OS zooms backward like it does in FrontRow, but then it spins around and shows the other OS on the back and zooms back in.

Just from a visual design aspect, Apple could really do some cool stuff to make it feel like a true part of Mac OS.

I personally love the idea of running Windows along side Mac OS for those few programs.

I wouldn't have to worry about Windows getting viruses as much because I would never check mail or surf the internet inside of Windows. Its like Mac OS would be this huge body gaurd that does all things amazing things and at the same time is protecting the little whimpy scared Windows OS from all the bad viruses and such.

[Meemoo]

I wouldn't have to worry about Windows getting viruses as much because I would never check mail or surf the internet inside of Windows. Its like Mac OS would be this huge body gaurd that does all things amazing things and at the same time is protecting the little whimpy scared Windows OS from all the bad viruses and such.

and when the average windows user got a virus for Windows, they would just start to see the benefit of the Mac OS. I can't tell you how many business people I know that have a virus and couldn't do the simplest thing such as check their email or check stocks.

[aegisdesign]

Did OS X dual booting with OS 9 kill OS X apps? Did OS 9 "Classic" emulation kill OS X apps?

Answer a] no
Answer b] no

By either cube effecting into Windows or Dual booting nothing is going to be lost. The typical user will use windows just like early adopters in OS X used OS 9.. When nessecary. By building a superior OS apple will communicating to the end user that OS X is the way to go, however your cushion is there if you need it.
When OS X first released if they had not supported an OS 9 dual boot many early adopters would have stayed away - just as many possible NEW mac users are scared away by the thought of not being able to run many apps they already own.

Infact that market that was scared away is now going to be met with open arms.

That's a totally specious argument. OSX users and developers knew that eventually OS9 would go away so everyone had to move their apps to OSX.

Windows isn't going away (unfortunately). Equating Windows use with OS9/Classic is just plain bizarre. Users choosing to run Windows apps in OSX would know plain well that their investment is long term.

One would hope software companies that often applications on both operating systems would offer cross grades. And equally, I can see alternative application vendors offering sweeteners to get people away from using their old Windows applications in OSX instead of their own OSX software.

[AliensAreFuzzy]

I think if they were to two this, a good way to switch from one to the other would be something like fast user switching. Hit a key command or button on the screen and the cube effect goes up and down rather than left and right to signify switching OSes

[m-dogg]

I don't see it happening. It is almost like saying "Our OS can't do everything, so we are providing a solution for you to install other operating systems." I don't think Apple thinks like that. If it happens I will be very surprised.

Anyways, I am very happy with the dual boot, it works perfect. (I have an intel iMac 20'.)


Wouldn't this just eliminate the need for Virtual PC? But someone would still need to go out an buy a windows license to run windows programs, right?

With that in mind, I don't think people would want to go out and buy windows unless they had an important need (ie, work software that only runs on windows).

I wonder how this would impact gamers though?

[juicedus]

For the most part there are 3 types of software developers, 1 that makes software for Windows, 1 that makes software for OS X, and 1 that makes software for both platforms.

If this virtualization goes through, Windows only and OS X only software comapnies remain making their software. The companies that produce both could save a ton of money if they stopped development of the OS X version. I see this as a problem b/c companies #1 focus is to make money. If they can cut x amount of money and still have their programs run on both platforms, why would they continue to to develop both? And if their software is needed, people will still buy the windows copy because there is no alternative but can still be run on OSX.

Just my thought :cool:

[aegisdesign]

To support this further, why don't all applications for OS X use X11? if they did they'd sell more copies as Linux/Other UNIX users could use them too, however X11 does allow you to use UNIX app's like Matlab that never had a Mac version before.

Are you serious?

There's much more to an application than just the presentation layer. Apart from that, X11 is a lumbering dinosaur by comparison to Windows or OSX's native UI.

[mark88]

But already one of my customers who has bought a MacBook Pro has done so because he wants to run AutoCAD. That's one sale to AutoDesk who have never supported the Mac and one less sale of VectorWorks.

It'll get worse when users can run Windows software alongside OSX.

But isn't that totally beside the point? your customer had to decide between two applications, not two platforms.

I have no experience of AutoCAD or VectorWorks but if AutoCAD is superior then it's only right that the customer chooses it, if it suits his needs & budget better. Why should he settle for inferior software if he has the choice of both?

You would probably then say, 'well, what if everyone chooses AutoCAD, that means VectorWorks would throw in the towel'

Then I'd say everyone has different preferences, different needs and different budgets. There's plenty of room for everyone, as can be seen on any Windows or Mac software download site.

Another angle: FTP apps on OS X suck compared to their windows counterparts, the best one IMO is Transmit and it still seems to have about 10% of the functionality of the FTP app I use on XP. Perhaps if people had the option of using Windows FTP applications such as SmartFTP, FTPVoyager, WSFTP Pro on their mac, the mac developers in this area might be given the kick up the arse they need.

[Malic]

The only downside to emulation is that it is slower. Dual booting would allow the programs to run in native format, right?

It's not emulating. Virtualization is like looking at a whole OS as an application. Look at virtualization support as "An OS for OS's".

I predicted this (to myself :p) some time ago. The idea of swapping between MacOS X (multiple instances), Windows (multiple instances) and Linux (multiple instances of multiple distributions) just like one swaps (rotating cube) between MacOS X accounts now seemed like a serious "Ooo and Ah!" feature.

Heh, and you thought that dual core CPU with quad core on the horizon would be "All you ever would need!" HA! :D

The writing on the wall for me was that recent Intel processors have low level support for such virtualization. I am assuming that Apple was given information (under NDA) by Intel about this in an effort to sweeten the deal for Apple to go to Intel.

[thestaton]

meh. hopefully this will help someone but I for one am not inviting of windows nor do I care to deal with it or the headaches that will come with. I can see it now we'll need quad core processors for a smooth environment 2 for windows to run virus / spyware software, and 2 more for OSX to operate.

Seriously we have it great on the Mac side, who cares if everyone else in the world owns or wants a Mac? I switched to get away from Windows and the 6 month format plan. If the latest headlines are true and they have to rewrite 60% of the code is this something you all are really want Apple to waste there time on? More people who switch mean longer times on hold, and more ignorant people taking up real estate at the Genius bar. I travel all over the world and any time I run into a fellow Mac user there's usually instant communication.

We have scene the screen shots Microsoft is stealing anything Apple can come up with from the Spotlight logo to widgets do you really want to use something that is just following the leader? Why not petition Apple to use there resources to continue to lead the pack and not welcome a 2nd rate operating system. If you honestly need to run windows then I welcome you spend $300 dollars and build your own machine.

I'm tired of all the news about windows why do we care? We have the superior OS why do we insist on needing a 2nd rate OS?

[dejager]

A major barrier to selling Mac OS X to PC users would be that their purchased Windows software would simply stop working once they switched OS's. If virtualization leads to Mac OS X being able to running Windows software without needing Windows then OS X.5 becomes very attractive, especially if it comes out in time for the back to school and christmas markets. If you were PC owner given a choice what would you do? Buy the beautiful, secure, stable, easy to use, and cheaper, Mac OS X.5, which will support the majority of your apps, or wait till next January+ for Windows to release another upgrade to their sub-par operating system?

[Mr Skills]

Because anybody who would WANT the OS X version wouldn't be interested in running the windows version. This idea is FUD, pure and simple. Companies that make OS X software now will continue to do so. Those that don't aren't doing it anyway so it's not like it's going to stop anything.

You're thinking from the consumer's point of view, rather than the developer's. At the moment, if you want the Mac market to buy something, you have to make a Mac version. If you can easily run Windows apps on a Mac, then there is no need - as a developer - to make a Mac version.

Sure, given the choice, Mac users would buy Mac programs. But what if you don't give them the choice? They will probably, however reluctantly, buy the Windows version. You might lose some sales from Mac users, but possibly not enough to offset the cost of Mac development.

This is a very difficult and subtle situation, involving the ease/cost of Mac development versus the ease/cost of running windows apps on the Mac. With the Intel transition, it is getting easier to run Windows apps on a Mac - but this may be offset by the increased ease of cross-platform development.

I'm sure there is a sweet-spot for Apple where a certain level of Windows virtualization will help Mac sales without hitting software development. They need to make it easier, but not too easy, or it will be OS/2 all over again.

[Kingsly]

I would live to see a Rosetta-like handling of .exe apps... "goodbye M$ market share"

[KindredMAC]

Can you imagine having a Windows icon in your dock and clicking on it when you needed to go to the dark side for a little bit? What would be really cool is if Windows booted up in the background as OS X was starting up so the transition between both would have no lag time at all.

Imagine, all you would have to do is go buy a copy of Windows Vista for $130, install it on your Mac running Leopard, and Voila! You now have the most powerful and versitle computing system in the history of all computers.... and it's a Mac!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And the main bonus to it is that if Microsoft tried to reverse this to work on any PC in their version of Windows, it would take them frickin 8 years to do it! By that time, the Mac OS would have totally changed under the hood probably 3 times!!!!!

It's great to be a Mac User today in this world!!!!!!!

[YoNeX]

For the most part there are 3 types of software developers, 1 that makes software for Windows, 1 that makes software for OS X, and 1 that makes software for both platforms.

If this virtualization goes through, Windows only and OS X only software comapnies remain making their software. The companies that produce both could save a ton of money if they stopped development of the OS X version. I see this as a problem b/c companies #1 focus is to make money. If they can cut x amount of money and still have their programs run on both platforms, why would they continue to to develop both? And if their software is needed, people will still buy the windows copy because there is no alternative but can still be run on OSX.

Just my thought :cool:

You forgot Linux too :p While I love using VMWare for sandboxing XP on my XP :confused: to test stuff, its essentially all I need. Lets be honest here, if a software company starts to drop their development for OS X in favor of XP only, you can have a lot of interesting effects. This would allow all the developers to focus on the XP versions, essentially optimizing it to its full potential even optimizing it posssibly for the "virtualization" (i'm not sure about this, but I'm sure it could be done). Now issues may arise like some issues virtualization can't do. For example, I was trying to load this one game that required DX9 (hardly graphics extensive at all), and VMWare Windows could not open it, something about incomptability hardware.

In addition, most computer users aren't that tech savy. Have you tried turning it off and on. Push the power button, its that green glowing button. (IT Crowd :D) So telling many of these people they have to go through a bunch of steps to just get their software is already difficult enough. But I'm sure this won't be that big of an issue since Apple is known for making software so damn easy to use.

Virtualization may good for a lot of things, but ideally, it can't solve everyone's solution. Some people simply need dual booting features to get the full native hardware and software. Virtualization may not be 100%, so it should not be soley depended on it. Is this an end for for OS X development, NO! Why do you think there are so many developers for so many different platform? Because they want to share their software with the rest of the other OSes, Opera is a good example of this. For the record, VMWare is fast, not as fast as native of course, but typically with enough RAM, its good enough for most testing. Games is another story as I said above.

Someone said earlier that if you buy a company software with only XP support, your supporting them not to port over or develop native OS X software. Well I'll tell you this right now, they would not have plans to do it. If they had plans to do it, they would have been working on it a long time ago. And how can they differentiate between regular XP sale customers and Mac XP Users that want to use it on their mac? They don't! So while ideally in a perfect world we could simply switch to a company that supports multiple platform, but sadly many times people are forced into using certain software for whatever reason. Just got to accept this.

[thejadedmonkey]

Also interesting, MS may need to rewrite 60% of Vista. XP will stay an important OS for the next few years if this is true.

http://www.smarthouse.com.au/Computing/Platforms?Article=/Computing/Platforms/R7G5G6U4
No no no, Vista has been 60% rewritten. that's why it is taking 6 years to come out.

[thejadedmonkey]

I don't agree. With the transition to Intel, porting apps to Mac OS is not nearly as complicated as it was before. Developers are going to take the little bit of extra time required to make a Mac port.
no, this is amazing news. Imagine if Apple released a computer that could "run 95% of all software on the market" out of the box. OS X, Linux, Windows, (DOS?) you get the idea.

The best part is, just because something "works" on OS X doesn't mean that you want it. Take AOL Instant Messenger for example. It's what people are used to, but it's not the best AT ALL. Imagine the toaster-style pop ups when people sign on. Completely out of place. No one would use AIM over Adium or ichat because those are native OS X apps.

The same holds true for just about anything else. except MS Paint and Solitare. I'm still waiting for a good OS X alternative to them.

but back to my point. If OS X could run 95% of all software made today, it gets a LOT of hype, some market share boost, and all of those real-estate guys get to run that program that they are always complaining about while using OS X. Everybody else, well they'd find native OS X apps that work better because they're native and use them anyway.

In the end, you get a secure, stable, beautiful OS that can do anything you throw at it.

[fabsgwu]

This could be win-win for Apple and Microsoft. It would probably be a built-to-order option which would require some additional fee for use of Microsoft code/OS, and it would surely increase interest in 'switchers'.

On the other hand...

This could be detrimental to Mac OS software development, "why build an Apple version when you can just fire up the Windows version on your Mac..."

[thestaton]

if Virtualization means a rosetta style for .exe that would be incredible. anything more I'll pass on.

[tmornini]

I find the mac os stable as can get despite my best attempts to bring it down via software, and I dont want to run windows. As cool a technology as virtualization is, I dont have the need for it, and I would guess that many mac os users would agree wiht me that the security isnt really required in the home environment, rather give us more cool stuff to get the poor windows users to switch.

1) How about being able to run 10.3.9 and 10.4.0 on the same machine, at the same time(!) with zero hassles? Perhaps even automatically as part of each major upgrade?

2) How about the ability to seamlessly move your entire environment to another box? SuperDuper! does make this pretty easy already...but with virtualization, it's (potentially) a single file.

3) I totally agree that this would bring switchers. I have a buddy who wants a Mac, but *will not* do it until he can run Windows apps full speed.

[aegisdesign]

But isn't that totally beside the point? your customer had to decide between two applications, not two platforms.

No, it's exactly the point. He'd never have gone to Windows since he's been on a Mac for donkeys years and sensibly thinks Windows sucks. However, he's now not gone with a Mac native CAD package.

I have no experience of AutoCAD or VectorWorks but if AutoCAD is superior then it's only right that the customer chooses it, if it suits his needs & budget better. Why should he settle for inferior software if he has the choice of both?

No, AutoCAD is inferior and costs more. However, since it's a Windows application, it's the industry standard 900lb gorilla of CAD apps. Imagine if Microsoft Word didn't exist on the Mac and you were trying to share files. Sure, Pages or Mellel might get pretty close at approximating Word docs but you can never get them 100% right. AutoCAD is like that and when you're dealing with sending CAD files to Taiwan for them to build your drawings into 100,000's of dollars of metal, you want to get things 100% right.

You would probably then say, 'well, what if everyone chooses AutoCAD, that means VectorWorks would throw in the towel'

I'm sure they won't but now Vectorworks has to compete with AutoCAD on the Mac and Autodesk haven't even done any Mac development. Perhaps they'll think the same and only produce a Windows version instead of investing so much in the Mac market.

Then I'd say everyone has different preferences, different needs and different budgets. There's plenty of room for everyone, as can be seen on any Windows or Mac software download site.

That's very naive. There simply isn't room for everyone in the Mac market. It's a very small market with a few independent developers making a living by being small and owning a large amount of a small market. They'll potentially get squashed by 900lb gorillas that have no interest in the Mac market at all if you allow in Windows applications.

Another angle: FTP apps on OS X suck compared to their windows counterparts, the best one IMO is Transmit and it still seems to have about 10% of the functionality of the FTP app I use on XP. Perhaps if people had the option of using Windows FTP applications such as SmartFTP, FTPVoyager, WSFTP Pro on their mac, the mac developers in this area might be given the kick up the arse they need.

I disagree that Transmit is only 10% of those you mention, however, if everyone started using those, then one outcome could be that Panic stops developing Transmit and we then have lost the best (which I disagree with anyway) FTP app on the Mac. Personally, I prefer Fugu btw.

I appreciate how you think this is good for consumers and in the short term it may be. But long term, this may prove to be a serious negative effect for native Mac development and the death of many small indy software developers that concentrate on the Mac market and stay away from the gorillas.

[GFLPraxis]

Why would anybody rate this negative? It basicly just said, "Apple's going to give everyone who buys Leopard a copy of VirtualPC for free so you don't have to buy it from Microsoft!"

[thefunkymunky]

No no no, Vista has been 60% rewritten. that's why it is taking 6 years to come out.

I think you'll find its 60% of Vista needs to be rewritten. Not has been rewritten.

[p0intblank]

I can't believe what I reading! :eek: I never thought I'd see the day Apple actually asks people to run Windows applications on a Mac. This would not only allow the user to have a much easier experience than dual-booting, but this very feature of Leopard could also increase the Mac's market share by a lot. Now there would be no reason to own a real Windows box for a lot of people. :)

[SpankWare]

You're thinking from the consumer's point of view, rather than the developer's. At the moment, if you want the Mac market to buy something, you have to make a Mac version. If you can easily run Windows apps on a Mac, then there is no need - as a developer - to make a Mac version.

Sure, given the choice, Mac users would buy Mac programs. But what if you don't give them the choice? They will probably, however reluctantly, buy the Windows version. You might lose some sales from Mac users, but possibly not enough to offset the cost of Mac development.


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.

[shawnce]

I think you'll find its 60% of Vista needs to be rewritten. Not has been rewritten.

I think you find that that 60% number is BS... the article you are referring to is FUD.

[DOUGHNUT]

If this is true, it's going to be HUGE if Apple can get Leopard in by the holiday season. Considering Vista won't be out until January next year, people would be like, hey, I can run Windows apps on these cool Apple machines now, let me buy a Mac instead of a Dell. It won't surprise me if Apple's marketshare doubles within a year with the iPod halo effect in full force. People are fed up with Windows, and the ability to run Windows software on a Mac will be the killer app on these new Intel Macs.

[SpankWare]

If this is true, it's going to be HUGE if Apple can get Leopard in by the holiday season. Considering Vista won't be out until January next year, people would be like, hey, I can run Windows apps on these cool Apple machines now, let me buy a Mac instead of a Dell.

The problem here is the fact that purchasing a Dell is less of a financial impact than purchasing an Apple. While it may work for some I think you'll find it to be a HUGE minority that have that viewpoint at the holidays. The Christmas shopping season is enhanced by spectacular deals. People become more bargin conscious during the holidays and as I result I don't see them using virtualization as an excuse to spend MORE money on a computer to run apps that they could run natively on a far less expensive machine. This is the area where Apple fails and will continue to fail in terms of gaining market acceptance. Many people here knock on Dell for being cheap when that's exactly what's made them successful. People want bang for the buck and in a Windows-centric world Dell and many other PC makers are the logical choice.

[Bhaidaya]

This is great news for me! I'm a switcher... doin it for exposure and experience in a new environment that i am now finding myself more and more excited about.

I'm just now realizing how much anti windows people there are... I personally have never had a virus and or problems with spyware... i know what to do and what not to do... not having that control previously on osx made me dislike it... imagine not having the option to jwalk because it's against the law....

I made the point to switch when i found out OSX has a linux backend (WOW) now the option for me to continue to use my fav dev environs from windows while i switch is awesome(WOWx2)... up until this point i was a little apprehensive about switching due to the fact i would lose time and productivity finding development equivelents and would need to retrain myself to use them.. which is actually exciting for me. I thrive on change and adapting to new requirments. This means i can afford to seek out and use and compare the equivelents but not be forced to lose the downtime i previously assumed.

For all you XP haters, why you gotta hate? now that you are finally in the limelight you gotta act indecent and exclusive? OSX dev style will not go away... thats like saying you are going to switch to windows... OSX community is too dedicated to drop OSX development. Now that Mac is gaining marketshare you just wait and see how the OSX environ gets flooded with deadbeat developers making software that guts OSX security and allows root access through websites and popup optin spyware TSR's!

Most of the flaws in XP was due to someone attempting to make **** better for windows (ala ActivX) just with thier eyes closed to all the problems that it would introduce. Hell, that is just human nature... (a-bomb Biotch)

My long wait is almost over my 2ghz macbook PRO should be here in 5 days... wish me luck

[wnurse]

If this is true, Dell and HP must be quaking in their booties. Besides for those going for the absolutely cheapest PC on the market (which Dell and HP don't make much off of anyway), or the most powerful gaming PC possible, who wouldn't seriously consider a Mac for their home?

A lot of people who don't want to spend thousands for a computer. I have yet to persuade any of my friends to buy a mac. Everyone i know likes the fact that you can buy a $600 dell computer. They don't care about how it looks or that it's not brushed metal, etc. All my friends prefer to spend their money instead on houses, stocks, etc. To them, a computer is just a tool. I have just about given up even trying to persuade anyone to try macs.. so no, Dell is not quaking in their boots. Even some people willing to spend over a thousand still don't want a mac. The problem is that to many of these people, they are only interested in windows, so telling them that if they spend a few more dollars, they can get mac and windows (i'm talking about when virtualization becomes a reality) will not sway them. Why should they care they can run mac and windows together?. As mac owners who need to sometimes run windows app, we care but i have yet to meet a windows user who needs to run mac apps sometimes. No, this will not get more switchers. People will not suddenly flock to mac cause they can run windows too. People have to be persuaded that they need macOSX in the first place to even consider it. I have a friend who makes good money, i tried to get her to go to a mac.. her question was why?.. i don't need any mac apps. I tried explaining about lack of viruses,etc..that did not seem to concern her. (of course, the fact that she needed certain windows app played a role).. would be curious to know if she would consider a mac if it could run windows also (probably not, since she will point out you will need to acquire a copy of windows and she will ask.. why buy a computer and then pay more for another operating system.. why not buy a computer with the other operating system in the first place.. why dick around?).

I suspect apple is doing this for the mac loyal who needs to run windows app. I will be surprised if this would lead to significant switchers.

[shawnce]

The problem here is the fact that purchasing a Dell is less of a financial impact than purchasing an Apple. Yet folks are consistently dropping a large amount of cash (often more then they would on a bargain rebate riddled Dell) on iPods, PSP, and console boxes. The money exists in the consumer world and consumers are willing to spend it on things that they see value in. Apple doesn't have to play (and really shouldn't) in the bargain computer world, leave it to Dell and others to fight over.

Apple can increase market share just fine playing in the product space it traditionally has... they have excellent mindshare/mediashare now, they now have hardware that is more acceptable then ever to the general market, they have an operating system that is more acceptable then ever, and consumers are looking for alternatives to Windows more then ever. I think the time is just about as good as it can be for Apple to grow Macintosh marketshare.

[thequicksilver]

Frankly, I don't believe a word of it.

But I hope it's true.

[Archmagination]

From what I read it just seems like Apple is going to provide the os/processor support needed to virtualize other os's on Mac's.

I wouldn't be suprised, since they are teaming up with Microsoft for this, that all they are doing is providing OS lvl support for Microsofts new Virtual PC for Mac. Apple doesn't want to make it TOO easy to run Windows, but at the same time they want to make it viable option for people who need Windows, but prefer Mac.

[DOUGHNUT]

The problem here is the fact that purchasing a Dell is less of a financial impact than purchasing an Apple. While it may work for some I think you'll find it to be a HUGE minority that have that viewpoint at the holidays. The Christmas shopping season is enhanced by spectacular deals. People become more bargin conscious during the holidays and as I result I don't see them using virtualization as an excuse to spend MORE money on a computer to run apps that they could run natively on a far less expensive machine. This is the area where Apple fails and will continue to fail in terms of gaining market acceptance. Many people here knock on Dell for being cheap when that's exactly what's made them successful. People want bang for the buck and in a Windows-centric world Dell and many other PC makers are the logical choice.

obviously, Windows and cheap consumer PC will never go away. But it's time for Apple to finally crawl out of the sub 5% marketshare area into the mainstream. There are ALOT of people thinking of switching, but at the same time reluctant to go into this 5% territory. If Apple can manage to get above 10% in terms of marketshare, that would be quite an achievement on its own. More developers would focus on developing software for multiple platforms, and word of mouth will be even bigger than it is right now. Also, this will drive competition between Microsoft and Apple, resulting in better products from both companies.

[AidenShaw]

If this is true, it's going to be HUGE if Apple can get Leopard in by the holiday season. Considering Vista won't be out until January next year, people would be like, hey, I can run Windows apps on these cool Apple machines now, let me buy a Mac instead of a Dell..
You'll see all those holiday PCs including a coupon for a free upgrade to Vista.

The delay is good for the PC vendors - they won't have to rush the Vista qualification for all the holiday PCs. They can take the time to prepare an upgrade program to roll out in January.

And, the stores will have demo systems running Vista, so that the people will see what they'll be getting with the coupon.

[asphalt-proof]

I would love to see this but I have a hard time envisioning the APple that won't license out Fairplay to anyone, spending time and money creating an environment that allows users to use anything but Mac OS. Just seems counterintuitive.
But Stevo has shocked us all before. Leopard may be VERY interesting.

[dernhelm]

I run VPC on windows today because I need to test software on multiple versions of windows. Even though there is no emulation, the virtualization going on is still pretty slow. Still in all, it makes a lot more sense than having a bunch of different windows machines lying around configured for different environments. The same would hold true for virtualization technology on OS/X.

Yes, it could be configured to run Windows in a VM, but it can also be used to run multiple OS/X versions (Tiger/Leopard/etc) in a VM. That would be more compelling for me. It would allow me to upgrade and test without fear of horking up my machine.

[SpankWare]

Yet folks are consistently dropping a large amount of cash (often more then they would on a bargain rebate riddled Dell) on iPods, PSP, and console boxes. The money exists in the consumer world and consumers are willing to spend it on things that they see value in. Apple doesn't have to play (and really shouldn't) in the bargain computer world, leave it to Dell and others to fight over.


You can't really compare the home computer space to the specialized spaces of iPods, PSP, etc. as they are dissimilar. The iPods, PSP etc that you speak of are specialized portable devices. The success of the iPod was in my opinion largely built upon the fact that they built a better portable music device first and enhanced it with an online store for purchasing music. Console boxes like the XBox and PS2 are successful because they offer a more affordable specialized system for gaming. There's no question about whether or not your system can play the game because you know it can when you buy it. That's worth the rather small amount (XBox 360 excluded) you pay for it.

When you're talking about home computers people still want bang for the buck. I've used Macs off and on for more years than I care to remember but at the end of the day the main driving factor on why I might buy a PC over a mac was completely based on cost. I know the same goes for many other people I know. The home computer is a tool as well as entertainment (in however you view that entertainment) and people want to know that they've gotten good value for money spent. Unfortunately it's very hard to justify spending more money on a system that's not as widely used as the less expensive alternatives.

[seashellz]

I dont see WHY APPLE *shouldnt* make a version of 10.5 that runs on PCs.
First off they would sell many THOUSANDS more copies of X; $$$$$
Which in turn will show people just how cool Mac is, and since they needent fear being unable to natively run Windows Games, apps etc on a Mac, there would be thousands of new switchers- to a MAC. $$$$
it s BIG WIN/BIG WIN for APPLE.


Dont drop the ball there, Steve $$$$$

It just might even up the score between MS and Mac.

with VISTA is not due until probably 2011, lets get the ball rolling.

[SpankWare]

I dont see WHY APPLE *shouldnt* make a version of 10.5 that runs on PCs.
First off they would sell many THOUSANDS more copies of X; $$$$$
Which in turn will show people just how cool Mac is, and since they needent fear being unable to natively run Windows Games, apps etc on a Mac, there would be thousands of new switchers- to a MAC. $$$$
it s BIG WIN/BIG WIN for APPLE.


I do wish Apple would sell OS X seperately from the hardware. I can do the same computing for less with generic PC hardware.

[aria505]

What if we are looking at this the wrong way?

What if Apple is actually building in the ability for different application types to run "natively" under Mac os X. That would turn Mac OS into the Universal OS.

If they were able to get .exe files to run natively inside of Mac OS, then it would turn .exe files into "Universial Applications" and there for eliminating the needs for developers to create seperate applications for Windows and Mac. .exe files would not just be windows applications anymore. They would be Mac/Windows applications.

That would be really scary though since I'm sure viruses would be able to execute as well.

[cgc]

The only downside to emulation is that it is slower. Dual booting would allow the programs to run in native format, right?
While there has to be a "middle-man" to pass Windows programs to the Windows DLLs, there shouldn't be too much of a slowdown...

[maxvamp]

Brought to you by the letters O and S, and the number 2!!!

In a perfect world, the OS9 classic environment would be replaced with a Windows ( lite ) environment that would allow a user to run off the shelf Windows apps seamlessly on the OSX desktop. This windows engine could run in a Virtualized Machine under the covers. Apple loves to integrate.

This has historically proven problems though....
- If MS and Apple join to make this happen, then several years down the road, split, MS could effectively gut OSX of the features that users may have become comfortable with. An Achilles Heel of sorts.
- The cost of OSX will go up, as Apple will be forced to pay the MS tax with every copy of OSX sold
- People at some point will get convinced ( usually by an idiotic salesman at a high volume electronics / computer store ) that
a.) Windows apps are not fully compatible
b.) Every thing runs slower on a Mac
c.) There are no apps for Apple so there is no need to run Windows this way, just buy an HP instead.


These were all the problems run into by OS/2, and unless Apple can really differentiate, and learn from IBM's mistakes, it is doomed to the same fate.

I personally would **NOT** like to see this path, but then again, who am I?

If you want a Mac, buy a Mac....If you want a DULL, well........

Max.

[tip]

I think if Apple really wanted to facilitate this, the new Intel Macs would have two/three button mice/trackpads. I'm skeptical.

[mark88]

No, AutoCAD is inferior and costs more. However, since it's a Windows application, it's the industry standard 900lb gorilla of CAD apps.

It seems bizarre to me that an industry would have a second rate app as the #1 must have. Surely if this is the case the professionals will always use the best software, regardless of platform. If Photoshop didn't exsist on Windows, I can't imagine Paint Shop Pro being the industries the 900lb gorilla or whatever. But like I said, I know nothing about AutoCAD.



That's very naive. There simply isn't room for everyone in the Mac market.

I don't see how it's that different than the Windows market. I'm not merely talking about AutoCAD now but in general. Windows has a larger market share but competition is also ten fold. There are certain mac developers who simply own their part of the market. For example, Yazsoft has basically no competition whatsoever and Speed Download IMO is far from the perfect download manager, but who's pushing them?


I disagree that Transmit is only 10% of those you mention, however, if everyone started using those, then one outcome could be that Panic stops developing Transmit and we then have lost the best (which I disagree with anyway) FTP app on the Mac.


You're missing my point, if those FTP applications became available for the Mac it simply means Panic has to try a bit harder to compete with them, not quit. If their product is up to the standard of these other apps then they have nothing to fear. But it isn't!... you'd do well to find one single FTP app on OS X that has filters for regular transfers. A feature than I cannot live without.


I appreciate how you think this is good for consumers and in the short term it may be. But long term, this may prove to be a serious negative effect for native Mac development and the death of many small indy software developers that concentrate on the Mac market and stay away from the gorillas.

Time will tell :)

The major underlining issue for me with this whole thing is that all this Windows on Mac thing would only be a problem if Windows was superior to OS X, which I think everybody here will agree it isn't. Instead of everyone fearing the death of OS X I think it will do much more to help it grow.

If people get a taste of the mac way they're gonna want all their applications to run inside OS X, and that demand will be met by more development, not by developers saying "hey, we're through with macs, just load up windows and run our software in there" IMO

[shawnce]

First off they would sell many THOUSANDS more copies of X; $$$$$

Thousands? An increase of thousands would be around 1% of the current volume of retail Mac OS X sales that Apples sees with a major update.

It would have to be millions (more likely 10s millions) of more copies to even have a chance to supply the revenue stream needed to support Apple (as it currently exists).

[adamfilip]

I do wish Apple would sell OS X seperately from the hardware. I can do the same computing for less with generic PC hardware.

besides the fact that apple wants to sell its hardware and software

just getting the drivers available for all the different types of pc hardware would. be... well crazy

[bdkennedy1]

I don't see it happening. It is almost like saying "Our OS can't do everything, so we are providing a solution for you to install other operating systems." I don't think Apple thinks like that. If it happens I will be very surprised.

Anyways, I am very happy with the dual boot, it works perfect. (I have an intel iMac 20'.)

I disagree. I can see Apple totally selling more Macs if there were an easier way for Windows users to ease into OS X.

[shawnce]

You can't really compare the home computer space to the specialized spaces of iPods, PSP, etc. as they are dissimilar. ...

You can to extent of the point I was making. If consumers see the value they will spend the money and it is obvious that the money exist in a decent enough population of folks.

Sure if Apple expanded their price point down into the bargain system space they could likely increase their hardware volumes but they would make less on those systems. Apple has no real need to do this given that they have the ability to grow in the product spaces they already are playing in. They can do this without eroding margins and by growing volumes at a pace that they can more easily keep up with. This is the better play for Apple to make at this time... down the road they could realign if they find they cannot grow in the space they currently play in.

[SpankWare]

The major underlining issue for me with this whole thing is that all this Windows on Mac thing would only be a problem if Windows was superior to OS X, which I think everybody here will agree it isn't. Instead of everyone fearing the death of OS X I think it will do much more to help it grow.

If people get a taste of the mac way they're gonna want all their applications to run inside OS X, and that demand will be met by more development, not by developers saying "hey, we're through with macs, just load up windows and run our software in there" IMO

Here's where I think most "Mac users" are deluded. I can guarantee you that OS X is not superior to Windows. I can also tell you that Windows is not superior to OS X. Take all the combinations of all the Operating Systems in the wild and it will be the same. No OS is better than another generally speaking. One may be better than another in a given task but none is superior over another. I come from the real world where you run whatever serves your purpose. This means OS and applications. If Windows does it then you run Windows. If OS X does it you run OS X. It's that simple.

Running OS X isn't going to make people abandon windows. OS X is nice but it isn't the end all be all of Operating Systems.

[Glassman]

what I think would be great is to forget about dual booting and instead hibernate each OS and wake up the one you want at the given time.. there can be hotkeys to do so, handled in firmware.. much like selecting consoles in Unix.. it would take approx. 30s to switch between OS's and they would all run native, having absolute control over the computer.. all the applications would stay opened exactly as they were left from the last switch..

I'm a Windows user, I have no troubles with them and all, but I very much like OS X and Apple as a whole because of the style, unmatched industrial and UI design etc. no doubt OS X is much more advanced system.. it may not be the fastest one but who cares about a couple of % anyway.. I especially appreciate it's a Unix in nature and even open-source.. I'm running it over a week and I'm discovering the internals - it seems pretty well thought-out and regular to me, I definitely like it..

there's nothing wrong with Windows since the days of 2000 (NT 5.0) and later XP (NT 5.1), but from the UI standpoint it's showing it's age.. XP default style is really horrible, I'm using classic looks of course, it's decent at least and I'm used to it after all these years.. today's graphics chips are so powerful 'thanks' to the gamers, but their power is not utilised at all under Windows and ordinary applications.. that's what I love on OS X - fully accellerated GUI..

I'm not running Apple machine yet even though I'd really want to.. there unfortunately are no OS X alternatives of software I use on Windows.. I simply need Windows for work, not that I prefer it over MacOS.. I refuse to run non-native OS X apps under OS X either, because it completely ruins the style.. someone noted the OpenOffice - I can only second that.. now talk about Matlab - yuck! I'm not a fan of running foreign applications under different OS like for ex. Wine does or X11 under OS X, if I have to run Windows program, I want to run it under Windows in fullscreen, preriod..

developpers are primarily interested in major platform, which is Windows at the time being.. in order to increase the quantity as well as quality of OS X software, Apple absolutely need to increase it's market share, otherwise we're not moving anywhere.. so what to do to realise this? what makes people buy Mac and on the other hand, what prevents people to do so? I guess we can find many answers to the first question, but what about the latter? is it the price? I'm not that sure.. or is it because they can't make the switch because of lack of alternatives? or do they simply not care at all and are using whatever they've been thought and are used to at present? we are (hopefully) sensible beings and we like beautiful things around us, which should serve as a great motivating force for users to become intrested in Apple and later find out it's not just a great looking boxes, but also great software.. I guess, first of all remove the barriers holding potential switchers back - that is let them run their old Windows applications somehow.. that should result in Apple gaining significant market share and in turn make developing OS X native applications worthwhile for the big companies, which again would attract more people and we have a closed circle! I tell you, people will hate to run ugly Windows apps under MacOS, they will urge OS X native versions..

thats about it, thanks for reading ;)

[jmbear]

Good news for...

Apple and Microsoft. Apples sells computers and software, Microsoft sells software, now Window will run very good on the Mac (VPC was sort of crappy IMO) and Apple can have Windows on their computers. More Windows sold through Macs and more Macs sold because they run Windows.

Bad news for...

Dull, HP, Acer and all the PC manufacturers because THEY CAN'T RUN OSX MUAHAHAHAHA SCREW DULL!!!

[mark88]

Here's where I think most "Mac users" are deluded. I can guarantee you that OS X is not superior to Windows. I can also tell you that Windows is not superior to OS X. Take all the combinations of all the Operating Systems in the wild and it will be the same. No OS is better than another generally speaking. One may be better than another in a given task but none is superior over another. I come from the real world where you run whatever serves your purpose. This means OS and applications. If Windows does it then you run Windows. If OS X does it you run OS X. It's that simple.

Running OS X isn't going to make people abandon windows. OS X is nice but it isn't the end all be all of Operating Systems.

I find myself being a strange position now because I remember saying time and time again the same things, OS X is far from perfect and actually flying the windows flag in the countless windows on mac threads. I even got banned for calling a zealot a retard. Now I'm on the other end and 'deluded'....?

What I would say is, the people who are fearing OS X doom and gloom are *usually* the anti windows people, to them OS X is the be all and end all. So I'm speaking to them, by saying if OS X is so good, there's nothing to fear. ;)

Seen as though we are talking about 'real world', I don't wanna by dicking around with two operating systems. I choose the the one that suits my needs most and fly with it, to me that's the one I like best and is superior to the other for what I use it for.

[Edge100]

The only downside to emulation is that it is slower. Dual booting would allow the programs to run in native format, right?

No. Virtualization is not emulation. Windows apps would run at native speeds.

[justinjoylife]

seems like they could take it to the point where windows could be running in the background but you would be able launch an instance of a windows application within a window view. perhaps MSFT would have some api where osx could tie into it so that you could say minimize a windows app with the genie effect..

[avatarlgs3]

Has anyone stopped to think of the possibility that maybe Apple, Intel and Microsoft are manipulating the public. Think about it, Apple switched to the same architecture as Windows now, Apple is now going to allow new Macs to dual-Boot Windows and OSX 10.5... What's next?? Think about it people, maybe Apple has come to the point, were they figure they could make more profit by stopping the production and development of a unique Apple OS, and replace with Microsoft's Windows? Could this decision be one of many tactical manuevers by Apple and/or Microsoft to control the technologic development of our economy? Does Microsoft win, and Apple becomes just another DELL?

This could be the end of Apple as a unique innovative option for people who just wanted a computer that works, and does multimedia to perfection. This could be a truly sad day for all Mac Addicts everywhere.

[YoNeX]

I dont see WHY APPLE *shouldnt* make a version of 10.5 that runs on PCs.
First off they would sell many THOUSANDS more copies of X; $$$$$
Which in turn will show people just how cool Mac is, and since they needent fear being unable to natively run Windows Games, apps etc on a Mac, there would be thousands of new switchers- to a MAC. $$$$
it s BIG WIN/BIG WIN for APPLE.


Dont drop the ball there, Steve $$$$$

It just might even up the score between MS and Mac.

with VISTA is not due until probably 2011, lets get the ball rolling.

Hasn't this been beaten to death. Put through a blender. Purated. Then finally served as a McDonald milk shake?

It seems bizarre to me that an industry would have a second rate app as the #1 must have. Surely if this is the case the professionals will always use the best software, regardless of platform. If Photoshop didn't exsist on Windows, I can't imagine Paint Shop Pro being the industries the 900lb gorilla or whatever. But like I said, I know nothing about AutoCAD.


Points you to Microsoft Word...

[SpankWare]

I find myself being a strange position now because I remember saying time and time again the same things, OS X is far from perfect and actually flying the windows flag in the countless windows on mac threads. I even got banned for calling a zealot a retard. Now I'm on the other end and 'deluded'....?

What I would say is, the people who are fearing OS X doom and gloom are *usually* the anti windows people, to them OS X is the be all and end all. So I'm speaking to them, by saying if OS X is so good, there's nothing to fear. ;)

Seen as though we are talking about 'real world', I don't wanna by dicking around with two operating systems. I choose the the one that suits my needs most and fly with it, to me that's the one I like best and is superior to the other for what I use it for.

But see you put it in a much more reasonable perspective. Post after post about the superiority of OS X never includes any personal reference. I can respect your position because you've explained how you view it. Others spew it as a form of hate. All in all I agree with what you've said other than picking one OS. In my world I have to run a LOT of things. In my house alone that includes Windows XP, Windows 2003 Enterprise Svr, Vista, Linux (various flavors), OS X, and Solaris.

[AtariMac]

I think Software companies like Adobe need to get wise and start offering cross platform upgrade paths. Scenario:

Windows User(interested in OS X) has Adobe CS for Windows. The news about Intel macs has finally convinced him to buy a Mac and try out OS X while at the same time he can still run Windows just like he always has.

After using his Intel Mac for a while, he decides he much prefers OS X. Therefore he wants all of his software on his prefered platform, settling for Windows versions isn't gonna make him happy. It's like having a HDTV and your favorite movie is only available in SD.

He wants to upgrade to CS2, he wants it for OS X. Therefore Adobe should make this upgrade path available. If they don't, then he might have to settle for the XP version, given the costs involved.

---

If people are so confident that OS X destroys windows then I don't understand this scared reaction regarding developers stopping making software for it.

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.

[Sogo]

Question: If Leopard is to have virtualization and Vista is to have Virtualization, wouldn't that mean that I can have Vista virtualize Leopard?

[MacsRgr8]

....why on earth would Microsoft help?

If virtualization means you can run the OS natively:

Virtualization software would potentially allow users to run alternative operating systems alongside Mac OS X.
Then M$ could assume even more copies of Vista sold to the Mac community.

I am still waking up to this, but have done both:
Mac OS X on a generic PC
Windows on a real Mac

Now M$ helping Apple... and vice versa

[vollspacken]

all you people who scream "hooray!", seem to forget that once such an emulation is implemented, maybe preinstalled, and works with no hassle (why should Apple develop such a thing and then cripple it..???), there will be significantly less native applications for OS X. why? because if a windows app runs on a mac without a problem and it's easy to install, there's no reason why a company (one that's primaly developing for windows) should dedicate development resources towards a mac version. people could just buy and use the windows app and get the same results (again, if it is easy to install, comes with your OS X installation, and if integration is seamless - I guess that is the goal of emulation, otherwise it would be pointless).

this is dangerous. leave this to a third party and don't make it too easy.

vSpacken

[MacsRgr8]

I would live to see a Rosetta-like handling of .exe apps... "goodbye M$ market share"

Remember Red Box...?

Not running in Rosetta (native!!). but still:

Red Box (http://www.lowendmac.com/musings/boxes.shtml)


Red Box, although not confirmed by Apple, would be how you run Windows applications under Rhapsody for Intel - and possibly under Rhapsody for PowerPC as well. Like the Blue Box on a Power Macintosh, the Red Box will give Rhapsody users a way to run Windows applications.

As with Blue Box on PowerPC, Red Box on Intel should run flat out, since there will be no need to emulate the Pentium processor. Products such as SoftWindows and Virtual PC show that it is possible to get reasonable performance emulating a Pentium on a PowerPC chip, so it is conceivable, even likely, that Red Box will be available under Rhapsody for PowerPC. (If Apple doesn't do it, bet on Insignia or Connectix.)

A well executed Red Box could offer full PC compatibility, not just Windows. Virtual PC already provides this capability under the Mac OS, providing access to OS/2, Windows NT, and other Intel-based operating systems.

[nate]

I would love to have the ability to run the odd Windows program (.exe) without having to dual boot or run Virtual PC -- just click the icon and it runs on it's own layer, no need to install Windows.

As an average consumer, this would be ideal and less hassle. I also think that this will bring more switchers; since many people using Windows already have software, and one concern is having to re-purchase Mac versions of their software. There is also the occasional Windows version of a program that is not available on OS X.

It would be just more convenient to have the ability to run a .exe Windows file on the occasion that we need to use the program.

I know that this is possible in Linux, because I've been reading up on the Wine project. Although it's probably not at the peak of perfection, it really piques my interest and the possibility of cross-compatibility.

It would be cool if one day they made a Universal Binary that worked on all systems, sort of like what Apple is doing down with OS X on PPC and Intel. So, you could grab any software off the shelf and install it into your computer, no matter what it is: OS X, Windows or Linux.

Developers would save time and money because they won't have to port stuff over and then re-ship the product for another platform. It would also open the door to moer sales, since you can access other platforms.

As a consumer, this would just be great. No more waiting for ports or having to dual boot or run Virtual PC. It would allow the consumer to choose which ever OS they want, but still have all of the benefits of everyone else.

Who knows, it may happen in the future; however, the idea of running Windows programs with out dual boot, running virtual PC, or even needing to purchase a copy of Windows, would be awesome. And, that technology is here (like Wine). I can see this as a possibility and a great selling point for consumers who want to switch, but still need to use Windows programs that are not available on the Mac.

--nate

[kenaustus]

The same holds true for just about anything else. except MS Paint and Solitare. I'm still waiting for a good OS X alternative to them.


Check Solitare Plus! - my wife is using that one and you can even put in your own pics on the back of the cards. Solitare XL also looks pretty good. You can link to both of them at http://osx.hyperjeff.net/Apps/

[nate]

Oh, and I should mention Red Box (which, I believe, I has already been mentioned). Red Box is sort of like Wine -- you can run Windows apps without needing to run Windows. Red box has been rumored for a while, and it looks like a possibility.

Some critics state that if this became available, people will stop making programs for the Mac. I don't see this happening.

The OS X is a strong platform and offers software, like iLife, which isn't available on Windows. That helps bring people over, and so does the great software base that already exists on the OS X.

But, there are times when we need to use the odd program for work or play that is only available in Windows. Having the ability to run a Windows program out of the box without dual booting or using Virtual PC would be great for consumers, and give OS X more of an edge. Plus, it would be much easier to transfer over.

I know so many people who are sick of Windows, but feel they have little choice but to stick with it. One excuse that I hear is that they have already invested money in programs for Windows, and they just can't afford to re-purchase Mac versions, if they are available (some are, but some are not).

If I were a Windows PC user and knew I could use my old programs on OS X until it's time to upgrade and get the Mac OS version, I would switch much easier.

And I think that OS X is a strong enough platform now that we're not going to see it vanish like OS/2 from IBM, which offered similar features. Also, with Mac-only benefits and software (like iLife, Final cut, Logic, etc.) it gives the OS X consumer something extra and beneficial to hold onto.


--nate

I would love to have the ability to run the odd Windows program (.exe) without having to dual boot or run Virtual PC -- just click the icon and it runs on it's own layer, no need to install Windows.

As an average consumer, this would be ideal and less hassle. I also think that this will bring more switchers; since many people using Windows already have software, and one concern is having to re-purchase Mac versions of their software. There is also the occasional Windows version of a program that is not available on OS X.

It would be just more convenient to have the ability to run a .exe Windows file on the occasion that we need to use the program.

I know that this is possible in Linux, because I've been reading up on the Wine project. Although it's probably not at the peak of perfection, it really piques my interest and the possibility of cross-compatibility.

It would be cool if one day they made a Universal Binary that worked on all systems, sort of like what Apple is doing down with OS X on PPC and Intel. So, you could grab any software off the shelf and install it into your computer, no matter what it is: OS X, Windows or Linux.

Developers would save time and money because they won't have to port stuff over and then re-ship the product for another platform. It would also open the door to moer sales, since you can access other platforms.

As a consumer, this would just be great. No more waiting for ports or having to dual boot or run Virtual PC. It would allow the consumer to choose which ever OS they want, but still have all of the benefits of everyone else.

Who knows, it may happen in the future; however, the idea of running Windows programs with out dual boot, running virtual PC, or even needing to purchase a copy of Windows, would be awesome. And, that technology is here (like Wine). I can see this as a possibility and a great selling point for consumers who want to switch, but still need to use Windows programs that are not available on the Mac.

--nate

[macidiot]

But isn't that totally beside the point? your customer had to decide between two applications, not two platforms.

I have no experience of AutoCAD or VectorWorks but if AutoCAD is superior then it's only right that the customer chooses it, if it suits his needs & budget better. Why should he settle for inferior software if he has the choice of both?

You would probably then say, 'well, what if everyone chooses AutoCAD, that means VectorWorks would throw in the towel'

Then I'd say everyone has different preferences, different needs and different budgets. There's plenty of room for everyone, as can be seen on any Windows or Mac software download site.

Another angle: FTP apps on OS X suck compared to their windows counterparts, the best one IMO is Transmit and it still seems to have about 10% of the functionality of the FTP app I use on XP. Perhaps if people had the option of using Windows FTP applications such as SmartFTP, FTPVoyager, WSFTP Pro on their mac, the mac developers in this area might be given the kick up the arse they need.


Autodesk vs. Vectorworks isn't a question of need/budget. It is a platform issue. Autodesk is the standard in CAD software. Period. imo, the only reason Vectorworks is even a consideration is because Autocad does not exist on the mac.

If Autocad was available for the mac, everyone would be using it. In other words, if Autocad had a mac version Vectorworks would have a tough time making any money.

Think of it this way... back in the day, pc users used Corel software instead of Adobe products. But when Adobe made their products available on Windows, Corel basically disappeared.

That is what can happen to mac software... Personally, I don't think it will be that drastic, but it could easily happen.

And to the people that argued that VPC had no effect. It did. Many developers abandoned the mac and just suggested they buy the windows version and use vpc. Like Intuit with Quickbooks. Some have since come back, but vpc definitely affected the market. And plenty of windows developers that might have had interest or consumer demand for a mac version might not bother now. What comes to mind are im/voip apps, like skype and yahoo messenger. Mac development is already severely lacking there... virtualization could tip it enough so they just kill all development.

[aegisdesign]

I made the point to switch when i found out OSX has a linux backend (WOW)

It doesn't. It's not based on Linux at all. It's based on BSD.

For all you XP haters, why you gotta hate? now that you are finally in the limelight you gotta act indecent and exclusive?

It's not a matter of hating. We want OSX native applications, not Windows apps. Many of us left Windows for OSX because we were fed up with Windows and OSX is so much better. Asking us to run Windows apps in OSX is like asking Windows XP users to run Windows 3.0 apps.

[kenaustus]

I'm probably the typical non-tech VPC user. VPC was the only thing that allowed me to buy my first Mac as I have to demo a small, proprietary WIN app for the service I sell. I've had to use VPC/2000Pro for a few other small proprietary Win only apps, but very seldom. I keep Windows isolated from the internet and it actually runs better (not faster) than on a PC.

The reality, though, is that I would not have VPC or Windows on the Macs if I didn't require them for work. The average consumer will NOT want to have Windows installed on their Macs. For those software companies that believe they can get by with one version (Win) - let 'em. I'll buy Mac software elsewhere.

I believe that Apple is probably meeting MS half way for the development of VPC 8.0 for Mactels. It ensures that MS doesn't get some of the mystic code, but has all of the hooks it needs to run full speed. MS is happy because they can sell a Win Box and Apple is happy because they can sell a Mac.

A virtual PC will, in my opinion will always be better option for running Windows. Not only for a security point of view, but also because it allows you to drag & drop files between the two desktops.

[macidiot]

Did OS X dual booting with OS 9 kill OS X apps? Did OS 9 "Classic" emulation kill OS X apps?

Answer a] no
Answer b] no

By either cube effecting into Windows or Dual booting nothing is going to be lost. The typical user will use windows just like early adopters in OS X used OS 9.. When nessecary. By building a superior OS apple will communicating to the end user that OS X is the way to go, however your cushion is there if you need it.
When OS X first released if they had not supported an OS 9 dual boot many early adopters would have stayed away - just as many possible NEW mac users are scared away by the thought of not being able to run many apps they already own.

Infact that market that was scared away is now going to be met with open arms.

That is an awful analogy. Classic is/was a dead OS. All development on it basically stopped when osx debuted. I highly doubt all windows development will stop when/if virtualization is offered in osx. Dual booting of os9 and classic emulation was offered to give developers and consumers time to transition to osx. But the goal was to kill os9 completely.

The closest thing to what your talking about is Rosetta. And in a few years, Rosetta will be a distant memory. As will ppc-specific osx development.

[aegisdesign]

It would be cool if one day they made a Universal Binary that worked on all systems, sort of like what Apple is doing down with OS X on PPC and Intel. So, you could grab any software off the shelf and install it into your computer, no matter what it is: OS X, Windows or Linux.

Developers would save time and money because they won't have to port stuff over and then re-ship the product for another platform. It would also open the door to moer sales, since you can access other platforms.


That's possible today, it's called Java. And look how crap Java applications are on OSX.

The problem with OS independent code is you can't use ANY of the features of the OS that make it stand out over another OS. So that means you code for the lowest common denominator - aka Windows.

Or look at Firefox on OSX, Windows and Linux and compare the OSX version to Camino or Safari. Windows users think Firefox is great because they can't tell it's not really a Windows application. On OSX it looks totally out of place, doesn't support have the OS features and generally sucks.

[mark88]

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.

LMAO.....I don't think you know what 'elitist' actually means. If you did I don't see how you could call me one suggesting Adobe make cross platform upgrades available????? how is that 'elitist'?

It sounds like you're pissed off because I disagreed with you or something in another thread if I remember, you were the "oh we mac users are more demanding....." guy weren't you? to which I said you were elitist, not you're calling me one. Smart. :)

What's in it for Adobe? keeps customer happy, customer still purchases the upgrade, Adobe still gets the same money, retains customers business....

You're suggesting that Adobe should demand people buy 2 FULL licenses, even if they only plan to use 1 copy? ....dunno about anyone else but I'm guessing not too many people would be willing to take that hit.

Doesn't take a genius to find an illegal copy of Photoshop so if Adobe wanna play hardball with their loyal, honest customers then it's not hard to understand why people turn to warez.

IMO

If I remember, at one point Adobe did infact offer cross platform updgrades? and many other software companies will do if you ask.

[yac_moda]

They are going to build it ...

... so Windows software can run on a Mac and LOOK like Mac software.

... so the graphic for the control will change but the Windows code will remain unchanged.

... so linux or Java apps can run but the user sees nothing different.

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

I give ALL the credit to JOBs BRILLIANT especially having it all in his head so LONG AGE !

Although YOU could give credit to the guys that built the OS pathway from before JOBs which ended with Gershwin and processor independence ...

... there CERTAINLY was no concept of virtualization in those days, there was Open Doc which could have been called software based virtualization gone INSANE !!!


NeXT may have had virtualization in it, those concepts were over my head in those days, but did it ever launch more then 1 OS like say with the OS IDE to avoid conflicts ? I would NOT be surprized if it DID ;)


I had a teacher years later, getting my ISM BS, after hearing about NeXT from a boss working there, when he told us, and he was the good one, ALL ABOUT how Macs weren't so GREAT because they didn't have IDEs in their development environments -- IDIOT A:eek: :eek: HOL:D !!!

I tried to tell him about how THINK C had the FIRST IDE (At least on a PC, I won't know about mainframes or workstations !) and was on the Mac FIRST, he probably did not understand, if he was THAT SMART he would have noticed the revolutionary IDE on NeXT and realized that would also ensure that there would be one on the Mac before or after.

[macdong]

don't care if it's virtualization or emulation.
i need to run certain windows applications and games, but i don't want to run windows.
that's the bottom line.

[Compufix]

I eoulf love to be able to switch back and forth like you can with virtual desktops...only one is OSX and one is Windows, or Linux, or multple ones in each.

that, AND the ability to run naitive programs in OSX would be nice.

-Compufix

[shawnce]

Has anyone stopped to think of the possibility that maybe Apple, Intel and Microsoft are manipulating the public. Think about it, Apple switched to the same architecture as Windows now, Apple is now going to allow new Macs to dual-Boot Windows and OSX 10.5... What's next?? Think about it people, maybe Apple has come to the point, were they figure they could make more profit by stopping the production and development of a unique Apple OS, and replace with Microsoft's Windows? Could this decision be one of many tactical manuevers by Apple and/or Microsoft to control the technologic development of our economy? Does Microsoft win, and Apple becomes just another DELL? ...care to explain how this is profitable for Apple? Show some details...

Apple is about selling solutions, not hardware, not an operating system but a solution... Mac OS X + Macintosh, iPod + iTunes (iLife) + iTMS, etc. To do what they do and do it well they need solid control and power over the major aspects of those solutions.

[aegisdesign]

What I would say is, the people who are fearing OS X doom and gloom are *usually* the anti windows people, to them OS X is the be all and end all. So I'm speaking to them, by saying if OS X is so good, there's nothing to fear. ;)


Many people don't actually care which OS they're using as long as it's running the apps they want.

Sadly that means they often don't look at the alternatives. If being able to run Windows apps easily means they can run the knocked off copy of Access from work then they will, instead of buying Filemaker. Repeat ad nauseum for any application across the whole range where there isn't a direct Mac version of a Windows app.

This is what we fear. People who don't give a fudge.

Real Mac fans will buy OSX native apps. Those that don't care now have the option of just running their Windows version. And this would be bad news for Mac developers.

[aegisdesign]

Autodesk vs. Vectorworks isn't a question of need/budget. It is a platform issue. Autodesk is the standard in CAD software. Period. imo, the only reason Vectorworks is even a consideration is because Autocad does not exist on the mac.

If Autocad was available for the mac, everyone would be using it. In other words, if Autocad had a mac version Vectorworks would have a tough time making any money.

Spot on. And that would mean 1 less indy Mac developer and the market ceded to the 900lb Gorilla who may of course decide to drop Mac development later on anyway.

[yac_moda]

Question: If Leopard is to have virtualization and Vista is to have Virtualization, wouldn't that mean that I can have Vista virtualize Leopard?

If they are using the kind of virtualization that they are presumed to be using, Open Source software from a company Intel funded, the partitions are totally transparent and independent -- VERTICALLY INDEPENDENT !!!

And if they allow it Leopard could VLeopard.

Don't forget the Quicktime settlement between JOBs and Gates that strangely included future OS designs that would bring the two OSs closer together :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Some_Big_Spoon]

WINE, WINE, WINE! Windows is completely redundant and only leads to problems. Just run the apps and there's little to no security risks and the OS won't bog down the puter.

I'll take VMWare-ish, but I want WINE!

[mark88]

Many people don't actually care which OS they're using as long as it's running the apps they want.

Real Mac fans will buy OSX native apps. Those that don't care now have the option of just running their Windows version. And this would be bad news for Mac developers.

I could easily understand your point if it was a straight forward process. But the fact is, it isn't....

Even if Apple introduce some VPC-alike EMU thing it's still a major ball ache. Who want's to buy another OS? Who wants to fanny around installing it and deal with drivers etc etc? who wants to have it running at the same time taking up memory? Who want to have to load it up everytime they wanna run an application? and then switch back again?

My point here is, most computer users want conveinience, having 2 operating systems , in whatever enviroment is not very appealing to 'average joes'. Me included. I want a seamless experience, I don't wanna be jumping from Windows to OS X all day long. So in that respect, I think people will care and want their software in the OS of their choice, not split between.

regards

[mark88]

btw aegisdesign, if something like Darwine progressed and you could easily run Windows applications inside OS X without Windows then I'd agree with you 100%.

[AidenShaw]

No. Virtualization is not emulation. Windows apps would run at native speeds.
Yes - virtualization *is* emulation.

A Guest OS runs in an emulated computer, with an emulated graphics card, an emulated network card, and other emulated devices.

Look at the hardware devices as seen by GOS in the virtual computer - it's not the same as the hardware seen by the host OS.

That is emulation.

______________

In some cases, when the emulated virtual computer has a different ISA (Instruction Set Architecture), the VMM (Virtual Machine Monitor) also has to emulate the instructions. This is the case for Virtual PC for Mac. VPC/Mac is clearly virtualization, but it also needs ISA emulation to work.

In other cases, when the emulated and actual ISAs are the same, most instructions can simply be executed directly by the processor. Even in this case, though, some instructions still must be emulated though.

Privileged instructions that affect the state of the computer cannot be executed directly - they would change the state of the host computer also. The VMM emulates these instructions and does what is needed so that the state of the emulated computer is modified, but not the state of the real computer. Privileged instructions that look at the state of the computer might also need to be emulated so that they see the state of the emulated computer - not the state of the real computer.
_______________

Please try to consider that "ISA emulation" is just one facet of emulation, and may or may not be present in a particular emulated ("virtual") computer.

[yac_moda]

don't care if it's virtualization or emulation.
i need to run certain windows applications and games, but i don't want to run windows.
that's the bottom line.

This is the best situation you could imagine for games.

If they use it properly every APP will run the way many games do.

One game app multiple OSs, the OSs just get out of the and let the processor do EVERYTHING like the game has the processor to itself -- THIS IS PRETTY FAR AWAY FROM EMULATION :eek: :eek: :eek:

[yac_moda]

Yes - virtualization *is* emulation.

A Guest OS runs in an emulated computer, with an emulated graphics card, an emulated network card, and other emulated devices.

Look at the hardware devices as seen by GOS in the virtual computer - it's not the same as the hardware seen by the host OS.

That is emulation.

______________

In some cases, when the emulated virtual computer has a different ISA (Instruction Set Architecture), the VMM (Virtual Machine Monitor) also has to emulate the instructions. This is the case for Virtual PC for Mac.

In other cases, when the emulated and actual ISAs are the same, most instructions can simply be executed directly by the processor. Even in this case, though, some instructions still must be emulated though.

Privileged instructions that affect the state of the computer can be executed directly - they would change the state of the host computer also. The VMM emulates these instructions, so that the state of the emulated computer is modified, not the state of the real computer.
_______________

Please try to consider that "ISA emulation" is just one facet of emulation, and may or may not be present in a particular emulated ("virtual") computer.


THE VIRTUALIZATION THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE is NOT not NOT EMULATION ! This software does NOT create code for calls the CPUs can NOT handle, it does supply SOMETHING that the software CAN handle without CRASHING, it manipulates the machine image to profiles that are acceptable to the software, and the minimum that the software needs.

If you read about how it works on the web site of the company that builds the software it says that it is a thin layer of software that sits above the processors and creates an image of the hardware that is totally generic and independent from other processes.

Its just a weigh-station or a layer of glue that intercepts calls and passes them on when the processor is ready. This sort of thing has been done for so long in so many ways it should be VERY EFFICIENT !!!

The advantage is that if there is something a game does NOT need is slowing it down the virtualization layer could detect that the app is a game and remove the driver that would normally mess with it.

[AidenShaw]

If read about how it works on the web site of the company that builds the software it says that it is a thin layer of software that sits above the processors and creates an image of the hardware that is totally generic and independent from other processes.

Its just a weigh-station or a layer of glue that intercepts calls and passes them on when the processor is ready. This sort of thing has been done for so long in so many ways it should be VERY EFFICIENT !!!

The advantage is that if there is something a game does NOT need is slowing it down the virtualization layer could detect that the app is a game and remove the driver that would normally mess with it.
Yes, this is done today.

When you first install an OS like Linux or XP, the virtualization layer emulates a complete graphics card - such as a rather simple S3 Trio. Same for disk and network drivers.

Later, when you install the VM toolset - it installs drivers for a special device never before seen in nature. This device knows that it has a VMM underneath it, and can improve performance by making some calls to the underlying OS driver.

For example, when the full S3 Trio emulation is occurring, a window might be scrolled by the GOS driver moving the pixels in the emulated frame buffer. With the VM-aware driver, however, the special driver might simply call the "scroll-region" function in the nVidia driver in the host.

It would be possible to pass DX9 calls directly to a DX9 host driver, but that's quite a bit more complicated and isn't currently being done much. (VMware does have an experimental feature to do some of this.)

[AtariMac]

LMAO.....I don't think you know what 'elitist' actually means. If you did I don't see how you could call me one suggesting Adobe make cross platform upgrades available????? how is that 'elitist'?

It sounds like you're pissed off because I disagreed with you or something in another thread if I remember, you were the "oh we mac users are more demanding....." guy weren't you? to which I said you were elitist, not you're calling me one. Smart. :)

What's in it for Adobe? keeps customer happy, customer still purchases the upgrade, Adobe still gets the same money, retains customers business....

You're suggesting that Adobe should demand people buy 2 FULL licenses, even if they only plan to use 1 copy? ....dunno about anyone else but I'm guessing not too many people would be willing to take that hit.

Doesn't take a genius to find an illegal copy of Photoshop so if Adobe wanna play hardball with their loyal, honest customers then it's not hard to understand why people turn to warez.

IMO

If I remember, at one point Adobe did infact offer cross platform updgrades? and many other software companies will do if you ask.

I suppose humour isn't one of your strong points. I just found it funny that on two different threads we had entirely diffent views. And yes, I know what an elitist is. I was just trying to joke with you. Frankly, I still don't find much gain for Adobe to offer a crossgrade. It sure benefits the user and might make some good will for the future. But frankly if you need Photoshop for your business you'll buy it. If the tool makes you money you will buy the tool.

I was not angry at your comments, you just entirely missed my point. I was attempting to convey that being a mac user involves a certainly amount of sacrifice. If Apple's OS and UI did not stand above that of Windows I wouldn't have much reason to stay with the platform. That's what i mean by demanding. I demand a certain level of quality in those areas. Windows users can be equally demanding, high amounts of readily available software and cutting edge gaming are examples.

So honestly my last post was intended as a joke. I'm sorry you missed it.

[AidenShaw]

THE VIRTUALIZATION THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE is NOT not NOT EMULATION !
Only the Mac fanatics believe that "emulation" only means "ISA emulation", because their world view was formed by 68K ISA emulation in Mac OS and x86 ISA emulation in VPC/Mac.

If the computer isn't the same as the real computer, it's an emulated computer.

If the graphics card isn't the same as the graphics card in the real computer, it's an emulated graphics card.

If the network card isn't the same as the network card in the real computer, it's an emulated network card.

_______________
Having complete ISA emulation (as in VPC/Mac) or partial ISA emulation (as in VT/VMware/VPC-x86/Xen) is a detail, not the defining characteristic.

Calm down...please.

[SeaFox]

Wow, that would be really handy, I never thought Apple would do something like that though.

It would certainly save all the fuss concerning hacking Windows onto the Mac. :)
The article specifies Intel chips though, so would they disable the feature on PowerPC based releases of the OS?

Of course. How else is Apple going to make you buy a new Intel-based Mac when you can still get OS updates for you PPC-based machine? They just make the PPC-10.5 substandard in features to the Intel-10.5.

[mark88]

So honestly my last post was intended as a joke. I'm sorry you missed it.

Ok my bad, usually though jokes are accompanied with lots of these:

;) ;) :p :p :p :D :D :) :) :)

no hard feelings

[kingtj]

This is the age-old argument that a percentage of Mac users cling to any time the potential is there for the Mac to become more "Windows like" in some aspect.

Really though, similar things have been done before - so I think we have some history to look at, to get an idea what the outcome might be.

Best example I can think of was IBM's OS/2 Warp product for the PC. Not only did it run native 32-bit OS/2 code, but also ran anything made for Windows 3.x, and eventually quite a few 32-bit apps using win32s extensions. The fact was, people who really liked the OS/2 environment always sought out native OS/2 apps first, and settled for Windows alternatives only when it was a last resort. The thing that eventually killed OS/2 wasn't the fact that it could run Windows code! It was the fact that IBM didn't ever really believe in their own product. (They were actually selling brand new IBM branded PCs that weren't even OS/2 compatible, and came preloaded with Windows NT!)

I don't think this is an issue with Apple. Unlike IBM, OS X is their crown jewel that everything else they sell revolves around. You don't see conflicts of interest with departments inside Apple pushing for Macs sold pre-loaded with Windows XP or Vista.

I'd say that if anything, the few developers who think Windows virtualization in OS X would eliminate their need tocode native OS X apps would be offset by the increased demand for such apps brought about by many more new Mac sales if this were to happen.



all you people who scream "hooray!", seem to forget that once such an emulation is implemented, maybe preinstalled, and works with no hassle (why should Apple develop such a thing and then cripple it..???), there will be significantly less native applications for OS X. why? because if a windows app runs on a mac without a problem and it's easy to install, there's no reason why a company (one that's primaly developing for windows) should dedicate development resources towards a mac version. people could just buy and use the windows app and get the same results (again, if it is easy to install, comes with your OS X installation, and if integration is seamless - I guess that is the goal of emulation, otherwise it would be pointless).

this is dangerous. leave this to a third party and don't make it too easy.

vSpacken

[SeaFox]

THIS IS A BAD IDEA.

why? becouse it will kill off mac native software. Developers will have the mentaliy of "why port it to mac when it can run the windows version fine?"


But the Mac can't run the Windows verison fine, unless you have Windows. And in case you have forgotten, Windows doesn't come with Macintoshes, and it's expensive.

[reyesmac]

Run two user accounts at the same time on different screens.

Run Windows applications in a compatibility layer instead of the whole OS. The developers will have to make a simple update to their App to make it run on the mac but once they do they can put a mac compatible sticker on their box. This way, windows apps wont just run on any mac, they will only work if they have been updated to meet apples standards or an app and thus giving us a watered down version of a true mac app but it would be a mac app, because if they don't patch the original windows applications, they just wont run on the mac. Its like a quick and dirty port, but it would allow things like games to be "ported over" quicker. Yes, it might kill off porting companies, or maybe it would give them more titles to port since it would not take as long.


Either way its good that Apple is using all that new intel technology they have.

[lectro33]

The history of personal computers is short, but it can teach us this: If you make a computer that runs the applications of a far more popular computer, people will stop making software for your computer. Nobody made software for the Commodore 128 because it ran software made for the more popular Commodore 64. The Apple ][GS ran software made for the well-worn Apple ][e and ][c, and it was a flop.

If you were a software developer (who made software to sell, for money), would you make software that 10% of the market can use, or 100%? If the numbers were 10% and 90%, you could carve out a niche selling to the 10%, which these days is still a lot of people. But when that 10% is able to run the software made for the othe 90%, why bother?

If Macs gain the ability to run Windows software, there will no longer be a reason to program for them.

[lectro33]

The fact was, people who really liked the OS/2 environment always sought out native OS/2 apps first...
...and they never found it because no one made it because OS/2 ran windows apps.

I don't think this is an issue with Apple. Unlike IBM, OS X is their crown jewel...

The iPod is their crown jewel.

[manu chao]

I don't see it happening. It is almost like saying "Our OS can't do everything, so we are providing a solution for you to install other operating systems." I don't think Apple thinks like that. If it happens I will be very surprised.

You have a point but allowing/helping VirtualPC to run on Intel-Macs (by providing MS with the information necessary to get VirtualPC running) is about the same.

[manu chao]

To support this further, why don't all applications for OS X use X11? if they did they'd sell more copies as Linux/Other UNIX users could use them too, however X11 does allow you to use UNIX app's like Matlab that never had a Mac version before.

Except that Matlab had a Mac version for a very long time up to version 5.2. Starting with version 6.5 (plus or minus) it was available again, albeit only as an X11 app.

[celebrian23]

I have to agree the ipod is their crown jewel. No matter how you spin it, the ipod holds 70% or more of the mp3 market. They are no where near that domination in their computers.

[kingtj]

1. Not true! I used to be an avid OS/2 user myself, and I recall quite a few native OS/2 applications from companies like Stardock Systems (EG. Object Desktop - which much later became a Windows app) and in the shareware/freeware world (the Hobbes ftp server had a great repository, for example). A number of popular BBS packages had native OS/2 versions, including PC Board - and that was when multi-node BBS's were still a big thing. Of course, IBM provided a number of apps as well - including the Lotus Smartsuite for OS/2 and Lotus Notes for OS/2. The OS/2 community was a very stong, close-knit one, that reminds me a lot of the Mac community today. The *only* big difference was IBM's relative lack of committment to the platform. When Microsoft dumped millions and millions into advertising for Windows '98, IBM released their best version of Warp ever, 4.0 "Merlin", with little fanfare and an announcement soon afterwards that support for it would be discontinued soon on corporate contracts. Nice.... They had the perfect chance to "one up" Microsoft with it if they had any desire. OS/2 4.0 had integrated voice recognition and dictation capabilities, integrated pen computing support, excellent font support for LCD laptop screens, color-coded tabbed folders in the file manager, and object-oriented drag and drop functonality far surpassing Windows.

2. I *knew* someone would point out the iPod as Apple's crown jewel as soon as I clicked "Submit Reply" on my message post. Fair enough.... But I thought we were discussing Apple's computer products. To me, the iPod is much more a part of their "other half" that's interested in marketing media content. If you strictly consider their computer business, it all revolves around OS X, to the point where it's introduction marked the death of the classic MacOS they'd used on every system they ever built up till then.


...and they never found it because no one made it because OS/2 ran windows apps.

The iPod is their crown jewel.

[manu chao]

I'm probably the typical non-tech VPC user. VPC was the only thing that allowed me to buy my first Mac as I have to demo a small, proprietary WIN app for the service I sell. I've had to use VPC/2000Pro for a few other small proprietary Win only apps, but very seldom. I keep Windows isolated from the internet and it actually runs better (not faster) than on a PC.

The reality, though, is that I would not have VPC or Windows on the Macs if I didn't require them for work. The average consumer will NOT want to have Windows installed on their Macs. For those software companies that believe they can get by with one version (Win) - let 'em. I'll buy Mac software elsewhere.

I believe that Apple is probably meeting MS half way for the development of VPC 8.0 for Mactels. It ensures that MS doesn't get some of the mystic code, but has all of the hooks it needs to run full speed. MS is happy because they can sell a Win Box and Apple is happy because they can sell a Mac.

A virtual PC will, in my opinion will always be better option for running Windows. Not only for a security point of view, but also because it allows you to drag & drop files between the two desktops.

I am in exactly the same position as you, and I also would like to see some VirtualPC kind of solution, because it is sandboxed which not only helps with security issues as you said, but also is good in case Windows crashes or tries to corrupt your harddrive.
(Although, already today VirtualPC is more likely to cause kernel panic than the vast majority of programms since it uses kernel extensions.)

[aegisdesign]

Even if Apple introduce some VPC-alike EMU thing it's still a major ball ache. Who want's to buy another OS? Who wants to fanny around installing it and deal with drivers etc etc? who wants to have it running at the same time taking up memory? Who want to have to load it up everytime they wanna run an application? and then switch back again?

You know, I do this already with VirtualPC. It's no ball ache.

Click on a Windows EXE, VPC starts in about 20 seconds. Installing Windows was as much a ball ache as on a PC. I used the old copy of Windows I got with my old PC which now runs CentOS.

However, on a G5 it only just about runs acceptably so using it for serious work isn't viable. I only use it to run IE6 for web design work/bug hunting. I have that as a specific need that can't be replaced with Mac software as I'm explicitly testing sites on IE6.

A full speed Intel VPC would be great for my circumstances but I still think it's a bad thing for Mac developers.

[Multimedia]

This is great news to me. It would be great if Leopard had both this and better broader Quad support among all the applications that come with it.

[Goliath]

Here's where I think most "Mac users" are deluded. I can guarantee you that OS X is not superior to Windows. I can also tell you that Windows is not superior to OS X.....Running OS X isn't going to make people abandon windows. OS X is nice but it isn't the end all be all of Operating Systems.

I have to disagree! Mac OSX is by far a superior OS- over 90% of the world uses Windows and that in and of itself is where the problems lie.

Within the 5 years that Mac OSX has been available Apple has all but killed OS9 support. No machines they sell today support OS9 booting and "classic" isn't even a feature that's widely used.

Windows on the other hand has to include legacy code for outdated OSes just in case some huge enterprises need compatability! And it's this legacy code that is the reason MS is so full of Worms and Viruses.

Honestly why can't MS drop the support of Win95, 98 and all before it?? Anybody that is using decade old software needs to get with the times!

Apple designed MacOSX from the ground up and at first I was peeved that some of my software wasn't supported or didn't run as fast...BUT today almost 6 years on there is not 1 software title that I miss from OS9 days or that isn't better natively on OSX.

MS NEED to do the same- re-write the OS from the ground up and kill support for legacy systems.

Maybe then it'll be fair to compare OSX and Windows.

END OF RANT!!!! (Been on the pi** all night!!)

[celebrian23]

After 7 years using only windows 95, I was always glad they never completely killed it off. It could play all my computer games, and it was good at what it did. My computer alsoo couldn 't be upgraded to 2000. This is something I do like about MS.

[arkmannj]

Just a thought, you might call me crazy, but I don't think Apple will build virtualization that will natively run windows on Mac os x, but I do think they may build in tools to help virtualization apps run better.
(Sort of a core audio/video of virtualization apps if you will, along with other tools.)

Anyhow, obviously everything is just extreme speculation at this point.

[tmornini]

Privileged instructions that affect the state of the computer cannot be executed directly - they would change the state of the host computer also. The VMM emulates these instructions and does what is needed so that the state of the emulated computer is modified, but not the state of the real computer.

This is not true with Intel's (and other's) hardware virtualization.

All OS's can run simultaneously and have separate banks of registers so privileged instructions MAY be executed in ring 0 by ALL operations systems.

They've created an even higher ring level for the virtualization layer to run in,
but the OS's all run as natively as they did on pre-hardware-vt bare metal installs.

http://www.intel.com/cd/ids/developer/asmo-na/eng/223724.htm?page=4

[boncellis]

With apologies to Mr. Bruce, Mr. Clapton, and Mr. Baker, it seems more and more these days that Apple is coming up on a crossroads that could significantly effect the future of the company.

We all know Mr. Jobs' health has not been great in recent years, and news of him cashing in stock options made me stop to make sure I had read the headline correctly. It may be that he does not stick around in the same capacity at Apple much longer. I seem to recall something about him gaining some respectable position at some world-famous corporation not too long ago...

Apple has tremendous momentum going for it right now, and a very tricky decision in front of it: will the company continue on as it has nobly fighting the uphill battle for the last couple decades, or seize upon a potential opportunity for increased hardware marketshare with the makeshift cohabitation of its oldest nemesis in an effort to sell that many more machines?

My vote is for the former--in all the instances Apple has been declared close to death over the years, something has brought them back. Even if Mr. Jobs is not long for his current position, I simply cannot fathom Apple ceasing to fight the good fight, something that OS X has done since its conception.

I honestly cannot imagine my life without it. I have never felt that way about any other inanimate object.

[mikefarinha]

Has anyone stopped to think of the possibility that maybe Apple, Intel and Microsoft are manipulating the public. Think about it, Apple switched to the same architecture as Windows now, Apple is now going to allow new Macs to dual-Boot Windows and OSX 10.5... What's next?? Think about it people, maybe Apple has come to the point, were they figure they could make more profit by stopping the production and development of a unique Apple OS, and replace with Microsoft's Windows? Could this decision be one of many tactical manuevers by Apple and/or Microsoft to control the technologic development of our economy? Does Microsoft win, and Apple becomes just another DELL?

This could be the end of Apple as a unique innovative option for people who just wanted a computer that works, and does multimedia to perfection. This could be a truly sad day for all Mac Addicts everywhere.

You have hit the nail on the head my friend!


Is everyone here so blind as to not see what is coming?

Why do people buy Mac over another computer? (btw, i'm generalizing this may not be the reason you bought it)
1. Ease of use
2. User Experience
3. Status symbol/sex appeal

What prevents people from switching from Windows to Mac? (again, i'm generalizing)
1. Unable to run majority of their software and other compatibility issues.

The PC market has reached maturity, if apple is to grow it has to take customers away from M$. In order to take customers from M$ it needs to destroy the reason people won't switch. All this discussion about virtualization isn't the answer, people don't want to bounce around between different OS to use application A and then back to use application B.

I recently read a case study stating that if Apple were to gain 1% of microsoft customers, it would mean a 35% increase in market share for Apple.

If you look at what everyone here is saying, you want to run all windows programs natively on your Mac.

Apple has already established that they are NOT a company that creates operating systems. They are a company that creates user experiences. That is why they scrapped their OS in favor of another OS, a better OS. They, sucessfully, turned UNIX into a user friendly OS. However, people don't want a user friendly version of UNIX, they want a user friendly version of Windows.
(Does it make you feel better if I say people want a user friendly OS with the functionality of Windows?)

Also, Apple is obsesed with quality control, this is why they only want their OS on their hardware. Since they control both the hardware and software interface, they can control the user experience. You won't see Apple allowing their 'OS' to be run on a dell or hp, nor will you ever see Apple support Windows on their hardware.

I believe that avatarlgs3 is close to what will happen. Apple will develop their next GUI on top of windows. Microsofts forthcoming "windows presentation foundation" will give Apple all sorts of goodies to play with to develop the "GUI of the future."

If you don't believe me now, I have no doubt that SJ will convince you later.

After the next Mac OS is created on top of windows, there will be another layer of emulation so that you can run all your old OS X apps. I know, a head ache but you guys are all used to it by now right? Don't worry, after you hear it from SJ the world will be right again and you will love running more Mac emulation.
(ps your typical windows user doesn't even know what emulation is, since microsoft rarely breaks compatibility between new releases, again I'm generalizing. rarely =~ 95% of the time)

So, what will happen next?

Apple will start gaining market share 5%...10%...20%...
Businesses will stick with windows; hippies, college students, grandmas and artists all alike will move to the new Win/Mac en mas.

Ta-da! No more reason Not to switch to Mac if you can afford it!

But now, M$ will have really sunken its claws into the PC world, All that remains is to destroy Linux.

But Apple will survive and the Mac philosophy will live on via its Windows core.
Mac users will claim that the reason SJ didn't do this sooner was because all versions of Windows prior to the one Mac OS is implemented on were way to unstable, but this version of windows is far supierior! This version of windows is finally good enough to be mixed with Mac.

Start buying apple stock when you hear more of these rumors...

[mozmac]

I'm coming into the discussion late. Sorry, I was busy getting engaged tonight.

Virtualization would an awesome addition to Mac OS X. It would make Apple hardware the number one computer to buy, hands down. Why buy a Wintel when you can get a Mactel that runs EVERYTHING?

I think it's great that people are experimenting with booting XP on the current Mactels. They are to be commended. They will get a lot of the driver issues figured out so that when Apple's ready to have it be a part of their system, we'll have some drivers to support everything.

I really hope this rumor is true. It is one of the only rumors that I REALLY REALLY REALLY need to be true. Many of the other rumors are fun: Mac DVR, video iPod, iPhone, etc. However, virtualization w/ Windows and Linux would be a life saver for my line of work. I will be ready for a new laptop by the time that comes out.

[Bonte]

The PC market has reached maturity, if apple is to grow it has to take customers away from M$. In order to take customers from M$ it needs to destroy the reason people won't switch. All this discussion about virtualization isn't the answer, people don't want to bounce around between different OS to use application A and then back to use application B.

Being able to bounce between Win and osX is good enough for most users, one OS will be used extensively and the other just when needed. osX for work and Win for play or Win for work and osX for iTunes, it doesn't really matter. I do know that being able to run Windows natively (ea NOT an unsupported hack) would spur sales of the Mac maybe tenfold of the current 3% market-share. Its really hard for a stock happy company to not take this opportunity just to please some Mac zealots, in the near future (max 2 yrs) Windows will indeed run natively or at almost native speeds on the Mac platform. Its bound to happen, there is no other option.

[Marx55]

Apple, please, just allow Mactel to switch between Mac, Linux and Windows in real time (no reboot) and also allow to share files and folders between them all. Then we will replace all our University computing facilities with such Mactels (now filled with Intel PC boxes).

That would be the ultimate computer. When you boot or reboot it asks which OS you want to run first. Then you can also open the other OSes and switch betwen them seamessly.

Apple will boost market share from 3-4% to about 25-30% worldwide in 3-4 years.

And there is no problem with developers moving to Windows software, since once people know about the fantastic Mac O X they will never want to use Windows except for casual instances.

Remember that the most important part of a Mactel is Mac OS X. But being able to switch to Linux and Intel will give confidence to millions of current Linux and Windows purchases. Eventually they will switch to Mac once they get such triple-OS ultimate machine!

Apple, go for it!!!

[barstard]

This would be great for many people, but I still can't see Apple doing this. Though they have surprised me many times before. It would be great for many things to be able to switch between OS's without rebooting. And I'm sure with that solution, the video driver issue wouldn't be an issue!

barstard.

[ensee]

If it worked like rosetta and you just put in a disk and it worked then that would be great. I'm not really interested in working in the XP (or Vista) envionment. Rosetta was a step away from Classic, I hope Virtual PC's next step works the same way.

[rayz]

I have to disagree! Mac OSX is by far a superior OS- over 90% of the world uses Windows and that in and of itself is where the problems lie.

I keep reading this, and as a user of both operating systems, I have to wonder where this nonsense comes from. XP is easily just as stable and useable as OSX. OSX just looks much better.


Windows on the other hand has to include legacy code for outdated OSes just in case some huge enterprises need compatability! And it's this legacy code that is the reason MS is so full of Worms and Viruses.

Honestly why can't MS drop the support of Win95, 98 and all before it?? Anybody that is using decade old software needs to get with the times!

Well, if Apple had MS's runaway marketshare, then they'd have the same problem. The advantage in having such a relatively small user base, is that you can break compatibility and it doesn't cause business empires to collapse.!

Apple designed MacOSX from the ground up and at first I was peeved that some of my software wasn't supported or didn't run as fast...BUT today almost 6 years on there is not 1 software title that I miss from OS9 days or that isn't better natively on OSX.

Apple actually bought OSX when they bought next. The UNIX underpinnings are actually BSD. Apple's input

MS NEED to do the same- re-write the OS from the ground up and kill support for legacy systems.

Indeed.

[rayz]

My vote is for the former--in all the instances Apple has been declared close to death over the years, something has brought them back. Even if Mr. Jobs is not long for his current position, I simply cannot fathom Apple ceasing to fight the good fight, something that OS X has done since its conception.

Oh good grief ....:rolleyes:

Remember all those years ago when Jobs turned up on stage and announced that Microsoft had bought a wodge of non-voting shares in Apple. Jobs said then that the battle was over. There is no good fight. Jobs is just running a business as best he can

I honestly cannot imagine my life without it. I have never felt that way about any other inanimate object.

Yes and that is quite sad, but who says the Mac is going anywhere? All we're talking about is running Windows apps.

[fixyourthinking]

I personally think this has nothing to do with Windows ... it has more to do with emulation of things like MAME or RockNES ... like Nintendo is doing with their next gen console.

I think Apple might move into a similar space with Macs ... including hundreds ... if not thousands of games on all shipping Macs ... and just allow downloads through iTunes for premium games.

Nintendo has announced that their next gen console will include ALL NES SNES and N64 games built right into the console itself. (And yesterday said Turbografix 16 and Sega Genesis will also be included)

[Norse Son]

Been a few weeks since I posted - busy with work - and my new 20" iMac Core Duo!!! (sure is a change from my Pismo 400MHz G3). And I'm not going to take the time to troll through the previous 200+ comments on this subject - I think they're saying about the same thing.

Who knows, maybe my post sounds like 30 others...

But why add the baggage of Microsoft's crappy, buggy, overburdensome, legacy-bloated and supremely-late OS to the Mac? What we need is virtualisation software that allows us to run the apps - we don't need the OS.

Yeah, sure, if the Mac could run Windows apps, then "nobody would develop Mac software blah-blah-blah..." However, if the MacOS continued to add useful features - that Microsoft couldn't match until WinXP SP15 (released sometime in 2017) - then developers would still need to write apps specifically for the Mac in order to take advantage of those OS features.

The only upside I see to virtualisation software is being able to run some of those Windows games we'll (likely) never see on the Mac. That, and maybe being able to have greater options for keyboards, mice, joysticks & gamepads - just bought a Logitech Extreme 3D Pro joystick, that is "Mac compatible", but the game-specific joystick profiles don't work on a Mac...

[AidenShaw]

This is not true with Intel's (and other's) hardware virtualization.

All OS's can run simultaneously and have separate banks of registers so privileged instructions MAY be executed in ring 0 by ALL operations systems.
Yes, but when a VM (non-root mode Virtual Machine) executes some of those instructions, it causes a "VM exit" trap so that instead of executing the instruction - the VMM (root mode VIrtual Machine Monitor) is able to emulate the instruction and change the state of the emulated VM - not the whole processor.

Another way to look at it is that VT adds a new "ring -1" that's more privileged than ring 0. An emulated machine is allowed to execute all instructions in ring 0, but some of those instructions don't actually work - they cause the VM to trap (exit) to the VMM running in ring -1. The VMM then emulates the instruction.

The following quote from Intel Virtualization Technology, Computer - published by the IEEE Computer Society, Volume 38, Issue 5, May 2005. Pages 48–56 (ftp://download.intel.com/technology/computing/vptech/vt-ieee-computer-final.pdf) explains it in more detail:


VT-x defines two new transitions: a transition from VMX root operation to VMX non-root operation — that is, from VMM to guest — called a VM entry, and a transition from VMX non-root operation to VMX root operation — that is, from guest to VMM - called a VM exit.

The virtual-machine control structure (VMCS) is a new data structure that manages VM entries and VM exits and processor behavior in VMX nonroot operations. The VMCS is logically divided into sections, two of which are the guest-state area and the host-state area.

These areas contain fields corresponding to different components of processor state. VM entries load processor state from the guest-state area. VM exits save processor state to the guest-state area and then load processor state from the host-state area.

Processor behavior changes substantially in VMX non-root operation. Most importantly, many instructions and events cause VM exits. Some instructions cannot be executed in VMX non-root operation because they cause VM exits unconditionally; these include CPUID, MOV from CR3, RDMSR, and WRMSR. Other instructions, interrupts, and exceptions can be configured to cause VM exits conditionally, using VM-execution control fields in the VMCS.

So, as I said, VT does not eliminate the need to emulate certain instructions - it simply makes it much easier and faster to do so.

[AidenShaw]

Virtualization would an awesome addition to Mac OS X. It would make Apple hardware the number one computer to buy, hands down. Why buy a Wintel when you can get a Mactel that runs EVERYTHING?
This argument disappears as soon as OSX is cracked to run on generic PCs.

Almost any recent WinTel could also run OSX - except for the fact that Apple's business practices try to prevent that from happening. Some people might resent that heavy-handedness.

[guez]

... by becoming a Wintel company? Oh the irony.

[guez]

Anyone care to rebut

The history of personal computers is short, but it can teach us this: If you make a computer that runs the applications of a far more popular computer, people will stop making software for your computer.

[kingtj]

I'm thinking about this one, and my conclusion is - it's a difficult point to argue with because it hasn't really happened very often. I'm not sure there's a "lesson" to be learned from it at all - because the history is too lacking.

The history of the personal computer is mainly a laundry list of proprietary systems developed by competitors, coupled with the occasional attempt at cloning a popular machine but undercutting its cost. In the early days, you saw a lot of different systems that all ran variants of the CP/M operating system, but they all seemed to be on fairly equal footing. (EG. The Osborne 1 coming along didn't directly kill off any Kaypro machines that ran CP/M before it.)

When MS-DOS started taking hold, it eventually put the nails in the coffins of all the proprietary stuff (Atari, Commodore, T.I., Sinclair, Tandy Radio-Shack, etc.) - and not because it ran ANY of the competitor's apps. Only because it ran apps that were *universally compatible*.



Originally Posted by lectro33
The history of personal computers is short, but it can teach us this: If you make a computer that runs the applications of a far more popular computer, people will stop making software for your computer.

Anyone care to rebut

[AidenShaw]

When MS-DOS started taking hold, it eventually put the nails in the coffins of all the proprietary stuff (Atari, Commodore, T.I., Sinclair, Tandy Radio-Shack, etc.) - and not because it ran ANY of the competitor's apps. Only because it ran apps that were *universally compatible*.
So, you agree that if Apples can run Windows apps, Apple's proprietary stuff will be killed by the universally compatible Windows apps?

[opq]

Virtualization would be like the old MacOnLinux project. Since the program only ran on PPC Linux boxes, it didn't emulate. Result was an almost just as fast environment. Apple can do the same.

[DOUGHNUT]

countering the argument that allowing windows programs to run on Macs will kill Mac software development:

allowing Windows programs to run on Macs will drastically increase Apple's marketshare. More people will run Mac OS X, so that will encourage Mac software development. Maybe Apple should implement a software development incentives program of some sorts to attract developers.

[kahos]

Apple will boost market share from 3-4% to about 25-30% worldwide in 3-4 years.


I dont think apple can increase their marketshare sevenfold because they have the abbility to switch back and forth from osx to windows. There's still the price factor that will turn most people away from apple's computers. For example, A 17" imac is still 40% more expensive then the average wintel pc bundle with a 19 inch lcd.

[Tacitus]

You have hit the nail on the head my friend!


Is everyone here so blind as to not see what is coming?

.............
I believe that avatarlgs3 is close to what will happen. Apple will develop their next GUI on top of windows. Microsofts forthcoming "windows presentation foundation" will give Apple all sorts of goodies to play with to develop the "GUI of the future."

...

Actually I think it's the other way round. It's all about 'embrace and extend'. At present Darwin is 'open source' (OK I know it's not GPLd) so what is to stop Gates putting a Vista GUI on top? 'Borrow' a bit more from Apple so you end up with Gates taking over MacOSX using a proprietary GUI. After all it's what Apple is doing. OK you say, but people will still develop for OSX. No they won't. Why should they bother since the look and feel will be near enough the same. Once they look the same so far as Joe sixpack is concerned, they are the same.

Effectively Gates achieves 99% monopoly - forget about Linux it won't happen, at least in my lifetime. The only way Linux will get a foothold is if the developing countries - India, China, Latin America - get into it. There's more of them than there are of us, but it will take years.

[inkswamp]

Seems some form of this rumor comes up prior to each OS X release. What happened to those rumors that Tiger would run Linux binaries? Weren't there vague rumblings about Panther being able to run Windows apps?

Sorry, this is one rumor I ain't buying. Beyond the obvious fact that Apple stands to hurt themselves by doing this (that is, developers may find it preferable to discontinue OS X versions of applications if the Windows version runs just fine on Macs) but it also plays into this tired old myth that there are just oodles of great Windows-only apps that we Mac users are dying to have. Well, that isn't true. There isn't a single Windows app out there I have ever used that I felt was indispensible. I have everything I need on my Mac.

And what about viruses and Windows security issues. If Apple does this, don't they have to support that? What a headache.

And games? I doubt any game will run full-speed in any form of virtualization or emulation. And besides, no gamer is going to switch to Macs no matter how many Windows games run on it. Most gamers like to be able to upgrade their hardware and Macs don't cater to that.

I can't think of a single angle where this rumor makes sense, and it's annoying the way some form of it rears its head before every release. I don't need Windows. I don't like Windows. I don't want any of its crappy apps on my Mac.

[w_parietti22]

I don't think I would use this feature but I can see how it could be useful. It also might be a major selling point for my dad.

[DOUGHNUT]

I don't want any of its crappy apps on my Mac.

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

[reyesmac]

I think allowing more than one OS on one machine is not something Apple would spend any time considering. It is just too confusing and wont work from a marketing and support standpoint. The support alone on something like this makes officially running two OS's on one Mac impossible.

What they can do is allow PC developers to patch their applications to run on the Macs windows compatibility layer. This will not kill off Mac software developers, it will just make it easier for PC developers to code applications that will run on a mac.

This will also allow Apple to control what these alien PC applications can do on a Mac (no virus-like behavior allowed). This is more in line with how Apple puts its own twist on a concept like running Windows on a Mac.

[Photorun]

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

No, ignorance is thinking because 90% of the market uses something it's better, the ignorance is in people not realizing there's another option. This comes from M$ brilliantely duping peecee makers with illegal and unethical contractual bindings to windoze during the 90s, super heavy marketing, and taking advantage of the ignorant public when computers were new and shiny... Apple didn't help but overpricing their machines and not marketing their vastly superior OSes all that time, even now they don't, which is frustrating. The majority of the heartland USA buying Chevys even though they're quality sucks as does their resale, the reason isn't because they make good vehicles, people just don't know any better.

[AidenShaw]

I think allowing more than one OS on one machine is not something Apple would spend any time considering. It is just too confusing and wont work from a marketing and support standpoint. The support alone on something like this makes officially running two OS's on one Mac impossible.
VMware investors didn't think so, and they were quite right. Microsoft thought about it, and bought Virtual PC. Xen is very active in the Linux world - both Red Hat and Suse recently announced that their next enterprise versions will have Xen embedded in the kernel.

Windows systems can run Linux (and Netware...), Linux systems can run Windows (and Netware...).

Virtualization is the biggest OS innovation in recent history (at least in the high volume system market - real mainframes have had various versions of virtualization for decades.) This is a very big party, and one that Apple is very late in attending. If Apple wants to break into the mainstream, they have no choice be to support other operating systems running as guests above OSX - no choice.

The flip side is that VT could also help someone write a VMM that would let OSX run as a GOS on a Windows host. (The TPM and EFI could easily be emulated by the VMM.)

Apple loses the hardware sale *and* the software sale - just pull a copy of OSX off the torrent and run it on Vista.

[AidenShaw]

Apple didn't help but overpricing their machines and not marketing their vastly superior OSes all that time...
Please, put down the glass of kool-aid.

Go back and compare System 7, OS 8 and OS 9 against the comparable versions of NT 4 and Win2K.

An occasional blue screen vs. constant force quit and reboot? Come on, be honest!

[Stridder44]

But what about other OSes, (i dont even know if there are any) where it would be possible to emulate using the PowerPC architecture.

PPC is dead for Macs.

[Stridder44]

The market is there for it, and Microsoft has a very clear philosophy....the more PCs that can run Windows, the better. Apple has been pretty clear on their stance too, "they won't disallow it"...because they know they're going to sell more Apple PCs as a result....


We have a winner!

[macdong]

unless Apple plans to deal with everyone calling in and complaining about everything there is to be complained about Windows, i don't think a virtualized Windows on a Mac is going to happen.
because they certainly won't be calling Dell, and calling Microsoft won't get them anywhere either.

[AidenShaw]

unless Apple plans to deal with everyone calling in and complaining about everything there is to be complained about Windows, i don't think a virtualized Windows on a Mac is going to happen.
It's going to happen.

No one calls Microsoft when Linux in a VMware virtual machine or a Virtual Server virtual machine has a problem - yet lots of Linux and Solaris VMs are running on Windows.

No one calls Suse when a Windows VM on Xen or VMware has a problem = yet lots of Windows and Solaris VMs are running on Linux.

Your argument has already been rejected by the real world. Apple can't ignore the coming age of virtualization - especially since they're embracing chips with hardware support for it.

[Super Dave]

Has anyone mentioned "Red Box?" It was Apple's rumoured emulation environment for Windows. Read about it here. (http://www.applematters.com/index.php/section/comments/project_red_box_not_the_best_idea/)

It would blow everyone's mind if you could double click a Windows app and it would open in OS X (in an UBER SECURE PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT) without actually launching another OS. Kinda like Classic only without the 2 minute load time.

The question is, like the linked article suggests, would the developers flee?

David:cool:

[DakotaGuy]

PPC is dead for Macs.

I would agree. It will be interesting to see if the next version of OSX will even run on G4 and G5 systems. I am waiting to see if I can even run 10.5 before I toss my PPC Macs out the window and be forced to upgrade. My guess is all of the focus has switched to the Intel side, so even if they make a new version of OSX run on a PPC it probably won't run very well. Oh well...that is technology. I like all of these exciting things coming out, but it can get pretty expensive.

I assume if Apple adds virtualization to 10.5 then it will require an Intel processor. So much for Apple supporting PPC for years to come!

[boncellis]

...Yes and that is quite sad, but who says the Mac is going anywhere? All we're talking about is running Windows apps.

Oh, I know it's sad--yet I can't help it. Call it an addiction, a hangup, an unfounded devotion, but OS X makes me happy just by looking at it. I really think it is the most beautiful thing that Apple has created (not speaking strictly of aesthetics, but function as well).

I realize I had a touch of the melodrama in that post, and for that I sincerely apologize. I was responding to the previous posts who (presumed to) take this rumor to its logical end by concluding that OS X would go the way of all the world.

In the light of day I have come to a new take on this possibility, or eventuality, of virtualization, and that is that it may well help OS X down the road.

[dongmin]

It will be interesting to see if the next version of OSX will even run on G4 and G5 systems.This is a ridiculous statement, if I ever heard any.

One word: "universal" = intel AND ppc.

I doubt Intel Macs make up more than 20% of the total in the wild, the rest being PPC. Apple is not gonna leave the majority of these users in the larch, especially since they will make a good chunk of change in Leopard sales. Of course, Apple will support PPCs!

10.6 is another question. It'll probably be another 2 years, at least, before 10.6 comes to fruition. So Apple may force an upgrade path then for the laggards.

[Bosunsfate]

I can't wait to see this as it is a very logical step for this OS, both from a home and work environment.

We are using more and more VMware at my company. While testing is the main use (we can build multiple virtual machines on one server) I can easily see it expanding to different uses. The guy writting earlier about setting up virtual machines for his kids is a great example.

The other benefit is the ability to use softare that was not developed on your OS. This type of cabability is different than VMware, and I'm certainly happy if this is what Apple will bring in the next release.

Either way, this is a good thing for Apple and us.

[arkmannj]

I would agree. It will be interesting to see if the next version of OSX will even run on G4 and G5 systems. I am waiting to see if I can even run 10.5 before I toss my PPC Macs out the window and be forced to upgrade. My guess is all of the focus has switched to the Intel side, so even if they make a new version of OSX run on a PPC it probably won't run very well. Oh well...that is technology. I like all of these exciting things coming out, but it can get pretty expensive.

I assume if Apple adds virtualization to 10.5 then it will require an Intel processor. So much for Apple supporting PPC for years to come!

I'm guessing 10.5 will be universal, there's still enough "new" G4's and G5's out there to make a few bucks selling OSX upgrades.

I also fully expect that Apple will likely keep operational versions of there OS for multiple architectures indefinitely. Even if not released to the public I think you could expect in their labs to see running versions for several types of architectures.

It will be interesting to see if 10.5 will have Virtualization, and if it does how it will be implemented, what capabilities & limitations it may have.
honestly, while that is a fun thought, I'm hoping for some of their old ideas to come to light (especially since I hear they are reworking the Finder) like stacks/piles (I can't remember which it was called) and PVR capabilities, Blue-Ray / HDDVD added to the DVD player App. Some features added to current apps. (like a remote help/remote desktop feature in iChat similar to Windows Messengers) etc.. etc.. :-)


Also, I've read a few notes from people saying they think eventually that Apple will transition to windowz and just be another hardware manufacturer (i.e. dell, hp, etc...)

I respectfully disagree,
1) If that were the case Apple would have chosen BIOS for more transition time and compatibility. Why not just out of the box allow duel booting if that were the case.?

2) Apple would lose many of it's fans, and would lose allot of respect from allot of people. (Remember their slogan of "Think Different")

3) Apple has allot of software tied to OSX, that they make money off of
They are no longer a hardware company just with a cool OS to sell the hardware (Final Cut Studio, Shake, iLife, iWork, Aperture, Logic, Webobjects, Remote Desktop, etc.)

4) I love Apple, but I wouldn't pay the Apple price tags for a computer that just looks pretty on the outside, but is the same as everyone else's on the inside. OSX is a huge reason why I, and many others I know buy Apple stuff. I want it pretty inside and out. (I don't think I'm alone)

5) iPod/iTunes may be a crown jewel for Apple, and a money maker by itself, but it was and still is a marketing tool to sell Macs.

6) Apple likes tight control of their products, and control (as much as possible) the experience you have interfacing with their products. They would lose this control.

7)OSX isn't perfect, but it's sure been a heck of allot more stable then any of my windows computers, if I have a windows crash on a Mac it dang well better ONLY be in a confined virtualPC type environment.

8) I know more viruses, hackers, etc etc will attack Mac if they continue to grow in popularity, but for now I love not paying the yearly virus/spyware etc tax. And if there's going to be a windows virus on a mac it again better be confined to ONLY a VirtualPC type environment

9) Apple loves to advertise the UNIX roots of OSX

Anyhow sorry for the rant, none of us have a crystal ball and can see the future so it's speculation at this point, but that's at-least how I see it.
cheers and best wishes to all
~Arkman

[jwhitnah]

Yeah, right.

[jwhitnah]

I would agree. It will be interesting to see if the next version of OSX will even run on G4 and G5 systems. I am waiting to see if I can even run 10.5 before I toss my PPC Macs out the window and be forced to upgrade.

I assume if Apple adds virtualization to 10.5 then it will require an Intel processor. So much for Apple supporting PPC for years to come!

Whoa, slow down. No way are they going to abandon the PPC that fast. It will be at least 2 years AFTER they sell the last PPC before the stop supporting it. The negative press would be deafening. Chill.:cool:

[Undecided]

Here's the plan:

Phase 1 - fully develop the NeXT OS as a GUI to Unix for the Mac, and secure Microsoft Windows during this time (phase complete)

Phase 2 - adopt Wintel hardware and continue to use the OS from Phase 1 (in process)

Phase 3 - virtualize Microsoft libraries, to seamlessly run Windows applications on the Mac OS

Phase 4 - Invert phase 3, by running Windows as a base, but with a Mac OS GUI (so you get the dock, expose, single menu bar, etc.), and virtualize Mac libraries to continue to run existing Mac software. From the user's perspective, it will look, feel, and operate exactly like in Phase 3. This Mac GUI will only run on Apple Macs, which will continue to use innovative hardware (like scrolling trackpads).

End result: Macs, based on the Windows core (so MS does most of the development), that can run all Windows apps and "Mac apps" which over time will simply be the same as Windows apps. Apple makes money from the hardware sales, just as the do with the iPod, while retaining their distinctive look and feel.

Of course, that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong.

[rayz]

Anyone care to rebut

I'll have a go.

If you're talking about OS/2, then running Windows apps was certaoinly not the reason why it failed. In fact, IBM squandered the best chance it had.

1/. Poor marketing and no direction. At the time, IBM was much less of a unified company than it is today. It was made up of huge numbers of divisions, each with different levels of influence and different agendas. The Personal Software Products Division was fighting against other IBM divisions that had already decided to support Windows NT. This prevented the PSP division from making any serious effort to market OS/2. They couldn't even get IBM's hardware divisions to preload OS/2 on IBM PCS; which leads me to point number 2.

2/. Preloads. Most Windows installations are preloads that come with the machine. If you haven't got OEM partners, then you're sunk. MS realised this and stitched up the preload market good and tight, not allowing OS/2 to make any headway.

Apple certainly doesn't have a problem with 1/. and since it sells its own boxes, it doesn't have to rely on vendors preloading OSX.

How does that sound .... :-)

[rayz]

I would agree. It will be interesting to see if the next version of OSX will even run on G4 and G5 systems. I am waiting to see if I can even run 10.5 before I toss my PPC Macs out the window and be forced to upgrade. My guess is all of the focus has switched to the Intel side, so even if they make a new version of OSX run on a PPC it probably won't run very well. Oh well...that is technology. I like all of these exciting things coming out, but it can get pretty expensive.

I assume if Apple adds virtualization to 10.5 then it will require an Intel processor. So much for Apple supporting PPC for years to come!

I agree. Apple is desperate to get people onto Intel Macs as fast as possible so they can cut development costs. They'll support PPC alright, but don't expect them to carry on supporting it to the same level as the Intel version. You'll see security and bug fixes and that's about it. Didn't a group of users have to take Apple to force them to keep a promise to support older machines?

Having said that, virtualization relies on the Intel chip, so they couldn't add it to PPC OSX anyway.

[rayz]

Oh, I know it's sad--yet I can't help it. Call it an addiction, a hangup, an unfounded devotion, but OS X makes me happy just by looking at it.

Right, put the mouse down and step away from the keyboard .... :rolleyes:

I really think it is the most beautiful thing that Apple has created (not speaking strictly of aesthetics, but function as well).

I would have to agree that it certainly is a very nice GUI. I think the secret the way it's rendered. Quartz makes everything look really, really good. MS is coming up with something similar in Vista, but I'm not sure what it looks like yet.

I realize I had a touch of the melodrama in that post, and for that I sincerely apologize.

No need to apologise for being passionate. I just find it a little odd when people apply it inanimate objects, when there is still so much to get passionate about, right outside your window.

I was responding to the previous posts who (presumed to) take this rumor to its logical end by concluding that OS X would go the way of all the world.

I don't not believe that this will lead to the end of MacOSX. Here's the thing:

Apple now makes Intel boxes. Fair enough, they had no choice. They don't actually make Intel boxes that are better than anyone else's Intel box. I think the Sony line of laptops look better to be honest.
Contrary to popular belief around here, Windows people are not stupid; they know when they're been taken for a ride. If Apple attempted to sell a Windows machine at their usual markup, it would not sell, no matter what the box looked like.

But it is definitely the case that the Mac user base is being lead towards a more Window-sy way of doing things. The appearance of multi-button mice; strange inconstistencies in the UI. Likewise, Windows is adopting the better elements from the MacOSX.

At some point in the future, they're going to meet in the middle.

[rayz]

Here's the plan:

Phase 1 - fully develop the NeXT OS as a GUI to Unix for the Mac, and secure Microsoft Windows during this time (phase complete)

Phase 2 - adopt Wintel hardware and continue to use the OS from Phase 1 (in process)

Phase 3 - virtualize Microsoft libraries, to seamlessly run Windows applications on the Mac OS

Phase 4 - Invert phase 3, by running Windows as a base, but with a Mac OS GUI (so you get the dock, expose, single menu bar, etc.), and virtualize Mac libraries to continue to run existing Mac software. From the user's perspective, it will look, feel, and operate exactly like in Phase 3. This Mac GUI will only run on Apple Macs, which will continue to use innovative hardware (like scrolling trackpads).

End result: Macs, based on the Windows core (so MS does most of the development), that can run all Windows apps and "Mac apps" which over time will simply be the same as Windows apps. Apple makes money from the hardware sales, just as the do with the iPod, while retaining their distinctive look and feel.

Of course, that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong.


Yeah, you could be wrong, but I don't think you are.

Apple would slash development costs to the bone, and manufacturers wouldn't have to write separate drivers for the MacOSX.

There would be no real reason to buy any other PC. Dell would have to beg Apple for a license (and now it really could run on any old box), or close up shop and give the money back to the shareholders.

I'm starting to wonder. When Adobe and MS release their applications which 'support Intel Macs', what will that mean exactly?

[rayz]

I'm guessing 10.5 will be universal, there's still enough "new" G4's and G5's out there to make a few bucks selling OSX upgrades.


I respectfully disagree,

1) If that were the case Apple would have chosen BIOS for more transition time and compatibility. Why not just out of the box allow duel booting if that
were the case.?


Becasue in general, folk would prefer to run Windows apps inside the OS, rather than dual boot. Saves all that faffing about.

I don't think they will sell Windows as is, but I think they are looking at some way to make Windows apps run seamlessly on MacOSX.


2) Apple would lose many of it's fans, and would lose allot of respect from allot of people. (Remember their slogan of "Think Different")


'Fans'?

Apple cares about the bottom line first and foremost. They would certainly sacrifice the feelings of a relatively small number of ... er .. 'fans', if it meant they could tap into HUGE marketshare enjoyed by Microsoft.


3) Apple has allot of software tied to OSX, that they make money off of
They are no longer a hardware company just with a cool OS to sell the hardware (Final Cut Studio, Shake, iLife, iWork, Aperture, Logic, Webobjects, Remote Desktop, etc.)


They could sell an order of magnitude more if they ported to Windows though ... :-|



4) I love Apple, but I wouldn't pay the Apple price tags for a computer that just looks pretty on the outside, but is the same as everyone else's on the inside. OSX is a huge reason why I, and many others I know buy Apple stuff. I want it pretty inside and out. (I don't think I'm alone)


But what is MacOSX? The GUI and the frameworks. The frameworks already exist on Windows or versions exist in Apple labs somewhere. Remember that Cocoa's forerunner ran on Windows; I doubt Apple has abandoned that work.


5) iPod/iTunes may be a crown jewel for Apple, and a money maker by itself, but it was and still is a marketing tool to sell Macs.


Nope. The iPod is a separate and highly successuful product in its own right. Selling more Macs is a side effect, not a strategy. Over the past couple of quarters, Apple has made more from the iPod than it has from the Macs, and the clever money (if there is such a thing) reckons that this will continue.


6) Apple likes tight control of their products, and control (as much as possible) the experience you have interfacing with their products. They would lose this control.


Apple will give up control if it makes more money or cuts costs. Apple does none of it's own quality control for hardware anyway. And the initial release of Tiger wasn't all that great as I remember.


7)OSX isn't perfect, but it's sure been a heck of allot more stable then any of my windows computers, if I have a windows crash on a Mac it dang well better ONLY be in a confined virtualPC type environment.


Yeah, I keep hearing this from Mac users. If you have Windows XP SP2 and are experiencing regular crashes, get your hardware checked out.


8) I know more viruses, hackers, etc etc will attack Mac if they continue to grow in popularity, but for now I love not paying the yearly virus/spyware etc tax. And if there's going to be a windows virus on a mac it again better be confined to ONLY a VirtualPC type environment


Clued up Windows users don't pay for their anti-virus software. They use something like Avast!. Free, regularly updated. Robust, stable and doesn't slaughter your machine's performance or turn it into a train wreck like NAV does.
Personally I wouldn't put a Symantec product on any machine; Mac or Windows.


9) Apple loves to advertise the UNIX roots of OSX


And last year, Apple loved to advertise the PowerPC underpinnings of its hardware. It's just marketing.
Jobs could stand up at this year's WWDC and announce Windows Virtualization or MacOSX running over a Windows core, or whatever else, without batting an eyelid.

[MarcelV]

Phase 4 - Invert phase 3, by running Windows as a base, but with a Mac OS GUI
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. And the stability of Vista is well unknown.
What I will think is going to happen (maybe already stated but haven't read to 10 pages of opinions) will be that virtualization will be available in the Leopard/Intel version only. The PPC will not contain this feature and to be honest there is no direct need for. There is still VPC and other programs available that make it happen, and everyone that really has a need for it, has already the software laying around. They will make sure VPC will be compatible with Leopard/PPC.

This will provide a possibilty for Apple to say, if you want to run Windows apps faster than before, buy an Intel based Mac. This would make financial sense for them. Still full support on PPC and extra features available on Intel platform without the PPC owners feeling betrayed by Apple.

I also think the virtualization is not emulation based at all. The instruction set is in the processor. Yes, they will need to make some MFC calls available to make it work, but it is fairly 'native'. It probably will run in it's own containers, just like Java does with very limited access to the root system.

[the-fish]

Hmph. So Apple is selling us out at last.

[Undecided]

Hmph. So Apple is selling us out at last.

I don't think so. Did Apple sell us out when they switched from SCSI hard drives to IDE hard drives? From ADB and SCSI ports to USB? From OS9 to Unix? From 68k processors to PPC? In each case, it wasn't a sellout because it always still just operated like a Mac always did. Besides, using standard components (hardware AND software components) makes them less expensive.

I think another poster had it exactly right: Apple sells an experience. So long as the experience is there, what difference does it make what the underlying hardware (or core software) is?

[AidenShaw]

I also think the virtualization is not emulation based at all. The instruction set is in the processor.
The virtualization (using VT) being discussed does emulate a PC, with emulated devices like graphics, NIC and disks.

Since the underlying ISA (Instruction Set Architecture) of the real PC is the same as the ISA of the emulated PC, most instructions can be executed directly by the real CPU at native speeds. ISA emulation is not needed for most instructions. (Full ISA emulation is what Virtual PC/Mac uses to run x86 code on a PPC chip.)

Even with an emulated x86 PC on a real x86 CPU, some privileged instructions must be emulated - since the OS running in the emulated PC cannot be allowed to modify the state of the real PC.


Yes, they will need to make some MFC calls available to make it work, but it is fairly 'native'.
In a virtual machine environment, this would not be necessary. The MFC libraries running in the Windows OS on the emulated PC would be there, as would all the other libraries and OS APIs.

In a WINE environment, yes - you'd need to provide special MFC libraries that interfaced with the native Carbon and Cocoa libraries. But that's just what WINE is, a set of libraries to translate Windows APIs like MFC to native Linux APIs.

It probably will run in it's own containers, just like Java does with very limited access to the root system.
An emulated virtual machine has complete isolation, but WINE has almost no isolation.

[gnasher729]

I get confused between emulation and virtualization. Doesn't virtualization here mean that one could run exe files without the Windows OS?

No. Virtualisation means that two or more operating systems can run simultaneously, and each one believes that it is in full and complete control of a complete computer system. But in reality, each operating system is only in control of some resources.

Both MacOS X and Windows or another operating system like Linux would run completely unmodified.

[Josias]

I love this idea! It would make it possible for my school to change from HP (vomtis) to Mac:D :D :D :D . Much educational software is made for windows only, and therefore it is a great trouble for schools to change to mac, but this is genius!:cool:

[cesar]

it would be a logical move, every other vendor offers virtualization technology. MS has Virtual Server, the open source community has xen (even fedora has xen loaded) and the list go on...