PDA

View Full Version : Virtualization for the (Intel) Mac?


MacRumors
Apr 4, 2006, 11:32 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Techworld.com reports (http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?newsID=5712) that a company called Parallels will be announcing their virtualization product for Intel-based Macs later this week.

According to a company representative, "We will enable users to run multiple operating systems (like Linux and Windows) simultaneously with Mac OS X".

This is distinct from the dual-boot solutions that have been previously described. Instead, users can run these alternative operating systems in a window under Mac OS X.

Several have suggested that this functionality could increase Apple's marketshare with businesses and consumers alike. WSJ Online notes (http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB114304862088305343-lMyQjAxMDE2NDAzMzAwNDM4Wj.html) that Japan's Aozora Bank Ltd. is already making the move to all Mac. They are planning to switch all 2,300 of their personal computers to Mac. The bank cites the strength of Mac OS X alone as the reason for their switch. Other surveys (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/03/20060308073846.shtml), however, have suggested that a large number of consumers would switch to Mac if also given the ability to run Windows easily.

More details on Parellels' solution should be available later this week. Microsoft has been said to be working on an Intel-version of Virtual PC as well, but no timeframe has been given.

pdpfilms
Apr 4, 2006, 11:35 AM
So how is this different from VPC?

twoodcc
Apr 4, 2006, 11:36 AM
wow, this is great news! i might just try it on my imac

bentoms
Apr 4, 2006, 11:37 AM
So how is this different from VPC?


I'm guessing it'll run alot quicker as it'll be working with the Hardware & not some kind of application layer.

arn
Apr 4, 2006, 11:40 AM
So how is this different from VPC?

1. VPC doesn't run on Intel Macs
2. It will run much faster than the previous versions of VPC because most of it won't be emulated.

VPC for Intel Macs should have the same benefits, when/if it comes out.

arn

Jesus
Apr 4, 2006, 11:41 AM
I cant wait, I would love to be able to run C&C Generals at a reasonable speed. This will be awesome. Any word on the price??:confused: :confused:

MacinDoc
Apr 4, 2006, 11:41 AM
A bit of competition for Virtual PC can't be a bad thing...

plinden
Apr 4, 2006, 11:41 AM
So how is this different from VPC?
For one, VPC isn't available for Intel Macs.
Also, from the article (my emphasis):
The Russian-developed software competes directly with VMware Workstation and Microsoft Virtual PC, albeit -- at the time of launch - -at a lower price.

skwert
Apr 4, 2006, 11:41 AM
hot sauce! they came out with this a lot quicker than i expected. this is the advantage that mac needs to take a large chunk of the pc market share. dual boot...pretty cool, but somewhat annoying. this is going to move some mactels off the shelves.

iHotu
Apr 4, 2006, 11:41 AM
Hope it's cheap...

miniConvert
Apr 4, 2006, 11:42 AM
Sounds like a great news, a much more elegant solution than dual-booting.

octoberdeath
Apr 4, 2006, 11:44 AM
This is good news! now I can convince the organization I work for that we should buy an iMac with the benifits of both worlds (Mac/PC). Gosh I want them to buy an iMac... they just don't understand!

Spartacus
Apr 4, 2006, 11:46 AM
I think this is great news. The prospect of being able to use windows (for games and other programs) without having to use windows is exciting. I have a question though: will we have the same type of driver issues those trying to run windows on their macs using the dual booting method have? Could I install this virtualization program and then play Half-Life 2?

Doctor Q
Apr 4, 2006, 11:46 AM
Dual booting has its own advantages, particularly speed and compatibility. When you virtualize, you are adding another layer of software, which can do you favors (letting you switch OSes on the fly) or do you in.

I want to see reviews and performance results before jumping to a new software package.

LimeiBook86
Apr 4, 2006, 11:46 AM
Now if Apple was working on something like this for Mac OS X 10.5 that'll be nice, and free too. Oh well, at least there will be a few options to choose from. 3D Studio Max on Mac...now that'll be interesting :D

Lyle
Apr 4, 2006, 11:47 AM
Sounds like a great news, a much more elegant solution than dual-booting.Yes. A dual-boot situation would have been basically worthless to me at work (where I'm hoping to get approval for a Mac as my next desktop computer), but reasonably performant virtualization would be great. Does anyone know if VMware (http://www.vmware.com/) is working on porting their stuff to Mac OS X as well?

greenstork
Apr 4, 2006, 11:49 AM
The million dollar question is will it best fast enough to run Windows games at a reasonable (or even native) speed. You'll see a lot of Mac switchers then....

yac_moda
Apr 4, 2006, 11:49 AM
Virtualization will be SOOO Cool.

Parallels software will provide the bios needed by some OSes and virtualization implies that each OS runs in an emulation of the basic hardware only to create OSes that are fully independent.

The actual processor calls will be native so running 2 OSs should be as fast as running 2 apps in OS X.

The advantage of virtualization is being able to run multiple OSes natively with a very high level of STABILITY. :eek:

Kelmon
Apr 4, 2006, 11:50 AM
I cant wait, I would love to be able to run C&C Generals at a reasonable speed. This will be awesome. Any word on the price??:confused: :confused:

Whoa, there cowboy! I had a look at the current product when I read the headline about it earlier from CNet and, while it will emulate different hardware components such as network devices and sound cards, I didn't notice anything about display adaptors, let alone 3D acceleration. I suspect that while you'll be able to install and run Windows much more simply using this rather than the OnMac.net solution, gaming isn't something that you'll be doing, at least not beyond minesweeper.

Something that I was not able to determine from the company's web site was whether each Guest OS is entirely separate or whether it is possible to share data between Host and Guests (preferably copy/paste). I suspect that copy/paste is out given the number of OS's supported but how about file sharing?

bcsmith
Apr 4, 2006, 11:51 AM
Wouldn't this weaken the security of Mac OS? If some form of Windows is running on the computer, wouldn't the holes that are in Windows be there as well? I feel that Windows on Mac OS would probably be more secure than Windows on Windows, I just worry about the backlash about security holes that culd be opened...

yac_moda
Apr 4, 2006, 11:54 AM
The million dollar question is will it best fast enough to run Windows games at a reasonable (or even native) speed. You'll see a lot of Mac switchers then....

If virtualization is in Leopard then it should be THE BEST MACHINE FOR GAMES :eek: :D

I think it is VERY LIKELY the reason Dell bought Alien is because Dell knows that Jobs is building the new Macs to be great game MACchines so he bought Alien to try to counter Jobs move. :eek: :eek: :eek:

What if Apple came out with a MACchine that has BOTH a PPC and an Intel processer, game coders could build and test and all targets instantly :eek: :eek: :eek:

C00rDiNaT0r
Apr 4, 2006, 11:55 AM
I wonder why there wasn't a contest to do this so we would've gotten this solution for free, like how we got dual-booting MacOSX and WinXP lol

FoxyKaye
Apr 4, 2006, 11:57 AM
Not sure how this would be different from VPC regarding how it will actually manage the other OSes installed on the system. I tend to agree with bentoms - currently VPC actually launches a complete virtual computer, and although you can install Linux and older versions of Windows on it, M$ only officially supports WinXP. Also, the more virtual computers you launch (say I want to run WinXP and Linux side-by-side in VPC) the s l o w e r VPC gets.

Now, if Parallels' "virtual PC" does indeed translate hardware calls in a similar fashion as Rosetta - well, then this might open up the possibility to launch individual non-native OS X applications without launching an entire operating system to accompany them. There would be a memory savings over M$' VPC, and a speed boost as well (since new Macs are on Intel, and presumably there isn't a lot of translating to do). You could then run Access in a window just like iCal runs in a window on your desktop. You might not then need to actually own a copy of Windows to run Win apps - just the individual applications - though this might be a flight of fancy, since M$ will never provide all the hooks necessary without reverse engineering for their own applications.

Although, I also wonder how much functionality it will have: will it enable cut-and-paste, printer connections, USB, and so forth? VPC, despite its many shortcomings, is moderately robust regarding how much back and forth you can do between the Windows window and OS X. I hope that Parellels has enough foresight to match the features VPC offers at launch of its product.

I could see a number of companies getting back into the virtualization game depending on how easy it is to make Windows and other OS programs work on Intel OS X. Although, M$'s new version of VPC (if it's more than vaporware right now) would still be the best to run M$ programs.

Looking forward to seeing this - they've at least tried to throw down a gauntlet by getting their product out of the gate first. If it works well, it will at least show the potential of running Windows apps on an Intel Mac to many folks, and hopefully push Mac sales.

If this area develops, I'd definitely consider an Intel iMac for our nonprofit to run Blackbaud's software with our next database purchase. Otherwise, we'd need to run Blackbaud's stuff on a Windows server, which I'm much less thrilled about.

joeconvert
Apr 4, 2006, 11:58 AM
No mention of this on their web site. Nothing in the news section, and a search of their site for "Mac" returns nothing.

Smelling kind of like Vaporware.

Peace
Apr 4, 2006, 12:00 PM
This sounds great and all but remember one important thing..
The graphics card in the Intel Macs uses UGA and not VGA..That is in the cards firmware..I don't see this company being able to change that.Thus no 3D acceleration..

yac_moda
Apr 4, 2006, 12:00 PM
Wouldn't this weaken the security of Mac OS? If some form of Windows is running on the computer, wouldn't the holes that are in Windows be there as well? I feel that Windows on Mac OS would probably be more secure than Windows on Windows, I just worry about the backlash about security holes that culd be opened...

NO the OSes are vertically seperated with the opensource virtualization software that is available for Intel.

ccrandall77
Apr 4, 2006, 12:01 PM
I was excited about this until it registered with me that this is being developed by a Russian company. Sorry, but don't know if I trust a Russian SW company given all the malware and such from Russia and E. Europe. I think I'll wait a while and make sure there isn't spyware or some backdoor tucked into this app.

This is the same reason I waited to use VPC since I don't always trust M$ not to sneak in something like this into their software.

mozmac
Apr 4, 2006, 12:02 PM
We are ready to switch one of our top clients completely over to Macs as soon as this technology is ready. The main principles have repeatedly expressed their desire to switch. But the lack of a good Outlook counterpart on OS X is the biggest thing holding back the switch. Once Windows can run in virutalization, or through Wine (here's hoping!!!), and once drivers are written to create compatibility, we are switching a lot of computers over. Apple stands to make A LOT OF MONEY if virtualization comes out soon. Steve Jobs should pour a bunch of money into Wine.

joeconvert
Apr 4, 2006, 12:02 PM
Now, if Parallels' "virtual PC" does indeed translate hardware calls in a similar fashion as Rosetta - well, then this might open up the possibility to launch individual non-native OS X applications without launching an entire operating system to accompany them. There would be a memory savings over M$' VPC, and a speed boost as well (since new Macs are on Intel, and presumably there isn't a lot of translating to do). You could then run Access in a window just like iCal runs in a window on your desktop. You might not then need to actually own a copy of Windows to run Win apps - just the individual applications - though this might be a flight of fancy, since M$ will never provide all the hooks necessary without reverse engineering for their own applications.




This is actuall a tall order. Rosetta is trnaslate hardware calls, but what you are asking for is on the fly presentation of the Windows subsystem and foundation classes via this product. You are thinking more along the lines of what WINE is trying to accomplish with linux and potentially Mac OS X now that the hardware call translation issues has gone away. Paralells product is clearly a VMWare/Virtual PC class product that will in fact need a full Windows install. The two items to take away form this are 1) They might be the first too actually ship for the intel Macs and 2) There prcie seems pretty fair on their Windows based products.

dongmin
Apr 4, 2006, 12:03 PM
Whoa, there cowboy! I had a look at the current product when I read the headline about it earlier from CNet and, while it will emulate different hardware components such as network devices and sound cards, I didn't notice anything about display adaptors, let alone 3D acceleration. I suspect that while you'll be able to install and run Windows much more simply using this rather than the OnMac.net solution, gaming isn't something that you'll be doing, at least not beyond minesweeper.
Gamers is not the intended target audience for these virtualization software. Hence, I'm not terribly optimistic about game performance or any kind of 3D performance (which is too bad since I'd like to run windows-only 3D apps). Now, some small vendor could focus on gaming, i.e. supporting the Mac graphics cards in the virtualized OS, and make a killing.

Anyways, has anyone actually used a product from these guys? I've seen a lot of snake-oil-type developers (e.g. RealPC) come and go in the emulation/virtualization arena. I'd hold off on getting too excited until something solid actually happens.

I'm betting on the guys on the QEMU/Q project to deliver the first working virtualization solution. But they could use a lot more help.

joeconvert
Apr 4, 2006, 12:04 PM
I was excited about this until it registered with me that this is being developed by a Russian company. Sorry, but don't know if I trust a Russian SW company given all the malware and such from Russia and E. Europe. I think I'll wait a while and make sure there isn't spyware or some backdoor tucked into this app.

This is the same reason I waited to use VPC since I don't always trust M$ not to sneak in something like this into their software.

I thought the same thing as you, however, they appear to be a US based company that outsources their development to Russian developers. Just like Apple is getting ready to outsource phone support to India. (Sorry couldn't resist)

nagromme
Apr 4, 2006, 12:04 PM
VPC or something similar like this is the way to go. Even if VPC goes forward, I'm glad to have more choices. All with full native speed or close to it.

Virtualization has two big advantages over dual-booting:

1. You can use ALL your apps at once. With dual-booting, you only have access to your Windows apps OR your Mac apps at any given time. What a hassle, especially if Mac OS is your main web/email/productivity platform and you just need one Windows app from your employer or something.

2. It can run from a hardfile instead of a partition--and that means your Mac is protected from Windows viruses. If you boot Windows on a Mac, then a Mac virus could attack not only the Windows partition, but the Mac partition as well: even if the virus did not have built-in HFS support (which is unlikely but doable), it could still erase your whole hard disk, Mac side and all. Not read and steal your Mac files (only your Windows files), but delete and destroy. Viruses made for pure vandalism aren't the most common kind, but they haven't gone away--look at the recent Kama Sutra worm. Virtualization protects you: it means Windows can only damage itself, unaware of anything outside its virtual hardfile (unless you specifically give it access to share your Mac partition).

I occasionally need Windows to test things for clients of mine who use Windows. But I do NOT want Windows viruses threatening my Mac, and I do NOT want to be hacking things or rebooting.

Virtualization to the rescue!

This is all good for the Mac platform--it will sell Macs. And the vast majority of people who buy Macs knowing they have the Windows "comfort zone" to fall back on WILL still use Mac OS as well. Very few will actually not even bother to try Mac OS and iLife when they've paid for them. In fact, many people who buy a Mac "because it can run Windows" won't actually do so. The safety net of knowing they could will be enough to make them buy, but they won't want to in the end. (Plus for the sake of using your old Windows apps, the simplest answer is also the cheapest: just hang onto your old PC on the side.)

I'm not worried about dire harm to Mac software development either: by growing the Mac platform, this will in fact help developers sell software. People COULD settle for Windows apps, but they won't WANT to. Demand is there--and growing--for real Mac apps, and demand is what gives developers the sales they need. After all, people ALREADY can settle for Windows apps: keep an old PC, or use VPC on PPC. "Settling" may get easier and faster now that we're on Intel, but it's still "settling." Using Windows isn't good enough for most Mac users, and using Windows apps isn't either.

FoxyKaye
Apr 4, 2006, 12:05 PM
...I have a question though: will we have the same type of driver issues those trying to run windows on their macs using the dual booting method have? Could I install this virtualization program and then play Half-Life 2?
In order: probably yes, since OS X uses OpenGL and Windows uses Direct X, and, probably not.

Wouldn't this weaken the security of Mac OS? If some form of Windows is running on the computer, wouldn't the holes that are in Windows be there as well? I feel that Windows on Mac OS would probably be more secure than Windows on Windows, I just worry about the backlash about security holes that culd be opened...
Well, maybe, maybe not. A lot of the Windows viruses and such rely on Windows-specific OS weaknesses. While a virus or other malware might affect the installation of Windows on an Intel Mac, it should be contained within that installation (folks will be no better or worse than they would if they were running Windows on a Dell, Gateway or HP PC). However, the capability for these viruses (virii, as you will :p) to jump hosts to OS X is probably very small, since they simply won't execute in a native OS X environment.

yac_moda
Apr 4, 2006, 12:05 PM
I was excited about this until it registered with me that this is being developed by a Russian company. Sorry, but don't know if I trust a Russian SW company given all the malware and such from Russia and E. Europe. I think I'll wait a while and make sure there isn't spyware or some backdoor tucked into this app.

This is the same reason I waited to use VPC since I don't always trust M$ not to sneak in something like this into their software.

http://www.parallels.com/en/company/

"About Us

Parallels, Inc. is a privately held, fast-growing software company based in Herndon, Virginia that is entirely focused on developing industry-leading workstation and server virtualization technologies. The Parallels team is one of the most mature in the industry. Core team members have been involved in software development, testing, and deployment since 1995, and have been entirely focused on virtualization technologies since 1999."

FoxyKaye
Apr 4, 2006, 12:06 PM
This is actuall a tall order. Rosetta is trnaslate hardware calls, but what you are asking for is on the fly presentation of the Windows subsystem and foundation classes via this product. You are thinking more along the lines of what WINE is trying to accomplish with linux and potentially Mac OS X now that the hardware call translation issues has gone away. Paralells product is clearly a VMWare/Virtual PC class product that will in fact need a full Windows install. The two items to take away form this are 1) They might be the first too actually ship for the intel Macs and 2) There prcie seems pretty fair on their Windows based products.
Yeah - I know. But a girl can dream...

ccrandall77
Apr 4, 2006, 12:06 PM
I thought the same thing as you, however, they appear to be a US based company that outsources their development to Russian developers. Just like Apple is getting ready to outsource phone support to India. (Sorry couldn't resist)

I don't know if that's any better since Russian programmers are writing the SW.

I hate to sound bigotted, but hey, when your country is known for such things you have to prove to me that your on the up and up before I'll trust.

Doctor Q
Apr 4, 2006, 12:09 PM
I wonder why there wasn't a contest to do this so we would've gotten this solution for free, like how we got dual-booting MacOSX and WinXP lolContests produce quick-and-dirty implementations, not products, and no product support. Open source is a viable alternative to commercial development, but contests are not.

gkhaldi
Apr 4, 2006, 12:10 PM
Now that's the best news I heard since I got my new MacBook Pro 2 months ago :) :) :)

Marx55
Apr 4, 2006, 12:12 PM
Apple, help to bring all this to Mactel and we will replace all our PC-Windows-Linux boxes at our University computing facilities with Mactels. We need machines capable of working with all major OSes, including Windows and Linux.

This alone will boost the Mac market share from 3-4% to 20-30% in a few years.

Apple: go for it as a built-in feature of Mactel machines and Mac OS X itself. Once Windows and Linux people taste the great Mac OS X, they will forget about Windows and Linux.

And there is no danger of developers moving from Mac OS X to Windows or Linux, because what makes Mac OS X unique and great is the interface. We want Mactels to run Mac software, but the possibility to run Windows and Linux is a tremendous guarantee for any people using now such OSes to switch to Mactel with peace of mind. Actually, the single most important issue preventing people switching is that Macs do not run Windows or do not run the Linux that they want (the one they run on their current PC boxes).

yac_moda
Apr 4, 2006, 12:12 PM
I don't know if that's any better since Russian programmers are writing the SW.

I hate to sound bigotted, but hey, when your country is known for such things you have to prove to me that your on the up and up before I'll trust.

So I am sure when YOU buy this software YOU will be the ONLY ONE buying it and any claims about its quality will be TOTALLY BOGUS !!!


http://www.parallels.com/en/

"The World’s First Hypervisor-powered Desktop Virtualization Solution: Parallels Workstation 2.1 is the first desktop virtualization solution to include a lightweight hypervisor to dramatically improve virtual machine stability and performance.
Optimized for Hardware Virtualization: Parallels Workstation’s lightweight hypervisor fully supports the features and benefits of next-generation CPUs built on Intel’s Virtualization Technology “VT” architecture.
Strong OS Support: A sophisticated virtual machine engine that offers broad support of x86-based operating systems, including the entire Windows family from 3.1 to XP and Server 2003, several Linux distributions, FreeBSD, Solaris and “legacy” operating systems like OS/2, eComStation and MS-DOS.
Easy to Install, Easy to Use: A powerful wizard enables users to create virtual machines in seconds, and the industry’s most user-friendly management console ensures hassle free control operation.
Lowest TCO: At an industry-leading price of $49.99 per license, Parallels Workstation is the most cost effective desktop virtualization solution available today."

baleensavage
Apr 4, 2006, 12:20 PM
I think it will be great if someone beats M$ to the punch. M$ is notorious for slow updates and many people rely on VPC for their work and can't therefore update to Intel until it works. If there's an alternative comptitor for VPC then it may level out the playing field.

yac_moda
Apr 4, 2006, 12:20 PM
Here it is RIGHT HERE, IT WILL BE A GAME WONDERKIN :eek: :cool: :D ...


"Intel Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d), which extends virtualization support into the platform by making it possible to robustly assign IO devices to virtual machines (VMs) in a virtualized system. This enables devices to be driven "directly" by the native/physical driver when assigned to a virtual machine, resulting in significantly faster virtual machine performance."

http://www.parallels.com/en/products/workstation/newfeatures/
"Support for Physical Address Extension (PAE) allows Workstation 2.1 to run on PAE-enabled primary OSes with up to 4GB of RAM."

http://www.parallels.com/en/news/id,8562


"Media/Analyst Contact:
Benjamin Rudolph +1.703.234.5549 ben.rudolph@parallels.com
printer-friendly version
Parallels Workstation 2.1 Offers Superior Hardware Support, New Interface, Free Upgrade
Company also commits to support Intel's new Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O® (VT-d)

March 23, 2006
HERNDON, Virginia – March 23rd, 2006 – Parallels, Inc., (www.parallels.com) today announced the general availability of version 2.1 of its desktop virtualization software, Parallels Workstation. The upgraded version delivers faster performance, better stability, and stronger isolation of virtual machines.

Additional improvements and new features in the popular, easy-to-use, cost-effective virtualization software include:

A completely re-designed interface.
Better hardware support, including USB and wireless networking support, and support for PAE-enabled machines.
Better functionality, including the ability to suspend and resume VM (virtual machine) activity, a new "compact hard disk" feature that helps users manage available hard disk resources, and a more robust tools package that lets users personalize their experience.
Primary and guest support for SUSE Linux 10.
Guest OS support for Sun Solaris.
Improved performance for guest OS/2 virtual machines.
A complete list of Workstation 2.1's new features and functions is available at http://www.parallels.com/en/products/workstation/newfeatures/.

"Parallels Workstation 2.1 is everything you need in a virtualization solution; it offers superlative performance, stability and ease of use, and on top of that, it is by far the most cost-effective solution available," said Benjamin Rudolph, Parallels' Marketing Manager. "This release's impressive performance, feature set and industry-leading, low price point, coupled with free upgrades for current customers and responsive support, reinforce our across-the-board commitment to building virtualization solutions that work for anyone, regardless of computer savvy or budget."

Additionally, Parallels announced that future versions of Parallels virtualization products will offer full support for Intel's next generation of hardware virtualization technology, Intel Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d), which extends virtualization support into the platform by making it possible to robustly assign IO devices to virtual machines (VMs) in a virtualized system. This enables devices to be driven "directly" by the native/physical driver when assigned to a virtual machine, resulting in significantly faster virtual machine performance.

"Intel is delivering relevant innovations for virtualization solution providers including Intel Virtualization Technology for CPU (VTx) and Directed IO (VTd), Dual Core microprocessors and Intel(R) Core(R) Microarchitecture," said David Tuhy, General Manager of Intel's Desktop Products Division. "Parallels has taken full advantage of VTx in Parallels Workstation 2.1, and we look forward to continued collaboration with Parallels on enabling new platform capabilities such as VTd which will help improve the reliability, performance and flexibility of I/O devices on virtual machines."

As part of the company's ongoing efforts to build powerful products that meet any IT budget, Parallels is offering registered Workstation 2.0 customers a free upgrade to version 2.1. Registered users will be receiving an email with instructions on how to receive their 2.1 permanent license key.

New users can purchase licenses at the industry-leading low price of $49.99 directly through the company's online store at http://www.parallels.com/buyonline. New users are also welcome to download and evaluate a free, fully functional trial by visiting the Parallels Download Center at http://www.parallels.com/download.

About Parallels

Parallels is server and workstation virtualization solutions company committed to building powerful, user friendly, cost-effective products that can be used by anyone, from an experienced developer to a computer "newbie" to improve efficiency, lower hardware costs, and reduce operating expenses. The company's products all feature hypervisor technology for strong, stable virtual machines, and an intuitive web-like interface that facilitates zero-training operation. Additionally, Parallels solutions fully support Intel Virtualization Technology architecture, which is optimized to provide superior virtual machine performance. The company is rapidly growing and employs a global team of experienced technical and business professionals. For more information, please visit www.parallels.com.

Media/Analyst Contact

Benjamin H. Rudolph
Marketing Manager, Parallels
703.234.5549 (direct)
202.437.6701 (mobile)
ben.rudolph@parallels.com"

ccrandall77
Apr 4, 2006, 12:22 PM
So I am sure when YOU buy this software YOU will be the ONLY ONE buying it and any claims about its quality will be TOTALLY BOGUS !!!

I said I'd wait before buying it to make sure that it is a quality product. Your comment makes no sense.

balamw
Apr 4, 2006, 12:22 PM
I'm betting on the guys on the QEMU/Q project to deliver the first working virtualization solution. But they could use a lot more help.
According to a comment here: http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/02/22/1659201 Parallels is QEMU based and is thus a competitor to Q.

B

daveschroeder
Apr 4, 2006, 12:23 PM
I don't know if that's any better since Russian programmers are writing the SW.

I hate to sound bigotted, but hey, when your country is known for such things you have to prove to me that your on the up and up before I'll trust.The fact that the developers are Russian has literally no bearing on whether the software contains spyware or backdoors (wtf?). Also, have you ever heard of MacKiev, or the trend for quite a bit of programming to be done by former Russian nuclear scientists and engineers?

First of all, Parallels is a fairly established, albeit somewhat new, player in the virtualization marketplace. They already have products for Windows and Linux, and it's the first desktop virtualization product on any platform to support Intel VT for virtualization.

It uses a hypervisor layer at the kernel level to directly pass calls to the processor. There is no emulation. Why don't you take a look at the product?

http://www.parallels.com/en/

Datasheet:

http://www.parallels.com/files/upload/Parallels_Workstation_2_1_Datasheet.pdf

White paper:

http://backend.parallels.com/files/upload/Parallels_Workstation_2_1_WhitePaper.pdf

No virtualization products currently are really appropriate for gaming or 3D graphics applications, however, Parallels is also planning on adding such support http://www.parallels.com/en/support/faq/:

"Parallels Workstation virtualizes VGA and SVGA with VESA 3.0 support video card. This allows you to run any 2D graphic application inside guest OS. Direct3D support is in scope for future versions of Parallels Workstation."

Also, the list of *officially supported* guest OSes:

http://www.parallels.com/en/products/guest_os/

And those are just the ones that are officially supported; pretty much any x86 OS should be able to be used.

You may also be interested in this interview:

http://www.virtualization.info/2006/01/virtualizationinfo-interviews.html

For only $50, this is quite a product. Luckily, Parallels saw the value of this market as soon as Apple announced the Intel transition and has been working on a Mac OS X product ever since.

---
Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu

baleensavage
Apr 4, 2006, 12:24 PM
I don't know if that's any better since Russian programmers are writing the SW.
:eek: I really don't think that nationality has a direct effect on how good of a programmer someone is. Just remember, some of the worst software out there comes from the good 'ol USA.

yac_moda
Apr 4, 2006, 12:25 PM
I said I'd wait before buying it to make sure that it is a quality product. Your comment makes no sense.

I am not the only one.

daveschroeder
Apr 4, 2006, 12:25 PM
According to a comment here: http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/02/22/1659201 Parallels is QEMU based and is thus a competitor to Q.

B

It is most definitely not a competitor to Q, as Q has no virtualization and is slow as molasses because of it. It is using 100% emulated calls.

Once Q/QEMU on Mac OS X gets virtualization, then yes, I suppose you could say it's a "competitor".

Also, I doubt Q/QEMU will support Intel VT anytime soon.

---
Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu

crees!
Apr 4, 2006, 12:26 PM
NOW I will have no significant issues in convincing my parents to switch who are "too old to change and learn something new". Hell, I think I'll just wait for Leapard to be released and buy one right then and there for them.

yac_moda
Apr 4, 2006, 12:27 PM
The fact that the developers are Russian has literally no bearing on whether the software contains spyware or backdoors (wtf?). Also, have you ever heard of MacKiev, or the trend for quite a bit of programming to be done by former Russian nuclear scientists and engineers?

First of all, Parallels is a fairly established, albeit somewhat new, player in the virtualization marketplace. They already have products for Windows and Linux, and it's the first desktop virtualization product on any platform to support Intel VT for virtualization.

It uses a hypervisor layer at the kernel level to directly pass calls to the processor. There is no emulation. Why don't you take a look at the product?

http://www.parallels.com/en/

Datasheet:

http://www.parallels.com/files/upload/Parallels_Workstation_2_1_Datasheet.pdf

White paper:

http://backend.parallels.com/files/upload/Parallels_Workstation_2_1_WhitePaper.pdf

No virtualization products currently are really appropriate for gaming or 3D graphics applications, however, Parallels is also planning on adding such support http://www.parallels.com/en/support/faq/:

"Parallels Workstation virtualizes VGA and SVGA with VESA 3.0 support video card. This allows you to run any 2D graphic application inside guest OS. Direct3D support is in scope for future versions of Parallels Workstation."

Also, the list of *officially supported* guest OSes:

http://www.parallels.com/en/products/guest_os/

And those are just the ones that are officially supported; pretty much any x86 OS should be able to be used.

You may also be interested in this interview:

http://www.virtualization.info/2006/01/virtualizationinfo-interviews.html

For only $50, this is quite a product. Luckily, Parallels saw the value of this market as soon as Apple announced the Intel transition and has been working on a Mac OS X product ever since.


Thanks for stating the ugly truth.

YES this line of conversation has been QUITE BAZARE :eek:

ccrandall77
Apr 4, 2006, 12:29 PM
The fact that the developers are Russian has literally no bearing on whether the software contains spyware or backdoors (wtf?). Also, have you ever heard of MacKiev, or the trend for quite a bit of programming to be done by former Russian nuclear scientists and engineers?

Nice apples to oranges comparison. I never said that all Russian programmers were bad, but the fact remains that enough malware as come from there that it gives me reason to pause.

I suppose you automatically assume that anyone from Nigeria who'd bid on your eBay auction is on the up and up, eh?

daveschroeder
Apr 4, 2006, 12:36 PM
Nice apples to oranges comparison. I never said that all Russian programmers were bad, but the fact remains that enough malware as come from there that it gives me reason to pause.

I suppose you automatically assume that anyone from Nigeria who'd bid on your eBay auction is on the up and up, eh?

It's not apples to oranges at all. It's spot on.

You're assuming that because software developers at a US-based commercial company developing enterprise products are based in Russia that the software has any higher of a likelihood of containing spyware or backdoors (!), and there is no basis for that assumption just because actual spyware and/or malware is known to originate from, e.g., Asia at large.

Not to mention you completely glossed over the substantial technical merits and featureset of the actual product, which is already shipping commercially on two platforms (Windows and Linux).

---
Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu

WindowsDivorcer
Apr 4, 2006, 12:36 PM
Wow, a sensible debate on the merits of virtualisation and not a "How dare you put Windows on a Mac" posting in sight (yet)!!!

Certain 'flammers' always missed the fact that although Windows is inferior to OS X, there are many excellent 3rd party apps that have ignored Macs. I'm having to put off replacing my creaky Powerbook G4 until there is a Virtual PC update or equivalent application. Rebooting whilst good for a clean configuration before running hungry games, doesn’t cut it when using mixed applications.

I'm hoping (cross fingers) for superior performance of a Virtual PC-like product in the short term; after all it only has to emulate the OS and not the CPU. In the longer term the ability to run an application window straight from the mac dock without launching a separate desktop.

daveschroeder
Apr 4, 2006, 12:41 PM
I'm hoping (cross fingers) for superior performance of a Virtual PC-like product in the short term; after all it only has to emulate the OS and not the CPU. In the longer term the ability to run an application window straight from the mac dock without launching a separate desktop.

It's not even emulating the OS. The OS believes it is running natively on x86 hardware, and x86 calls are being directly passed to the CPU at the kernel level. This is what virtualization software *is*. It will (not "may", not "might", but "will") run x86 operating systems at essentially the speed of the underlying hardware. This means that, except for 3D graphics and heavy disk I/O, your Windows XP, Linux, FreeBSD, etc., installation will perform almost as well as it would natively running on the hardware directly, with very little overhead. Because Parallels uses Intel's VT, which further partitions the processor specifically for virtualization tasks, there is even less overhead than there have been with traditional virtualization solutions.

And yes, you're right: this will be a holy grail for many people.

---
Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu

Hattig
Apr 4, 2006, 12:44 PM
Hmmm.

Whilst virtualisation hardware is in Intel's Core Duo and Solo processors, it isn't enabled currently (although the upcoming T2700 is said to have it enabled). Of course it could merely be that current Yonahs are enabled, it just isn't advertised.

And running Windows XP under virtualisation requires hardware virtualisation, there's no way to run the OS on top of a hypervisor like Xen because a software hypervisor requires the guest operating systems to have modifications to run on the hypervisor - easy enough to do for Linux or *BSD, but not a closed source OS like Microsoft (although Microsoft Research will have done a version that runs on the Xen hypervisor, it'll never see the light of day).

This company has written, from nowhere, a virtualisation solution that can run Mac OS X Intel, Windows XP and Linux (at the very least) with no fanfare until today? Maybe they're building off of another product, such as Xen, and their work has merely been getting Xen installed on a Mac reliably and running other operating systems.

Edit: Ah, they use QEMU with their own extensions.

balamw
Apr 4, 2006, 12:46 PM
Once Q/QEMU on Mac OS X gets virtualization, then yes, I suppose you could say it's a "competitor".
Thanks for casting some light into the situation.

I thought there was some ongoing work for a QEMU "Accelerator Module" that was to bring virtualization support to QEMU, probbaly in a similar way to what Parallels has done/is working on. Yup. (http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/qemu-accel.html)

Definitely whoever fills this space first with a < $100 solution offering decent performance will probably get my money.

B

barisax5of12
Apr 4, 2006, 12:49 PM
Just looked at Parrallel and noticed that the virtual machine specs are interesting. When their OSX Workstation comes available will the guest Windows operating system be stuck under a Pentium II?

yac_moda
Apr 4, 2006, 12:50 PM
It's not even emulating the OS. The OS believes it is running natively on x86 hardware, and x86 calls are being directly passed to the CPU at the kernel level. This is what virtualization software *is*. It will (not "may", not "might", but "will") run x86 operating systems at essentially the speed of the underlying hardware. This means that, except for 3D graphics and heavy disk I/O, your Windows XP, Linux, FreeBSD, etc., installation will perform almost as well as it would natively running on the hardware directly, with very little overhead. Because Parallels uses Intel's VT, which further partitions the processor specifically for virtualization tasks, there is even less overhead than there have been with traditional virtualization solutions.

And yes, you're right: this will be a holy grail for many people.

---
Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu

The opensource virtualization software that is used to create these products creates a layer between the software and the hardware that emulates the most basic system and self optimizes as the software runs.

Check the opensource website it will explain it to you.

But you are right there will very little over head, and the particular software mentioned is very customizable so games can easily be maximized !!!

Check my last post for that.

daveschroeder
Apr 4, 2006, 12:50 PM
Hmmm.

Whilst virtualisation hardware is in Intel's Core Duo and Solo processors, it isn't enabled currently (although the upcoming T2700 is said to have it enabled). Of course it could merely be that current Yonahs are enabled, it just isn't advertised.

Wrong. Intel VT is enabled on *all* Core Duos in Intel-based Macs (except some Mac minis).

And running Windows XP under virtualisation requires hardware virtualisation, there's no way to run the OS on top of a hypervisor like Xen because a software hypervisor requires the guest operating systems to have modifications to run on the hypervisor - easy enough to do for Linux or *BSD, but not a closed source OS like Microsoft (although Microsoft Research will have done a version that runs on the Xen hypervisor, it'll never see the light of day).

The hypervisor model Parallels uses is kernel-level calls interfacing with the userland product running under the "Primary" OS.

This Russian company has written, from nowhere, a virtualisation solution that can run Mac OS X Intel, Windows XP and Linux (at the very least) with no fanfare until today?

1. It can't run Mac OS X (Intel). It runs *on* Mac OS X (Intel).

2. It is already shipping for Windows and Linux.

3. It already has official support for all of these OSes in the Windows and Linux product: http://www.parallels.com/en/products/guest_os/

---
Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu

Multimedia
Apr 4, 2006, 12:52 PM
Glad to see it only took 3 months for someone to figure out how we can have our cake (OS X) and eat it too (Vista). Let's face it, some applications are never going to be written for Mac. This is great and not unexpected news. :D :p :) :) :) :eek: :eek: :) :) :)

daveschroeder
Apr 4, 2006, 12:52 PM
Just looked at Parrallel and noticed that the virtual machine specs are interesting. When their OSX Workstation comes available will the guest Windows operating system be stuck under a Pentium II?

No. The VT model means that the guest OS will see the processor as a single core Intel Core family processor.

---
Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu

crees!
Apr 4, 2006, 12:52 PM
It's not apples to oranges at all. It's spot on.

You're assuming that because software developers at a US-based commercial company developing enterprise products are based in Russia ...
So they're based in Herdon, VA but are developing products based in Russia. That makes no sense to me whatsoever.

iMeowbot
Apr 4, 2006, 12:53 PM
Whoa, there cowboy! I had a look at the current product when I read the headline about it earlier from CNet and, while it will emulate different hardware components such as network devices and sound cards, I didn't notice anything about display adaptors, let alone 3D acceleration. I suspect that while you'll be able to install and run Windows much more simply using this rather than the OnMac.net solution, gaming isn't something that you'll be doing, at least not beyond minesweeper.
It's VESA VBE 3.0, which is little more than frame buffer functionality. They claim to be working on Direct3D compatibility in the future.

Peace
Apr 4, 2006, 12:56 PM
So they're based in Herdon, VA but are developing products based in Russia. That makes no sense to me whatsoever.

I'm guessing their servers are based in Herndon,Va.

esaleris
Apr 4, 2006, 12:56 PM
If virtualization is in Leopard then it should be THE BEST MACHINE FOR GAMES :eek: :D

I think it is VERY LIKELY the reason Dell bought Alien is because Dell knows that Jobs is building the new Macs to be great game MACchines so he bought Alien to try to counter Jobs move. :eek: :eek: :eek:

Quite candidly, that is so ridiculous, I had to comment on it. I'm not even sure Dell considers Apple a big competitor in general, much less "gamer" market. The move to buy out Alienware had a lot to do with the recent moves to diversify its portfolio of products. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with Macs.

daveschroeder
Apr 4, 2006, 12:57 PM
So they're based in Herdon, VA but are developing products based in Russia. That makes no sense to me whatsoever.

It makes no sense to you that there are Russian Mac OS X programmers, many of whom are former Soviet government scientists and engineers who are now out of work, who do very precise and high quality work for a mere fraction of the cost of programming teams based exclusively in the US?

If only corporations would realize that outsourcing labor for things like textile or automotive manufacturing to locations outside of the US would save loads of money, because the local economies allow for lower wages!

Oh, wait...

---
Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu

crees!
Apr 4, 2006, 12:58 PM
Skimming over the site I see NO mention of Mac support as the Primary OS. This is only available for Windows NT/2000/XP/2003 or Linux OSes.

http://www.parallels.com/en/products/hardware/

MrCrowbar
Apr 4, 2006, 12:58 PM
What if Apple came out with a MACchine that has BOTH a PPC and an Intel processer, game coders could build and test and all targets instantly :eek: :eek: :eek:

Now that's an interesting concept: 2 different CPUs in the same box. Imagine a powerMac with dual core G4 (64 bit RISC) and a Core Duo (32 bit CISC) working together. That would be the perfect system for "the transition". You could run some thread on the G5 and some on the Core Duo, depending on which CPU is better suited for the task. Or for making it more simple, you can choose whether to run an app on the G5 or Core Duo, depening on which one runs faster. So iPhoto would be running on the Intel while Photoshop is on the G5. Of yourse the OS would have some work with handling Memory usage and the mainboard would look disturbing at first (PPC inches away from an Intel on the same board... that doesn't seem right) but it would be cool in a technical way.

However it's good to be aple to isolate the infection (windows) in vitro :rolleyes:

daveschroeder
Apr 4, 2006, 01:00 PM
I'm guessing their servers are based in Herndon,Va.

No, the company and business/marketing/support offices are based in Herndon, VA, and it is entirely a US corporation, making use of Russian programming labor and expertise, which is now extremely common, and has been in the Mac OS X marketplace for some time, which apparently has been lost on everyone here.

And I still don't see what bearing where the programmers are based has on anything, much less the quality of the product.

---
Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu

Skimming over the site I see NO mention of Mac support as the Primary OS. This is only available for Windows NT/2000/XP/2003 or Linux OSes.

http://www.parallels.com/en/products/hardware/

That is correct.

That's because the Mac OS X product is not, you know, even released yet.

They kind of mentioned that in both the summary here and the actual article: http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?newsID=5712

---
Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu

Now that's an interesting concept: 2 different CPUs in the same box. Imagine a powerMac with dual core G4 (64 bit RISC) and a Core Duo (32 bit CISC) working together. That would be the perfect system for "the transition". You could run some thread on the G5 and some on the Core Duo, depending on which CPU is better suited for the task. Or for making it more simple, you can choose whether to run an app on the G5 or Core Duo, depening on which one runs faster. So iPhoto would be running on the Intel while Photoshop is on the G5. Of yourse the OS would have some work with handling Memory usage and the mainboard would look disturbing at first (PPC inches away from an Intel on the same board... that doesn't seem right) but it would be cool in a technical way.

However it's good to be aple to isolate the infection (windows) in vitro :rolleyes:

That's a pretty ridiculous and unnecessary idea. So much so, in fact, that it was an April Fool's joke:

http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20060331205742408

---
Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu

crees!
Apr 4, 2006, 01:07 PM
It makes no sense to you that there are Russian Mac OS X programmers, many of whom are former Soviet government scientists and engineers who are now out of work, who do very precise and high quality work for a mere fraction of the cost of programming teams based exclusively in the US?

If only corporations would realize that outsourcing labor for things like textile or automotive manufacturing to locations outside of the US would save loads of money, because the local economies allow for lower wages!
Dude.. you're going a little crazy here. I don't care who's developing what. Besides there's NO MENTION of anything Russian on the company's site. So I have no idea how/why this fuss came up as it is totally NOT RELATED to this company/program. My suggestion... drop it.

Peace
Apr 4, 2006, 01:08 PM
Wasn't the guy that came up with the dual-boot thing Russian ?

iMeowbot
Apr 4, 2006, 01:11 PM
Wasn't the guy that came up with the dual-boot thing Russian ?
The guy who cracked OS X to run on generic PCs is. The people who got Windows running on Mac are based in California.

Communigate (nice Mac mail server from the old days, I think they are still around) came from Russia too.

yac_moda
Apr 4, 2006, 01:13 PM
Quite candidly, that is so ridiculous, I had to comment on it. I'm not even sure Dell considers Apple a big competitor in general, much less "gamer" market. The move to buy out Alienware had a lot to do with the recent moves to diversify its portfolio of products. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with Macs.

Gee that's funny the way you put it Dell would never even recognize Apple exists or mention Apple.

Even while Dell and Jobs have seemed to have a feud going :eek:


Apple has been eating Dell's lunch ever since there stock charts crossed paths ...
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=1y&s=DELL&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=aapl

WOW !!! DELL's chart is DOWN 50% in the last few months that is one NASTY UGLY CHART !!

I wonder how much longer they will be in business !


I remember when Jobs said Gateway and Dell would be out of business in 2 years. He was right about Gateway maybe Dell will just take a little longer :eek:

mark88
Apr 4, 2006, 01:15 PM
Great News, I hope it's good!

Shame on you people voting negative.:p

seashellz
Apr 4, 2006, 01:17 PM
Imagine-people dumping PCs by the thousands (an many even Windows)
When you have a Mac that can smoothly and quickly run anything.
My one question is: would Windows faults be the same as if on a PC or would it more more stable and secure? Anyway-heres to 50% marketshare ina few years. OH-and dont say Steve doesnt care about it-you grow to survive-and he woldnt have switched to Intel if he didnt;
-------
Parallels enters virtualisation market FOR $100.00!

By Manek Dubash, Techworld

There's a new kid on the virtualisation block. Parallels, a privately held, US-based software company has launched its first virtualisation tool, Parallels Workstation, and plans to produce a server version by the start of next year.

second ponder: WHAT IF WINDOWS rans faster and smoother on a Mac??? (ans WASNT as prone to hacks and viruses?)
The Russian-developed software competes directly with VMware Workstation and Microsoft Virtual PC, although marketing manager Benjamin Rudolph said that the product has three differentiators. Firstly, it is cheaper, the workstation version selling for $99. Rudolph said this compared to $189 for the VMware equivalent.

It is also claimed to support a wide range of OSes, both guest and host. As well as Mac OS X, Windows 2000 (all versions), 2003 Server and XP, host OSes include most Linux versions based on the 2.6 kernel, according to Rudolph. It supports FreeBSD and is "very strong on legacy support", such as OS/2.

The final benefit is its ease of use, said Rudolph. "It has a small footprint, and is quick to download and install. To create a virtual machine, there's a simple VM creation wizard," he said. "Version 2.0 [of Workstation] is our current rev and 3.0 is out in 2006. It will be faster, offer more OS support, and include features such as 64-bit and [Intel] VT support."

Parallels Server is for IT managers to maximise hardware usage. "It will be tailored for the server environment. It's still in development, but we'll be able to release more technology data in the next couple of months."

There will also be an Enterprise Server version in 2006, which will be able to manage VMs across multiple hardware instances, in much the same manner as existing enterprise-level virtualisation tools.

daveschroeder
Apr 4, 2006, 01:21 PM
Parallels enters virtualisation market FOR $100.00!

And actually, the Workstation product is now $50.

One inaccuracy in that article: there is no Guest OS support for Mac OS X.

---
Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu

Peace
Apr 4, 2006, 01:23 PM
And actually, the Workstation product is now $50.

---
Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu

Do you work for them?

daveschroeder
Apr 4, 2006, 01:25 PM
Do you work for them?

No, but I am quite familiar with how the Parallels product works on Windows and Linux, and they quite clearly state that Parallels Workstation is $49.99.

---
Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu

esaleris
Apr 4, 2006, 01:30 PM
Apple has been eating Dell's lunch ever since there stock charts crossed paths ...
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=1y&s=DELL&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=aapl

WOW !!! DELL's chart is DOWN 50% in the last few months that is one NASTY UGLY CHART !!

I wonder how much longer they will be in business !

Correlation does not prove causality. Yes, the charts show Apple going up and Dell going down. But half of the upswing in the last 12 months - before Intel transition - was based on expectations built on Apple's iPod and not the computer line. General investor excitement over the personal computing part of Apple's business only started with the MacTel announcements. In fact, the stock doubled before the Intel transition announcement; since the Intel transition announcement, the stock has dropped 25%. Does that mean that Intel Macs have caused the company's financial downturn? I don't think so - more likely investors were just cashing in on a big announcement and the market evened out.

But all of this certainly proves that drawing vague correlations between stock prices proves nothing about the business models and there is no logic behind drawing conclusions retroactively based on the stock price. There are a lot more factors than just competition between the two - and a lot more competition than just Dell and Apple in the consumer-PC market.

But you're right, there's a feud in ideologies. There's a feud in marketing, in getting into the minds of individual consumers. Dell wants to get as much space in the heart and soul of people as Apple does. But is there a battle for market supremacy? Not really. When the average American Mom and Dad are forced to look at laptops for their kids in high school or college - and by average, I mean average per capita income - they're going to go with Dell. Mac still represents a small fraction of the volume Dell pushes.

yac_moda
Apr 4, 2006, 01:40 PM
Correlation does not prove causality. Yes, the charts show Apple going up and Dell going down. But half of the upswing in the last 12 months was based on expectations built on Apple's iPod and not the computer line. General investor excitement over the personal computing part of Apple's business only started with the MacTel announcements. In fact, the stock doubled before the Intel transition announcement; since the Intel transition announcement, the stock has dropped 25%. Does that mean that Intel Macs have caused the company's financial downturn? I don't think so - more likely investors were just cashing in on a big announcement and the market evened out.

But all of this certainly proves that drawing vague correlations between stock prices proves nothing about the business models and there is no logic behind drawing conclusions retroactively based on the stock price. There are a lot more factors than just competition between the two - and a lot more competition than just Dell and Apple in the consumer-PC market.

But you're right, there's a feud in ideologies. There's a feud in marketing, in getting into the minds of individual consumers. Dell wants to get as much space in the heart and soul of people as Apple does. But is there a battle for market supremacy? Not really. When the average American Mom and Dad are forced to look at laptops for their kids in high school or college - and by average, I mean average per capita income - they're going to go with Dell. Mac still represents a small fraction of the volume Dell pushes.


Yah, right, and Dell bought Alien because Apple is bought to kick their butt into the weeds and Dell is shaking in his boots !!!

Your arguments have NOT convinced me, persuaded me, or told me anything NEW although did not previously know Dell's chart looked so sickly.

Some guy was telling me about Dell support the other day, and he now HATES Dell, and would do ANYTHING to get away from them !!!

(L)
Apr 4, 2006, 01:47 PM
Wouldn't this weaken the security of Mac OS? If some form of Windows is running on the computer, wouldn't the holes that are in Windows be there as well? I feel that Windows on Mac OS would probably be more secure than Windows on Windows, I just worry about the backlash about security holes that culd be opened...

Windows on Windows...Actually, all those security holes may be thought of as virtual black holes...if the string layer were to collide in such a way that any 2 of countless millions of such holes were to come within 70 nm (width of a hair) of each other, which is inevitable, it may create an artificial wormhole. At that point you will want to quickly cover the hole (on your end) with some marshmallows and some sticky goop. Otherwise, the demons from Hell will crawl out of Windows and the Gates will open for your entry.

Eric5h5
Apr 4, 2006, 01:57 PM
In order: probably yes, since OS X uses OpenGL and Windows uses Direct X, and, probably not.

Well, no, Direct3D/OpenGL has nothing to do with anything in this case. Windows runs OpenGL too, after all. The problem is direct access to graphics card hardware...even if OS X used Direct3D, that issue wouldn't change. It's a pretty tricky problem to solve, actually.

--Eric

cal6n
Apr 4, 2006, 02:03 PM
Windows on Windows...Actually, all those security holes may be thought of as virtual black holes...if the string layer were to collide in such a way that any 2 of countless millions of such holes were to come within 70 nm (width of a hair) of each other, which is inevitable, it may create an artificial wormhole. At that point you will want to quickly cover the hole (on your end) with some marshmallows and some sticky goop. Otherwise, the demons from Hell will crawl out of Windows and the Gates will open for your entry.

So it'll be like Doom but for real?

Excellent :D

Electro Funk
Apr 4, 2006, 02:05 PM
If this runs near native speeds i will be making a purchase the minute this is released! :cool:

balamw
Apr 4, 2006, 02:08 PM
FWIW, I was just informed that MS Virtual Server 2005 R2 is being released as a free download (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/default.mspx)(requires XP or 2003 as the host OS). This after the VMWare Player became free, makes it seem like things are really finally heating up in the realm of virtualization.

Built-in virtualization in Leopard (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=188867) doesn't seem so far fetched.

B

boncellis
Apr 4, 2006, 02:12 PM
It sounds promising, to say the least. I am waiting for the backlash and the doomsayers who will try to convince me that this is the first step in the degradation of OS X...

Looking at the requirements for the Bar Exam in my state, I found that it explicitly forbids virtualization software to run the Windows only software during the test. I think that might be the only reason I would have to dual boot--but I think new blood in the virtualization arena is more than welcome.

pavetheforest
Apr 4, 2006, 02:12 PM
do you think it will run windows apps fast ?

boncellis
Apr 4, 2006, 02:14 PM
This seems like pretty good news for Apple, I wonder why the stock has stayed down as long as it has. Are new products the only thing the market can get excited about (in terms of AAPL)?

pavetheforest
Apr 4, 2006, 02:15 PM
My one question is: would Windows faults be the same as if on a PC or would it more more stable and secure?

that is a great question....anyone???

Bosunsfate
Apr 4, 2006, 02:20 PM
Yah, right, and Dell bought Alien because Apple is bought to kick their butt into the weeds and Dell is shaking in his boots !!!

Your arguments have NOT convinced me, persuaded me, or told me anything NEW although did not previously know Dell's chart looked so sickly.

Some guy was telling me about Dell support the other day, and he now HATES Dell, and would do ANYTHING to get away from them !!!

And the angry customers at Apple mean that we won't see new MacBooks?:cool:

Dell isn't going anywhere...

Shadow
Apr 4, 2006, 02:24 PM
I cant wait, I would love to be able to run C&C Generals at a reasonable speed. This will be awesome. Any word on the price??:confused: :confused:
That can be done anyway...it was ported from Windows to Mac by some game porting company (although I can't remember which one). If you have a decent GFX card you'll be able to run C&C G at a reasonable speed (aslong as it isnt Intel...)

boncellis
Apr 4, 2006, 02:29 PM
that is a great question....anyone???

Somebody jump in if I'm not entirely correct, but from what I've read virtualization technology does not open the system architecture up to the same vulnerabilities as there would be if Windows was running natively. I believe the technology contains the virtualized OS to a "box" so that it cannot run wild all over your machine, as it were.

I'm not an engineer, as if you couldn't tell. Somebody feel free to clarify or correct me.

ChrisA
Apr 4, 2006, 02:41 PM
QEMU does the same thing. It allows you to run a virtual machine under Mac OS. You can run just about any OS on that VM. Linux, Windows oe something else.

QEMU has one more advantage over the others too. It can emulate not only X86 but PPC, SPARC and ARM. SO in theory you could run Windows XP and Mac OS 9 both on your Intel Mac.

QEMU will run VM images built by itself or built by VMWare or others

THis has been available for a long time now at http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/

iMeowbot
Apr 4, 2006, 02:42 PM
Somebody jump in if I'm not entirely correct, but from what I've read virtualization technology does not open the system architecture up to the same vulnerabilities as there would be if Windows was running natively. I believe the technology contains the virtualized OS to a "box" so that it cannot run wild all over your machine, as it were.
There is some degree of sandboxing with most VM products, and it does help some, but it is not a panacea. First, the guest operating system still has all the same vulnerabilities it would if running solo on a computer. Any data you keep in that virtual disk image can be vulnerable (and some of it you probably want, otherwise why are you hosting another operating system?), and it's possible for that VM to be infected/pwned/etc. if you aren't careful. If you map in important directories or disks from the host OS (at least some of that is often necessary if you are trying to get actual work done), all that data would be vulnerable too.

ChrisA
Apr 4, 2006, 02:46 PM
Somebody jump in if I'm not entirely correct, but from what I've read virtualization technology does not open the system architecture up to the same vulnerabilities as there would be if Windows was running natively. I believe the technology contains the virtualized OS to a "box" so that it cannot run wild all over your machine, as it were..

Yes you are right. But the "virtual machine" can still get junked up with spyware and the lke. Cleanning up a VM is easy. Simply delete it. The VM looks like a file to Mac OS. If you have saved a copy of the file from before it was "gunkked up" you are set.

The best way to run Windows XP in a VM is to "share" some files from the Mac to the virtual PC. That way when you periodically trash the VM image your PC files are safe in the Mac's HFS+ system

It's really no differnt then having a real PC, only that periodic full reinstall takes second rather then hours.

daveschroeder
Apr 4, 2006, 02:49 PM
QEMU does the same thing. It allows you to run a virtual machine under Mac OS. You can run just about any OS on that VM. Linux, Windows oe something else.

QEMU has one more advantage over the others too. It can emulate not only X86 but PPC, SPARC and ARM. SO in theory you could run Windows XP and Mac OS 9 both on your Intel Mac.

QEMU will run VM images built by itself or built by VMWare or others

THis has been available for a long time now at http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/

Yes, QEMU is great, and Q (the Mac OS X/Cocoa wrapper for QEMU) looks very good as well. And, it's free.

However, QEMU/Q does not yet have virtualization on Mac OS X, making it very slow for modern OSes (like Windows XP, RHEL, Fedora Core 5, and so on).

At some point, we can expect QEMU/Q to support hardware virtualization, instead of emulation for x86 platforms, on Intel-based Macs. Then it can be considered a competitor in the virtual machine space. Until then, it won't come *close* to the performance and speed of a virtualization product on Mac OS X.

Also, some customers will always want a commercially vendor-supported product for enterprise/business/institutional deployments. This is something that QEMU/Q will never be able to be; that's not to say that once QEMU/Q supports virtualization on Intel-based Macs it won't be very useful and functional for a great many people, just that some people still prefer a commercially developed solution with support. It's also unlikely that the QEMU solution will support Intel VT anytime soon.

And for $50 for Parallels Workstation, that's quite a deal, considering the nature of the product.

---
Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu

cmoney
Apr 4, 2006, 02:50 PM
So I don't know if anyone has tried this yet...or if it's even been discussed in this thread. But with Windows running on Macs, has anyone considered running Virtual PC (for Windows) or VMWare under Windows and installing OS X as a guest OS?

Originally I thought it would depend on how the guest OS supports EFI or other requirements that OS X Intel has, but since it's not actually emulating the hardware, could it possibly work?

Anyway, perhaps that's one approach to the problem.

Peace
Apr 4, 2006, 02:53 PM
So I don't know if anyone has tried this yet...or if it's even been discussed in this thread. But with Windows running on Macs, has anyone considered running Virtual PC (for Windows) or VMWare under Windows and installing OS X as a guest OS?

Originally I thought it would depend on how the guest OS supports EFI or other requirements that OS X Intel has, but since it's not actually emulating the hardware, could it possibly work?

Anyway, perhaps that's one approach to the problem.

Virtual PC for windows doesn't currently support the Intel OS X

cmoney
Apr 4, 2006, 02:54 PM
Virtual PC for windows doesn't currently support the Intel OS X
Official support for it doesn't mean it won't or can't work. Witness Windows running on Intel Macs.

ChrisA
Apr 4, 2006, 02:54 PM
And actually, the Workstation product is now $50.


For that price many people would prefer to pay it rather then downloading free virtualization software from http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/

I assume the 50 bucks buys you an instal program and at least some level of suport. But then free and Open Source has big advntages too.

daveschroeder
Apr 4, 2006, 03:02 PM
Somebody jump in if I'm not entirely correct, but from what I've read virtualization technology does not open the system architecture up to the same vulnerabilities as there would be if Windows was running natively. I believe the technology contains the virtualized OS to a "box" so that it cannot run wild all over your machine, as it were..
Yes you are right. But the "virtual machine" can still get junked up with spyware and the lke. Cleanning up a VM is easy. Simply delete it. The VM looks like a file to Mac OS. If you have saved a copy of the file from before it was "gunkked up" you are set.

The best way to run Windows XP in a VM is to "share" some files from the Mac to the virtual PC. That way when you periodically trash the VM image your PC files are safe in the Mac's HFS+ system

It's really no differnt then having a real PC, only that periodic full reinstall takes second rather then hours.

Yes, both of you are exactly right.

A Windows environment running in VM is the same as any other Windows environment, and can be subject to the same vulnerabilities.

However, it's much less likely to be problematic for the following reasons:

- The entire environment is "sandboxed", network-wise, within the host OS's networking. Most Windows XP installations will now be behind the integrated software firewall anyway, but this is just another layer of protection: it's essentially like being behind a NAT router.

- A virtual machine environment, being secondary to the primary environment, is typically only used for targeted tasks, not routinely used for things like web browsing, email, and downloading - the major vectors of infection for much spyware/malware

- Since the virtual machine's disk is just a file on the host OS's drive, it can be immediately trashed and restored from a known-good pristine backup in seconds

- If no filesystem sharing is done via the VM between the Windows environment and the host (Mac OS X) environment, there is no[1] way that even severe malware within the Windows environment can cause any damage to the Mac OS X environment

- If filesystems are shared, e.g., a folder on the Mac side is shared as a drive letter on the Windows side, any malware that alters filesystems could theoretically alter the shared filesystem. If a virus, for example, attempted to delete all files on drives other than C:, that would be affected. But, 1.) Most malware doesn't just arbitrarily delete files, because its goal is to spread itself, and 2.) ONLY files that are shared could even theoretically be affected. Also, Windows malware will typically target Windows OS features and filesystem elements. But if you really are paranoid and want to be safe, you probably wouldn't want to, say, share your entire Mac OS X volume as a drive letter into the PC environment.

The bottom line is that from a technical and practical usage standpoint, running Windows in a VM is probably the safest possible way to run Windows, and there aren't really any ways, except for very specific ways via the explicit filesystem sharing, that anything that happens in the Windows environment can even touch your Mac OS X installation. And even if something went horribly wrong in your Windows environment, you can just trash the file that represents it on the Mac side of things, and replace it with your most recent and/or pristine backup of that file.

You guys, and many, many others, are going to *love* virtualization on Mac OS X on Intel-based Macs: running other x86 OSes - Linux, Windows, FreeBSD, etc., at near-native speed of the hardware - right along side Mac OS X, instantly able to switch back and forth.

[1] Sure, you could argue that someone could make Windows malware that specifically also targets an unknown vulnerability in a particular piece of virtual machine software, thereby somehow gaining access to the host side. But that is *extremely* unlikely to the point that it's not even worth mentioning.

---
Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu

Peace
Apr 4, 2006, 03:06 PM
Official support for it doesn't mean it won't or can't work. Witness Windows running on Intel Macs.


While that is true the current version of Virtual PC for Windows emulates an OS X for PPC NOT Intel..

daveschroeder
Apr 4, 2006, 03:06 PM
For that price many people would prefer to pay it rather then downloading free virtualization software from http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/

I assume the 50 bucks buys you an instal program and at least some level of suport. But then free and Open Source has big advntages too.

Except that the virtualization support for QEMU doesn't support Mac OS X or Intel-based Macs, I'd agree with you. ;-)

I'm sure the QEMU/Q guys will get a virtualization solution together, and it will probably mature into something quite nice.

But it probably won't support VT - one of the major areas of benefit in hardware virtualization - and, as you noted, support from a commercial vendor is important to many people. That's why when you look in enterprise and institutional environments, people are running VMware, not QEMU.

---
Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu

Official support for it doesn't mean it won't or can't work. Witness Windows running on Intel Macs.

No, it both won't and can't work.

The only way we'll ever see Virtual PC for Intel-based Macs (e.g., in a virtualization form) is if Microsoft specifically and explicitly makes one.

And Microsoft has already backed away from any commitment to support Virtual PC on anything other than PowerPC hardware, because making a nice virtualization solution for Windows on Mac OS X doesn't fit their overall strategy. (Yes, even if it's another product and another Windows license sold: that would also make it easier for people to buy Macs, which increases Mac OS X marketshare, and is strategically bad for Microsoft. If Connectix still had Virtual PC, they'd be falling all over themselves to get a virtualized VPC ready for Intel-based Macs.)

---
Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu

So I don't know if anyone has tried this yet...or if it's even been discussed in this thread. But with Windows running on Macs, has anyone considered running Virtual PC (for Windows) or VMWare under Windows and installing OS X as a guest OS?

Originally I thought it would depend on how the guest OS supports EFI or other requirements that OS X Intel has, but since it's not actually emulating the hardware, could it possibly work?

Anyway, perhaps that's one approach to the problem.

Yes, the OS X Intel cracking projects out there already have Mac OS X running in VMware (which itself can then run on Windows or Linux, etc.)

And I see where you're going with this:

Use the (totally unsupported and inelegant) Windows dual-boot solution on your Intel-based Mac, run Windows as your primary OS, then run VMware under Windows, and then run an unsupported and hacked version of Mac OS X in VMware. Sure, it's *possible*.

But why would you want to do that when a $50 supported, commercial virtualization product that supports VT and unmodified x86 OSes will become available soon for Mac OS X?

---
Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu

alexstein
Apr 4, 2006, 03:18 PM
The more I read about this VM Software the more excited I get. It sounds like the perfect solution so far.

griz
Apr 4, 2006, 03:47 PM
How will we quantify marketshare once this happens? Since the machine is running both OSs, then Microsoft could potentially have a 100% marketshare while Apple holds a 15% marketshare. This could be very misleading.
The whole marketshare BS will be out the window and any speak of it will hopefully be ignored.
I guess they could quantify Base installs and virtualization installs as separate concepts. In other words, which OS is the booting OS.

Edge100
Apr 4, 2006, 03:58 PM
Correlation does not prove causality.

Amen!

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, baby!

cmoney
Apr 4, 2006, 04:04 PM
No, it both won't and can't work.

The only way we'll ever see Virtual PC for Intel-based Macs (e.g., in a virtualization form) is if Microsoft specifically and explicitly makes one.

And Microsoft has already backed away from any commitment to support Virtual PC on anything other than PowerPC hardware, because making a nice virtualization solution for Windows on Mac OS X doesn't fit their overall strategy. (Yes, even if it's another product and another Windows license sold: that would also make it easier for people to buy Macs, which increases Mac OS X marketshare, and is strategically bad for Microsoft. If Connectix still had Virtual PC, they'd be falling all over themselves to get a virtualized VPC ready for Intel-based Macs.)

---
Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu

Is this new news after they said they would come out with Virtual PC for the Intel Macs? They said that a few months ago...

Also, lest we all confuse the issue, Microsoft does make a separate Virtual PC which runs UNDER Windows (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/default.mspx) and lets you run multiple x86 based OSs, like VMWare.

ChrisA
Apr 4, 2006, 04:21 PM
[QUOTE=daveschroeder]Except that the virtualization support for QEMU doesn't support Mac OS X or Intel-based Macs, I'd agree with you. ;-)

I/QUOTE]

I don't know which you mean: Yes can't run Intel OS X as a guest OS on an Intel Mac. But that is pointless for most people. But you can run Windows as a guest on an Intel Mac host. Thisis what most users want.

QEMU runs on Linux (X86 and PPC) , Free BSD, Mac OS X (Intel only) and Windows.

Once you have QEMU on your system you can run Windows, Linux, Solaris, BSD, DOS and any of a few other OSes on it.

THere are not reports (yet) of Mac OS X/Intel running as a guest on QEMU but I've heard of Mac OS X PPC runnig on an Intel system using QEMU.

Virtualization makes the Intel Mac atractive to me but having used QEMU and VMWare under Linux I know that I will want a very powerfull Intel Mac. A Core Dual with 2GB will not quite cut it if I want to run Solaris 10 on my Mac (and yes, being a Solaris develoer I do) I'll have to wait for he Intel Power Mac 64 bit quad core thing that comes out around December or Q1 '07.

daveschroeder
Apr 4, 2006, 04:25 PM
Is this new news after they said they would come out with Virtual PC for the Intel Macs? They said that a few months ago...

Yes, and on January 18, they issued a statement that said they have "not made any announcements about if/how the product might work on the new machines" and only that it is committed to providing Virtual PC only to "new and existing PowerPC customers".

I'm sorry, but that is the biggest line of BS I have heard in years. Microsoft:

- knows Windows and Windows virtualization intimately

- owns all of the resources of Connectix's previous Virtual PC products for Mac and Windows, including x86 enterprise virtualization products on Windows

- would be in a position to *easily* bring a virtual machine solution that ran Windows at near-full-speed of the underlying hardware to the Intel-based Mac platform, since it is much easier than emulation

Also, lest we all confuse the issue, Microsoft does make a separate Virtual PC which runs UNDER Windows (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/default.mspx) and lets you run multiple x86 based OSs, like VMWare.

Yes, I'm aware of that. Their Virtual PC for Windows and Virtual Server products are also the result of the assets they acquired from Connectix. The hacked version of Mac OS X (Intel) only runs under VMware, and it required modification that is against the EULA to do so. Also, running any instance of Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware is also against the EULA. Regardless of what you do or don't think about EULAs, it's still the case.

Sure, hobbyists will run hacked versions of Mac OS X on PCs in various fashions, and maybe even under VMware in unsupported Windows environments on Macs.

Real enterprise customers will want a commercially supported viable end-to-end solution that doesn't violated license agreements or require modifying the OS and running it in an unsupported state.

---
Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu

Except that the virtualization support for QEMU doesn't support Mac OS X or Intel-based Macs, I'd agree with you. ;-)

I don't know which you mean: Yes can't run Intel OS X as a guest OS on an Intel Mac. But that is pointless for most people. But you can run Windows as a guest on an Intel Mac host. Thisis what most users want.

You totally misunderstood what I said. I didn't mean that QEMU didn't support running Mac OS X as a guest OS.

I meant the *virtualization piece* does not either run on Mac OS X nor Intel-based Macs, and I thought that would have been obvious from the context.

You do know that QEMU doesn't just automatically support hardware virtualization on any platform, right? Someone is going to have to sit down and code kernel modules for Mac OS X (Intel) specifically to support virtualization in QEMU/Q running *on* Mac OS X as the host OS.

QEMU runs on Linux (X86 and PPC) , Free BSD, Mac OS X (Intel only) and Windows.

Once you have QEMU on your system you can run Windows, Linux, Solaris, BSD, DOS and any of a few other OSes on it.

Yes, and quite slowly, since, as I said, there is no virtualization in QEMU (or Q) on Mac OS X. Just very, very slow emulation.

---
Regards,

Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu

Joe2000
Apr 4, 2006, 04:42 PM
I wonder why there wasn't a contest to do this so we would've gotten this solution for free, like how we got dual-booting MacOSX and WinXP lol

Q already allows you to install XP on OSX. Its just like a Universal VPC but its free! My dad uses it on his MacBook Pro and I think its great - it is however a tad slow...not nearly as slow as VPC on a PPC Mac tho.

Go to the bottom of the download page and click on "Later Unstable Build" This is the Universal Binary, and not all that unstable. Windows 2000 runs great. The speed on an Intel Mac will surprise you! To get XP to run, it currently must be installed on a Windows Machine or a PowerPC Mac (using Q), then you copy the image to your Intel Mac. Everything else I installed right on my Intel iMac.

http://www.kberg.ch/q/

Lets have some feedback please - Joe.

dongmin
Apr 4, 2006, 04:46 PM
The more I read about this VM Software the more excited I get. It sounds like the perfect solution so far.I'd hold off on the superlatives until someone ships a solution that works well. So far we have:

1. boot xp in a dual boot sequence
2. buggy porting of qemu to intel-os x

Then there are about half a dozen other solutions that are in being promised to be the 'perfect solution' but nothing solid yet.

daveschroeder
Apr 4, 2006, 04:51 PM
Q already allows you to install XP on OSX. Its just like a Universal VPC but its free! My dad uses it on his MacBook Pro and I think its great - it is however a tad slow...not nearly as slow as VPC on a PPC Mac tho.

Go to the bottom of the download page and click on "Later Unstable Build" This is the Universal Binary, and not all that unstable. Windows 2000 runs great. The speed on an Intel Mac will surprise you! To get XP to run, it currently must be installed on a Windows Machine or a PowerPC Mac (using Q), then you copy the image to your Intel Mac. Everything else I installed right on my Intel iMac.

http://www.kberg.ch/q/

Lets have some feedback please - Joe.

Yes, QEMU/Q is great (ignoring the fact that you can't even successfully install XP on it right now since the installer dies in some circumstances). But it's much, much slower than Parallels or any other virtual machine/virtualization product will be.

*Much* slower. For older OSes, like 98 and even 2000, it's marginally acceptable for occasional use, just like Virtual PC or any other emulation product was.

Mac users aren't used to the concept of a "virtual machine". Parallels isn't going to be like an "emulator" or a Virtual PC-like product in any way but appearance. It's taking directly to the processor, using VT/Vanderpool hardware virtualization, and not emulating the CPU functions. The speed difference is enormous.

Once a virtualization product like Parallels ships, people can certainly make their own choices. But it's like night and day. Once the virtualization extensions are coded for Mac OS X (Intel) in QEMU/Q, then Q will be a nice virtualization product, too, especially given that it's free. But there is no telling when that will happen, and it very likely won't support VT, which is one of the huge gains that the new Intel processors with VT support gives to virtualization and CPU partitioning.

Q is *not* that right now. It's an emulator only, and quite slow at that for any modern OS. This, of course, is very subjective, but let's just suffice it to say that it's quite slow. Once it gets virtualization, assuming it's reliable, it will be a worthy free, open source choice for individuals to consider. Right now, it's certainly nice and relatively easy to use, but it's all emulation and not even in the ballbark with forthcoming VM solutions.

---
Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu

I'd hold off on the superlatives until someone ships a solution that works well. So far we have:

1. boot xp in a dual boot sequence
2. buggy porting of qemu to intel-os x

Then there are about half a dozen other solutions that are in being promised to be the 'perfect solution' but nothing solid yet.

If Parallels were to work half as well as it already does in its Windows and Linux iterations, this will be that product.

Virtualization has been done by several vendors on various platforms for quite some time now. The fact that one will be appearing soon on Mac OS X (Intel) should be no surprise. Since I am familiar with Parallels' products in general and technical philosophy of the Parallels Workstation product, we'll have just that solution very soon.

---
Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu

AidenShaw
Apr 4, 2006, 05:09 PM
since it's not actually emulating the hardware, could it possibly work?
Actually, VMware, Virtual PC (Mac and PC), Virtual Server, Parallels and the others *do* emulate a hardware PC.

It's emulated because when the GOS probes the emulated virtual PC, it does not see the real hardware
there's a different amount of memory
the network card is different from the real card
the disk controller may be different
the graphics adapter doesn't match the real one
etc etc etc


With the exception of Virtual PC(Mac), none of these have to emulate the full ISA (Instruction Set Architecture). This makes emulating a virtual x86 system on an x86 system much faster.

Note that some x86 privileged instructions *must* be emulated on all virtual machine environments - a GOS cannot be allowed to execute a privileged instruction that will change the state of the host system. (This doesn't change much under VT - VT just makes it easier and faster to emulate those instructions.)

"Emulation" and "Virtualization" are basically synonyms - "virtualization" refers to a specific use of emulation for a particular purpose.

"Virtual PC (Mac)" and "Virtual PC (Windows)" are both emulators - but only the PPC version has to do the additional work of complete x86 ISA emulation.

neilw
Apr 4, 2006, 05:15 PM
I'm still unclear about the effect of the hypervisor on the host OS, since theoretically (?) it inserts a thin layer of software between the host OS and the hardware.

I tend to assume that the fact that there even *is* a distinction between host OS and guest OS (as opposed to something like VMWare ESX) means that the host OS gets "real" access to the hardware, so it will run essentially unencumbered.

Can anyone clarify this issue, if the question makes any sense?

Though I have a G5 iMac that I won't be parting with any time soon, I would be totally psyched to see what a product like Parallels Workstation for Intel OSX would do for the Mac community. Even if it has limitations (and it does), it'll still be the answer for the "I just need to access one or two Windows programs" crowd, both current Mac users and potential switchers. I've been using the VMWare player on my work PC to run Linux as a guest OS, and it really is a nice, smooth-running setup; if the same thing could be accomplished with OSX as the host, wow...

AidenShaw
Apr 4, 2006, 05:22 PM
...*easily* bring a virtual machine solution that ran Windows at near-full-speed of the underlying hardware...
None of the current Windows virtual machines can run at "near-full-speed" except for some fairly uninteresting applications.

The problem is that privileged tasks like I/O must be passed off to the underlying host OS, which introduces a context switch and a need for the host OS to emulate the task requested by the guest OS.

So, real applications on VMware or Virtual Server can be much slower than "near-full-speed", depending on the number of nature of system calls and context switches to the VMM that are generated. Some applications benchmark at as little as 25% native speed (e.g. a network server that also does lots of disk I/O). A game that uses DirectX might be much slower than that.

In general, the speed is much, much better than an ISA-emulating virtual machine like Virtual PC (Mac). But be cautious about thinking that x86 emulated machines on x86 run at full speed - for many applications 70% to 90% of full speed is more realistic.

daveschroeder
Apr 4, 2006, 05:35 PM
None of the current Windows virtual machines can run at "near-full-speed" except for some fairly uninteresting applications.

Which is why in previous posts, I used the "except for video and heavy I/O, such as disk" qualifiers.

And those "uninteresting applications" are quite often the very administrative or vertical market speciality applications that enterprise and institutional customers want to run with good performance. They're light on I/O, and don't need 3D graphics.

In general, the speed is much, much better than an ISA-emulating virtual machine like Virtual PC (Mac). But be cautious about thinking that x86 emulated machines on x86 run at full speed - for many applications 70% to 90% of full speed is more realistic.

Sure, that's fair. And when you're coming from full software emulation products, that's huge.

---
Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu

"Emulation" and "Virtualization" are basically synonyms - "virtualization" refers to a specific use of emulation for a particular purpose.

If we want to be pedantic about the definition of "emulation", then yes.

But in practical terms, there is always a distinction made between a "virtual machine"/"virtualization" and emulation. And there are, of course, varying degrees to all of them, and shades of gray in between.

But, in general, something that is not emulating an ISA in software is going to be much, much faster than any full software emulator.

And for a product like Parallels (or VMware's server lines) making direct VT calls and putting the processor in its partitioning state, the difference is even more dramatic.

Parallels is the first product of its class for the desktop marketplace: a desktop virtualization product will full support for Intel VT. This isn't a small deal.

"Virtual PC (Mac)" and "Virtual PC (Windows)" are both emulators - but only the PPC version has to do the additional work of complete x86 ISA emulation.

Yes, and that's a *huge* distinction, and quite often when applied is the difference between a product being quite pleasant for day-to-day use, or annoyingly slow for even marginal or infrequent use.

---
Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu

I'm still unclear about the effect of the hypervisor on the host OS, since theoretically (?) it inserts a thin layer of software between the host OS and the hardware.

It simply does this as a kernel module. You can think of it as essentially running as a peer to the host OS (and yes, this is wildly oversimplifying things). The userland interface and functionality is present as an application on the host OS.

---
Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu

Goliath
Apr 4, 2006, 05:45 PM
Nice apples to oranges comparison. I never said that all Russian programmers were bad, but the fact remains that enough malware as come from there that it gives me reason to pause.

I suppose you automatically assume that anyone from Nigeria who'd bid on your eBay auction is on the up and up, eh?

I share your fear! It's a BIG BAD world out there!

Beware of young Irish men with a thick accent- they'll probably offer to tarmac your drive or do cheap building work- not to be trusted!

Why is that just a funny walk or are you goose-stepping!? Beware old German men- Don't give them the benefit of the doubt- probably a former SS officer at Auschwitz.

That frail old Japanese man- don't be fooled by his Mr. Miyagi impression- probably an EVIL concentration camp guard in his youth!

I could go on- but please just because the company is using Russian programmers doesn't automatically signal some kind of new Cold War with a sneaky plan to topple the USA

AidenShaw
Apr 4, 2006, 05:46 PM
Which is why in previous posts, I used the...
We don't disagree.

There have been many statements about "full-speed" in this and other "VM on OSx86" threads - my comment was meant for all of them, not for your qualified statement in particular.

There currently is a real, and sometimes very substantial, cost for the current state of virtualization. Those of us with experience with the different visualization products should be careful to bring this up.

gnasher729
Apr 4, 2006, 06:08 PM
I tend to assume that the fact that there even *is* a distinction between host OS and guest OS (as opposed to something like VMWare ESX) means that the host OS gets "real" access to the hardware, so it will run essentially unencumbered.

Can anyone clarify this issue, if the question makes any sense?

When you have a processor that is capable of virtualisation, you have _one_ operating system that runs on the real processor, and that operating system can provide virtual processor for other operating systems ("guest" operating systems) to run on.

The question is: How big is the operating system running on the real processor? You have two principal choices: First, you can design a really, really tiny operating system that cannot do anything useful itself except providing virtual processors for guest operating systems. With that approach, you might have MacOS X, Linux and Windows XP as guest operating systems (just an example).

The other approach is that the operating system running on the real processor is a fully grown operating system. There is this rumor that MacOS X 10.5 would include virtualisation. In that case, MacOS X (or more precise: One copy of MacOS X) would run on the real hardware, and a tiny part of MacOS X would be the virtualisation software, which allows guest operating systems to run simultaneously. So you could have MacOS X running on the real hardware, with Linux, and Windows XP, and possibly a second copy of MacOS X has the guest operating systems.

Having a full grown operating system running on the real hardware has advantages. For example, take the "Apple System Profiler" application. When you run it, you want it to tell you the truth! Let's say you have an iMac with 2GB RAM, and 250GB harddisk. A guest operating system might believe that it has only 1GB RAM and a 40GB harddisk. Apple System Profiler run on a guest operating system (or an equivalent Windows XP program) would not be able to tell you what hardware you _really_ have.

Other advantages: If you run MacOS X on the real hardware, and Windows XP as a guest operating system, it would be possible to write anti-spyware software running on MacOS X which cleans up your Windows XP system. Would be really helpful for some people.

AidenShaw
Apr 4, 2006, 06:10 PM
If trying to be precise is pedantic, then I'm guilty. :)

...something that is not emulating an ISA in software is going to be much, much faster than any full software emulator...

...or annoyingly slow for even marginal or infrequent use...
The definition for neither includes "slow" or "fast" - indeed some emulators are very fast. (The 68K emulator for Mac OS PPC and the PDP-11 emulator for VAX/VMS were both faster than the hardware being emulated in software in many cases.)

Compare "Virtual PC (Mac)" and "Virtual PC (Windows)".

They do almost exactly the same thing, except for one minor difference.

How can you call one an "emulator" and the other a "virtualizor"? Both are both.

godrifle
Apr 4, 2006, 06:11 PM
WIll be interesting to see what virtualization will be like in Windows XP running on an iMac...think Mac OS X running in virtualization in Windows XP on an iMac. :cool: :o :(

AidenShaw
Apr 4, 2006, 06:21 PM
WIll be interesting to see what virtualization will be like in Windows XP running on an iMac...think Mac OS X running in virtualization in Windows XP on an iMac. :cool: :o :(
You need a couple of things to boot OSX in a VM (on any host platform).

The emulated computer must support EFI - currently only BIOS is supported by the emulated hardware
The emulated hardware needs to emulate a TPM subsystem
Some way of fooling the OSX hardware bonding must be found

daveschroeder
Apr 4, 2006, 06:28 PM
If trying to be precise is pedantic, then I'm guilty. :)


The definition for neither includes "slow" or "fast" - indeed some emulators are very fast. (The 68K emulator for Mac OS PPC and the PDP-11 emulator for VAX/VMS were both faster than the hardware being emulated in software in many cases.)

Compare "Virtual PC (Mac)" and "Virtual PC (Windows)".

They do almost exactly the same thing, except for one minor difference.

How can you call one an "emulator" and the other a "virtualizor"? Both are both.

Precision can sometimes become pedantic if context is ignored. ;-)

I think I'm trying to keep things simple by discussing x86 OS (primarily Windows) emulation products on the Mac platform.

There's a bit of emulation, hardware abstraction, and virtualization in many of the above products. But generally, things like Virtual PC (Mac) are referred to, marketed as, and thought of as "emulators". Generally, things like Virtual PC (Windows) and VMware are referred to, marketed as, and thought of as "virtual machines" or "virtualization" products, with the key element playing into the overall speed and performance being whether or not the CPU ISA is emulated in software, or whether calls can be more or less directly passed to and returned from the native hardware CPU (and in the case of VT, even more effectively and efficiently).

I don't think we're in disagreement on anything you've said, but I'm guilty of trying to keep things simple from an explanations standpoint for people who are saying that the current Q/QEMU solution on Mac OS X with no CPU "virtualization" and something like Parallels are even in the same class of products from a performance perspective.

I'll definitely agree that some software emulators became so efficient and ran on hardware that was so fast that they eclipsed the native speed of the real hardware. Heck, even 68000 emulation with Mac OS on PowerPC was faster than many true 68K machines.

However, I think we can say that software emulation of the x86 ISA on Mac OS/Mac OS X on PowerPC has NEVER been faster than any reasonably modern (or even reasonably old) x86 hardware. Now, a virtualization solution like Parallels is going to run x86 OSes almost as fast as the native hardware, and indeed, faster than all but the most recent and modern "real" Intel Core family and consumer-level PCs (save things like 3D graphics and I/O). That's the context I'm presenting this in.

And let's say we get "85%" the performance of the native hardware for Windows XP on a 2.16GHz Core Duo. It's still darned fast, and faster than a lot of PC hardware people are running Windows XP on comfortably today. And that's the point.

The bottom line is that products like Parallels will, for the first time, make modern x86 OSes usable alongside Mac OS X on Apple hardware, to the point where if used full screen, many people may even forget they're running any kind of "emulation" or "virtualization" product at all.

---
Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu

You need a couple of things to boot OSX in a VM (on any host platform).

The emulated computer must support EFI - currently only BIOS is supported by the emulated hardware
The emulated hardware needs to emulate a TPM subsystem
Some way of fooling the OSX hardware bonding must be found


Or, you horribly hack Mac OS X, like the current Mac OS X cracking project has done.

---
Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu

sushi
Apr 4, 2006, 06:32 PM
WOW !!! DELL's chart is DOWN 50% in the last few months that is one NASTY UGLY CHART !!

I wonder how much longer they will be in business !
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=DELL&t=my&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=aapl

My guess would be for a very long time. They supply a huge number of boxes to the government, military and corporations.

yac_moda
Apr 4, 2006, 06:37 PM
Actually, VMware, Virtual PC (Mac and PC), Virtual Server, Parallels and the others *do* emulate a hardware PC.

It's emulated because when the GOS probes the emulated virtual PC, it does not see the real hardware
there's a different amount of memory
the network card is different from the real card
the disk controller may be different
the graphics adapter doesn't match the real one
etc etc etc


With the exception of Virtual PC(Mac), none of these have to emulate the full ISA (Instruction Set Architecture). This makes emulating a virtual x86 system on an x86 system much faster.

Note that some x86 privileged instructions *must* be emulated on all virtual machine environments - a GOS cannot be allowed to execute a privileged instruction that will change the state of the host system. (This doesn't change much under VT - VT just makes it easier and faster to emulate those instructions.)

"Emulation" and "Virtualization" are basically synonyms - "virtualization" refers to a specific use of emulation for a particular purpose.

"Virtual PC (Mac)" and "Virtual PC (Windows)" are both emulators - but only the PPC version has to do the additional work of complete x86 ISA emulation.

Why am I sooooo sceptical of your PROCLOMATIONs :confused:

THIS IS WHAT STARTED IT ALL:
http://www.toptechnews.com/story.xhtml?story_id=34175 :eek:

"Get Me Browsing

"The first partition you might have is a TV partition that would come on, pretty much as soon as you turned the PC on," said Gartner analyst Martin Reynolds. "There wouldn't be very much code -- it would load very quickly." Boom. You are watching TV on your PC without having to run it through Windows.

"Now, if you wanted a really fast get-me-browsing Web browser, you'd have a partition for that, too," Reynolds added, referring to the hypervisor's capability of easily divvying up partitions. "You'd just load what you need and go."

Reynolds says the revolution promised by Xen's hypervisor software could be realized within five years. The era of a single operating system for each desktop might join the ranks of other computer nostalgia like DOS, monochromatic CRT displays or floppy discs.

"It's a three year transition," Reynolds acknowledged. "By 2010 everyone will expect hypervisor in their system.""

This is the article I put in Apple's suggestion box just after it was printed and before there was any talk of virtualization on Mac OS X.



AND HERE IS THE KICKER ...

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/SRG/netos/xen/performance.html
"The Xen virtual machine monitor

By requiring operating systems to be ported to run over Xen, machine virtualization can be achieved considerably more efficiently than schemes that rely on trapping faulting instructions or use an interpreter or JIT compiler emulating privileged operating system code. Of course, the downside is you have to do the OS port, but our experience indicates that this usually isn't too time consuming or difficult.
Operating systems running over Xen execute in x86 privilege ring 1 instead of ring 0, which we reserve for Xen. This prevents guest OSes from using the normal privileged instructions to turn on/off interrupts, change page table bases etc. Instead, they must make a 'hypercall' down into Xen to ask the operation to be performed on their behalf. This sounds expensive, but with a properly designed asynchronous interface the hypercalls are relatively infrequent.

Rather than attempting to emulate some existing hardware device, Xen exports specially designed block device and network interface abstractions to guest operating systems, requiring a specially written driver. The advantage of this approach is that guest I/O performance is excellent: we typically get the same performance on Gigabit Ethernet links running over Xen as we do with the native operating system.

As part of evaluation for our SOSP paper, we subjected Linux 2.4.22 to a number of system intensive workloads, then repeated the experiments with the same version of Linux running over Xen, and a number of other virtualization techniques: VMware workstation 3.2 (the latest version of any VMware product which allows the publication of comparative benchmarks), and User Mode Linux (UML) with the skas host patch. The results below show the performance overhead under a number of different scenarios:

The SPEC CPU2000 Integer suite
A full build of the default configuration of Linux 2.4.22 on local disk
PostgreSQL running the OSDB multiuser Information Retrieval (IR) benchmark
PostgreSQL running the OSDB multiuser On-Line Transaction Processing (OLTP) benchmark
The dbench 2.0 file system single user benchmark
Apache 1.3.27 being exercised by the SPECWeb99 benchmark, using `mod_specweb99' for dynamic content generation

Relative performance on native Linux (L), Xen/Linux (X),
VMware Workstation 3.2 (V), and User Mode Linux (U).

The SPEC INT2000 suite is CPU intensive, but does very little I/O and causes little work to be done by the OS, hence all three virtualization techniques do pretty well.

In contrast, the other benchmarks are more OS intensive, and cause many more page faults, context switches and process creations. Running over Xen, Linux's performance is consistently close to native Linux, the worst case being OSDB-IR, which experiences an 8% slowdown. The other virtualization techniques don't fare so well, experiencing slow downs of up to 88%. The SOSP paper contains further results, showing how performance isolation can be achieved when running multiple VMs simultaneously, and performance scalability out to 128 concurrent VMs.

Our results have also been independently verified by a group at Clarkson University in a paper entitled Xen and the Art of Repeated Research [PDF], which also includes a performance comparison with an IBM zServer machine." :eek: :eek: :eek:

Manatee
Apr 4, 2006, 06:37 PM
I'm looking forward to seeing/trying this product. I've thought about dual-booting, but it's really not what I want. I want to have apps running in both OSes at the same time.

If it's truly a virtualization, performance should be pretty good. I hope it has some of the add-on conveniences that Virtual PC has, but if they're not there yet, that's fine too. If these people have come up with a good solution for me, I'll be glad to support them. :)

I see that in the article it says more details are coming later this week -- not the product. The product might be coming Q4 '06 or something. ;)

Norse Son
Apr 4, 2006, 07:03 PM
People,... Please, WHY do we need to clutter our Macs with that worm, virus & legacy-code bloated beast that is Windows? It's a total freaking mess of an OS.

Instead of all these lame hopes & dreams of dual-booting MacOS X and Windows, even Linux, why not just the apps? Why can't we have emulation and/or virtualisation software that allows us to run most post-Win2K-era Windows apps.

Not sure why I'd want even that flotsam, but there are some apps that would be possible success stories on the Mac. Top-end 3D & CAD packages come to mind, as well as the huge cache of games we'll never see on our Macs.

Heck, Apple could even provide Windows developers with an SDK and short compiler (whatever) that enables them to write small "front desk" applets designed to do no more (or less) than making sure the Windows apps "behave" and follow MacOS X UI guidelines...

Just a counterthought to all that gAdawful, stench-talk of running Windows alongside MacOS X...

serffa
Apr 4, 2006, 07:08 PM
Why does everyone keep saying that QEMU doesn't run on OS X? There are two products I have seen now that are cocoa ports of QEMU:

http://openosx.com/wintel/
and
http://www.kberg.ch/q/

And they recently added a universial binary which allows it to run much much faster on the intels.

Now I haven't tried either of the above, but they look like the work to me....I'll try them out when I get a macbook pro

balamw
Apr 4, 2006, 07:21 PM
Why can't we have emulation and/or virtualisation software that allows us to run most post-Win2K-era Windows apps.

We already do. http://darwine.opendarwin.org. It works failry well for me to run a couple of apps that I can't simply port over myself as they are GUI intensive or I don't have the source code.

Of course Wine Is Not an Emulator, it is more like the compiler kit you describe. A set of libraries that translate the windows API calls to X11 or Quartz.

This will only get better when Codeweavers releases their Mac version of Crossover Office which generally extends this support to more complicated apps.

B

AEMV
Apr 4, 2006, 07:32 PM
I cant wait, I would love to be able to run C&C Generals at a reasonable speed. This will be awesome. Any word on the price??:confused: :confused:


uhmmm...C&C Generals is available for OSX

daveschroeder
Apr 4, 2006, 07:32 PM
Why does everyone keep saying that QEMU doesn't run on OS X? There are two products I have seen now that are cocoa ports of QEMU:

http://openosx.com/wintel/
and
http://www.kberg.ch/q/

And they recently added a universial binary which allows it to run much much faster on the intels.

No. It runs *slightly* faster on Intels. This isn't Universal in the sense that x86 native calls are getting passed to the CPU. It's just that the Q "wrapper" around QEMU is Universal. Internally, QEMU is still emulating almost everything in software.

No one said QEMU/Q doesn't work on Mac OS X.

It's just EXTREMELY SLOW.

The fact that a Universal Binary exists for Q doesn't mean the underlying emulation code is somehow magically running native. It's still emulating the x86 ISA in software, and gets almost no benefit from being Universal.

In order for QEMU/Q to be fast on Intel-based Macs, Darwin kernel extensions for "virtualization" - modules that pass and return x86 calls directly to and from the CPU - need to be made in order for QEMU (and thus Q) to be anywhere remotely near the performance of a virtual machine solution like Parallels. They're not even in the same performance class by an order of magnitude or more.

Q, in its current state right now, is basically a software emulator. Now, when/if virtualization support gets added to QEMU, it will be a product a lot more worthwhile looking at for support of *modern* OSes. Don't get me wrong: lightweight Linux distributions, DOS, and earlier versions of Windows (e.g., 98) work great in Q, even now.

Now I haven't tried either of the above, but they look like the work to me....I'll try them out when I get a macbook pro

Why don't you try it out now? If you have a reasonably fast PowerPC, you're going to get a pretty darned good idea of just how fast Q is, in its current state, on Intel-based Macs.

---
Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu

Shaker
Apr 4, 2006, 07:55 PM
What if Microsoft Bought Apple?
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/49678.html

Should Microsoft Buy Apple?
http://blogs.pcworld.com/techlog/archives/001778.html

AidenShaw
Apr 4, 2006, 07:55 PM
:eek:Can you explain what the lengthy articles that you copied have to do with the topic?

yac_moda
Apr 4, 2006, 08:16 PM
Can you explain what the lengthy articles that you copied have to do with the topic?

Soo you put all this technical stuff in your posts, but you don't UNDERSTAND IT DO YOU -- I thought so :eek:

¡¡¡ VIRTUALIZATION IS NOT EMULATION !!! It is MUCH leaner !

Those lengthy articles aren't all that long or hard to understand but these quotes are the part I wanted YOU to see.

They indicate that it is VERY LIKELY that Apple will use a NEW type of virtualization THAT IS VERY FAST !!!

If you look at the link to the last article there is a benchmark graph in it.

"By requiring operating systems to be ported to run over Xen, machine virtualization can be achieved considerably more efficiently than schemes that rely on trapping faulting instructions or use an interpreter or JIT compiler emulating privileged operating system code. Of course, the downside is you have to do the OS port, but our experience indicates that this usually isn't too time consuming or difficult."

AND THIS WILL ALLOW APPLE TO SELL THEIR PROPRIETARY VERSIONS OF WINDOWS :eek: :eek: :eek: Waaaa HOOO !!! Apple is going to make a LOT of money off of this one ! :D

"Rather than attempting to emulate some existing hardware device, Xen exports specially designed block device and network interface abstractions to guest operating systems, requiring a specially written driver. The advantage of this approach is that guest I/O performance is excellent: we typically get the same performance on Gigabit Ethernet links running over Xen as we do with the native operating system." :D :D :D

Multimedia
Apr 4, 2006, 10:51 PM
Yes, both of you are exactly right.

A Windows environment running in VM is the same as any other Windows environment, and can be subject to the same vulnerabilities.

However, it's much less likely to be problematic for the following reasons:

- The entire environment is "sandboxed", network-wise, within the host OS's networking. Most Windows XP installations will now be behind the integrated software firewall anyway, but this is just another layer of protection: it's essentially like being behind a NAT router.

- A virtual machine environment, being secondary to the primary environment, is typically only used for targeted tasks, not routinely used for things like web browsing, email, and downloading - the major vectors of infection for much spyware/malware

- Since the virtual machine's disk is just a file on the host OS's drive, it can be immediately trashed and restored from a known-good pristine backup in seconds

- If no filesystem sharing is done via the VM between the Windows environment and the host (Mac OS X) environment, there is no[1] way that even severe malware within the Windows environment can cause any damage to the Mac OS X environment

- If filesystems are shared, e.g., a folder on the Mac side is shared as a drive letter on the Windows side, any malware that alters filesystems could theoretically alter the shared filesystem. If a virus, for example, attempted to delete all files on drives other than C:, that would be affected. But, 1.) Most malware doesn't just arbitrarily delete files, because its goal is to spread itself, and 2.) ONLY files that are shared could even theoretically be affected. Also, Windows malware will typically target Windows OS features and filesystem elements. But if you really are paranoid and want to be safe, you probably wouldn't want to, say, share your entire Mac OS X volume as a drive letter into the PC environment.

The bottom line is that from a technical and practical usage standpoint, running Windows in a VM is probably the safest possible way to run Windows, and there aren't really any ways, except for very specific ways via the explicit filesystem sharing, that anything that happens in the Windows environment can even touch your Mac OS X installation. And even if something went horribly wrong in your Windows environment, you can just trash the file that represents it on the Mac side of things, and replace it with your most recent and/or pristine backup of that file.

You guys, and many, many others, are going to *love* virtualization on Mac OS X on Intel-based Macs: running other x86 OSes - Linux, Windows, FreeBSD, etc., at near-native speed of the hardware - right along side Mac OS X, instantly able to switch back and forth.

[1] Sure, you could argue that someone could make Windows malware that specifically also targets an unknown vulnerability in a particular piece of virtual machine software, thereby somehow gaining access to the host side. But that is *extremely* unlikely to the point that it's not even worth mentioning.

---
Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.eduThank you Dave Schroeder. Your analysis is the best I've read on this string thus far. This means that millions of Must Use Windows users are going to want to switch to MacIntels just to gain the kind of increased security and protection from viral attacks that their IP Managers lose sleep over every night. :D :)

AidenShaw
Apr 4, 2006, 11:31 PM
Soo you put all this technical stuff in your posts, but you don't UNDERSTAND IT DO YOU -- I thought so :eek:

¡¡¡ VIRTUALIZATION IS NOT EMULATION !!! It is MUCH leaner !
That must be why Microsoft sells "Virtual PC for Mac", and not "Emulated PC for Mac". :eek:

Virtualization is a technology of running an OS or application in an emulated environment that isolates the os/app from other OS or app instances.

If the CPU on the host has a different ISA than the emulated guest environment, the virtualization layer must do ISA emulation of all of the guest CPU instructions.

For transparent x86 on x86 virtual environments, only some of the guest x86 instructions must be emulated by the host - but there is still some ISA emulation in this case.


AND THIS WILL ALLOW APPLE TO SELL THEIR PROPRIETARY VERSIONS OF WINDOWS :eek:
Call the Clueless Patrol, we have a winner for the day's "Doesn't have any idea of what he's talking about" award.

I am very familiar with Xen.

The released version of Xen doesn't run Windows. Apple probably won't buy the Windows sources from Microsoft in order to rebuild their own versions of Windows, on their own proprietary version of Xen.

'nuff said.

weg
Apr 5, 2006, 05:30 AM
Dual booting has its own advantages, particularly speed and compatibility. When you virtualize, you are adding another layer of software, which can do you favors (letting you switch OSes on the fly) or do you in.

I want to see reviews and performance results before jumping to a new software package.

Virtualization also somehow sounds like as if you can only use one core per OS? But that's just a guess..

Roller
Apr 5, 2006, 06:42 AM
The emulation/virtualization debate is interesting, but as an end user, it's what I see on my monitor that counts. I occasionally use Virtual PC to run a few Windows apps on my dual PPC Macs. They're dog slow, but they get the job done and, overall, save me time and effort.

So the prospect of running Windows apps at "only" 75% of native Intel speed on a Mac is huge. I'll be much more impressed by a shipping product than a press report, though. :)

magi.sys
Apr 5, 2006, 07:22 AM
Well, any VM software not made by Apple is going to be worthless for me. It WILL NOT be able to run OS X along OS X. Only Linux, Windows, *BSD, Solaris, etc, etc. But I would want it for testing OS X. Wasn't there a rumor that said 10.5 Server will have VM support (using Intel VT)? Now that would be useful since you can probably run multiple OS X at once.

barstard
Apr 5, 2006, 07:27 AM
This is pretty cool. Nice to see a well established company announcing some plans. I'm sure their website will be updated in time, in regards to no news appearing within.

AidenShaw. While I find your discussions informative and at the very least thought provoking, I don't quite understand why you hang out here. I'm sure you use a Mac somewhere in your life, but you never seem to have much nice to say about Apple or MacOS.

Don't get me wrong. I'm happy you're here. (Always give nice long threads to read. Dave Schroeder too.) But Aiden, please enlighten me to why you hang out here?

barstard.

Xacto
Apr 5, 2006, 07:58 AM
Now how cool is this...

http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/

Check out what apple has to say...

EFI and BIOS
Macs use an ultra-modern industry standard technology called EFI to handle booting. Sadly, Windows XP, and even the upcoming Vista, are stuck in the 1980s with old-fashioned BIOS. But with Boot Camp, the Mac can operate smoothly in both centuries.

Word to the Wise
Windows running on a Mac is like Windows running on a PC. That means it’ll be subject to the same attacks that plague the Windows world. So be sure to keep it updated with the latest Microsoft Windows security fixes.

barstard
Apr 5, 2006, 08:07 AM
Now how cool is this...

http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/

Check out what apple has to say...

EFI and BIOS
Macs use an ultra-modern industry standard technology called EFI to handle booting. Sadly, Windows XP, and even the upcoming Vista, are stuck in the 1980s with old-fashioned BIOS. But with Boot Camp, the Mac can operate smoothly in both centuries.

I think I just pee'd myself!:D Checking it out.

Better be true.

barstard.

AidenShaw
Apr 5, 2006, 08:16 AM
Don't get me wrong. I'm happy you're here. (Always give nice long threads to read. Dave Schroeder too.) But Aiden, please enlighten me to why you hang out here?
First, to learn.

Second, if possible, to teach.

I learn from some the other posts, and when I have to do research for one of my own posts I often come across info that I didn't know (or knew, but gain additional clarification).

When I see posts that I think are wrong or misleading, I try to point that out.

In this thread, there are some claims that XP in a VM on OSX will run faster than XP on native Intel hardware. Patently absurd, but somehow some people have that belief.

On the emulation/virtualization debate, if you compare VPC/Mac and VPC/Windows you'll see that they are 99% the same. (The 1% difference is important for performance, but it's otherwise minor.) Why insist that the two nearly identical products be called by different names?

Build on the commonality, don't emphasize the differences. All of these fancy virtualization products are almost identical to the VPC/Mac that many people understand. They're just faster, because of that 1% difference - no need to do full ISA emulation when running x86 on x86.

[I don't want to reopen the debate - enough has been said already.]

barstard
Apr 5, 2006, 08:16 AM
Boot Camp. So Apple just couldn't watch all of us trying to get thousands of different drivers working. This means GFX will be fully accelerated. I think. Hurry up download. Damn. have to go to bed. will be trying this tomorrow night for sure. Already have XP installed and running, but graphics drivers would be awesome. Can't wait. No XOM.efi. Cool.

barstard.

First, to learn.

Second, if possible, to teach.

Cool. Sounds fair.

barstard.

From the info on their page:

The Macintosh Drivers CD includes drivers to support these within Windows XP:

Intel Chip Set Software (6.2.1)
ATI Graphics (8.24.0.0)
Intel Integrated Graphics (6.14.10.4512)
Marvel Yukon Ethernet (8.49.2.3)
SigmaTel Audio (1.0.4889.0 nd375 cp1)
SigmaTel Audio proto_A2 (1.0.4889.0 nd375 cp1)
Atheros 802.11 wireless (AirPort) (4.2.2.4)
Broadcom Wireless (4.10.40.0)
Apple Bluetooth module (1.0.0.1)
Apple Keyboard Eject Key (1.0.0.1)
Apple Keyboard Brightness (for computers with built-in displays) (1.0.0.1)
Startup Disk Control Panel for Windows XP (1.0.0.1)

Sick. So Graphics DOES have drivers. Now I need a game to test!:D

kramerdude
Apr 5, 2006, 08:41 AM
So what of the news this morning of Apple releasing their own software for Windows Booting? The stock is rising. Here is the article:

http://www.tradingmarkets.com/tm.site/news/STOCK%20ALERT/213096/

Is this something new?

caccamolle
Apr 5, 2006, 08:43 AM
I believe it's called "Boot Camp" and was announced this morning.

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

Techworld.com reports (http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?newsID=5712) that a company called Parallels will be announcing their virtualization product for Intel-based Macs later this week.

According to a company representative, "We will enable users to run multiple operating systems (like Linux and Windows) simultaneously with Mac OS X".

This is distinct from the dual-boot solutions that have been previously described. Instead, users can run these alternative operating systems in a window under Mac OS X.

Several have suggested that this functionality could increase Apple's marketshare with businesses and consumers alike. WSJ Online notes (http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB114304862088305343-lMyQjAxMDE2NDAzMzAwNDM4Wj.html) that Japan's Aozora Bank Ltd. is already making the move to all Mac. They are planning to switch all 2,300 of their personal computers to Mac. The bank cites the strength of Mac OS X alone as the reason for their switch. Other surveys (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/03/20060308073846.shtml), however, have suggested that a large number of consumers would switch to Mac if also given the ability to run Windows easily.

More details on Parellels' solution should be available later this week. Microsoft has been said to be working on an Intel-version of Virtual PC as well, but no timeframe has been given.

kramerdude
Apr 5, 2006, 08:47 AM
I saw that. It appears that it is being perceived as an Apple product.

In fact, it was announced by Apple and can be downloaded form the Apple website. It will be built in Leopard when it releases. I guess I didn't realize that this would be an Apple offering. No wonder the stock is moving!

esaleris
Apr 5, 2006, 11:41 AM
Yah, right, and Dell bought Alien because Apple is bought to kick their butt into the weeds and Dell is shaking in his boots !!!

Your arguments have NOT convinced me, persuaded me, or told me anything NEW although did not previously know Dell's chart looked so sickly.

Some guy was telling me about Dell support the other day, and he now HATES Dell, and would do ANYTHING to get away from them !!!

If your argument were true, today's release of Boot Camp should have directly affected Dell's stock. You contend that Apple's market strategy directly affects Dell's strategy, thereby FORCING them to buy Alienware. Well, it's 12:38PM EST, and since the announcement of Boot Camp, there's only been a $0.09 drop in price, a 0.23% movement in Dell's price. Apple's market strategy of releasing a new software that directly places the company in competition with other Windows manufacturers didn't even phase Dell's stock.

When it comes down to it, Dell is not significantly affected - stock price or market startegy - by Apple. When Apple has a 20% market share, then we'll talk.

yac_moda
Apr 5, 2006, 04:25 PM
If your argument were true, today's release of Boot Camp should have directly affected Dell's stock. You contend that Apple's market strategy directly affects Dell's strategy, thereby FORCING them to buy Alienware. Well, it's 12:38PM EST, and since the announcement of Boot Camp, there's only been a $0.09 drop in price, a 0.23% movement in Dell's price. Apple's market strategy of releasing a new software that directly places the company in competition with other Windows manufacturers didn't even phase Dell's stock.

When it comes down to it, Dell is not significantly affected - stock price or market startegy - by Apple. When Apple has a 20% market share, then we'll talk.

For example Dell could already be down for other reason like the fact that THEY HAD TO BUY ALIEN JUST TO STAY COMPETITIVE in the first place.

So the recent move by Apple is just keeping Dell from rebounding.

Expecting direct cause and effect on the stockmarket is VERY IGNORANT, but SURPRISE, SURPRISE it does seem to be here :eek: :eek: :eek:


OK on March 16th the solution to get WinXP on Macs was posted. Some could see this as a CONFIRMATION that Windows is KING and buy Dell on this news. And if YOU look at the chart YOU will see Dell had a GOOD rally on this new, from severe doldrums.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=DELL&t=3m&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=

Then in the afternoon of the 21st the benchmarks of XP on Mac are POSTED and TO EVERYONES SURPRISE APPLE IS CURRENTLY BUILDING THE FASTEST INTEL MACHINE YOU CAN BUY ...
posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 3:40 PM
Windows XP on Macs: Tested, Benchmarked
http://gearlog.com/blogs/gearlog/archive/2006/03/21/8212.aspx

And if YOU look at the stock chart again on the 22nd there is A VERY SHARP TURN AROUND in Dell's RAPID RALLY !!!

Ever since the 21nd there have LOTS of rumors about virtualization on the Mac.

Apparently APPLE GAINS A BIG ADVANTAGE NOW IN THIS GAME BECAUSE MACS ARE NOW VIRTUALLY GUARANTEED TO COMPATIBLE WITH VISTA WHERE AS AN INTEL MACHINE BOUGHT TODAY COULD END UP LACKING :eek:

Notice also from the chart Dell tried to rally and failed :eek:

Man Dell is HURTING better DUMP THAT TURKEY :eek: :eek: :eek:

balamw
Apr 5, 2006, 04:35 PM
The wording on the boot camp page is quite awkward, as has been pointed out by others. So is dual booting all that the technology that will be in 10.5 or will it be virtualization?

Here's a thought:

What if 10.5 will include a way to do both. Virtualize the installed version of XP while booted to OS X AND still allow you to boot directly to the same install of XP, if you need a slight performance boost.

Since Apple would control/distrubute the relevant hardware drivers, as they are already doing through boot camp, is this so far-fetched? (i.e. the drivers would talk directly to the hardware when dual booted, or talk to the virtualizer if detected.)

B

The_Roo
Apr 6, 2006, 05:41 AM
The Parallels beta for Mac OS X is now available to download from their site.

You can get it at: http://www.parallels.com/en/download/mac/

You get a 45 day trial licence to use it. I assume that the release version will come out before then.

Anyone with a Intel Mac want to give it a go?

Regards,
Kenny

Multimedia
Apr 6, 2006, 07:29 AM
The Parallels beta for Mac OS X is now available to download from their site.

You can get it at: http://www.parallels.com/en/download/mac/

You get a 45 day trial licence to use it. I assume that the release version will come out before then.

Anyone with a Intel Mac want to give it a go?

Regards,
KennyThank you for the heads up Kenny. Now we're talking. This is bigger news than what Apple let loose yesterday. Whoopie!!! :D :p :) :)

AidenShaw
Apr 6, 2006, 11:43 PM
APPLE IS CURRENTLY BUILDING THE FASTEST INTEL MACHINE YOU CAN BUY ...
LOL.

With the same CPUs, the same chipsets, virtually the same motherboards....

ROTFLMAO that anyone would believe this. (or that if they saw this, they'd believe it instead of wondering what was wrong with the benchmark)

plarusa
Apr 7, 2006, 12:05 AM
The Beta is free to download, would someone with an Intel MAC try this product and report the performance ? I have seen bogus performance reports for this type of product before.

PCMacUser
Apr 7, 2006, 04:27 AM
The Beta is free to download, would someone with an Intel MAC try this product and report the performance ? I have seen bogus performance reports for this type of product before.
I'm trying to get my hands on the dual core iMacs here at work to try it out, but so far without success...

defylogik
Apr 7, 2006, 09:14 AM
this has been a long time coming. hopefully in a few months it will be so seamless it will just work! like os x.!