PDA

View Full Version : Apple, Parallels, VMWare and Microsoft


MacRumors
Apr 9, 2006, 11:26 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Last week, the buzz around the net exploded with the release (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/04/20060405094135.shtml) of Apple's Boot Camp (http://guides.macrumors.com/Boot_Camp), which allows Intel Mac users to boot into Windows XP. This was quickly followed by Parallels' release (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/04/20060406081519.shtml) of Workstation 2.1 Beta for Mac OS X which allows users to launch Windows under Mac OS X on Intel Macs.

Parallels has already posted Beta 2 (http://www.parallels.com/en/download/mac/) which addresses issues early beta testers have had, and is pricing the finished version at a discounted $39.99 for now.

Meanwhile, another of the large virtualization software companies, VMWare (http://www.vmware.com/), has a Mac OS X version of their product in testing in labs, according to comments by the CEO (http://blogs.usatoday.com/maney/2006/04/mac_and_xp_a_vi.html) (previously rumored (http://www.macosxrumors.com/articles/2006/04/05/vmware-being-ported-to-mac/))

Virtualization technology allows multiple instances of a computer's operating system to be running at one time. Microsoft also took interest in this technology when it acquired Virtual PC (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/02/20030219155858.shtml) from Connectix back in 2003. The future of Virtual PC remains in question, however. Microsoft has stated it is working on updating Virtual PC for Intel Macs, but has made comments (http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/04/07/vpc/index.php) that it will have to be a complete rewrite.

“This is like building a brand new version for us,” Lefebvre said. “It’s not just a new operating system, it’s new hardware, too—this is a really big transition. It’s hard to say right now what it will look like or when it will be.”

mduser63
Apr 9, 2006, 11:29 PM
At $39.99, Parallels Workstation is really a steal. Glad to hear that VMWare is working on an OS X version as well. I'm not interested in dual booting Windows, but the ability to run a (near) full-speed Windows install in a window would be nice.

ppc_michael
Apr 9, 2006, 11:30 PM
I'm assuming the next OS X version will allow XP within OS X. If this comes true, why would anybody want VirtualPC?

amateurmacfreak
Apr 9, 2006, 11:30 PM
Virtualization sounds very good, if it's really fast.
I have been amazed at the buzz this has caused. Most of my friends with Windows are wanting a Mac now.
Really amazing. The market shift towards Apple should be very substantial.

amateurmacfreak
Apr 9, 2006, 11:31 PM
I'm assuming the next OS X version will allow XP within OS X. If this comes true, why would anybody want VirtualPC?
Truthfully.
If MS tries to develop that well, it will probs be slow crap.
Not worth their time imho. :cool:

Stella
Apr 9, 2006, 11:34 PM
There are going to be a few alternatives to Virtual PC, so its not a great disaster if microsoft drop this. I wouldn't be surprised if microsoft did - they use VPC in XBox 360 to run Xbox 1 games.. which is probably why VPC was bought in the first place.

I'm glad ( and quite surprised ) by VMWare's announcement - all good though.

Undecided
Apr 9, 2006, 11:38 PM
One thing virtualization won't solve is connecting non-standard devices for which there are no Mac drivers. No Mac drivers means that even though the device is physically connected to the Mac, virtualized Windows won't see it, since the Mac doesn't either. So, dual-boot still has an advantage.

jared_kipe
Apr 9, 2006, 11:39 PM
Microsoft is going to drop it. Its not a big deal for Microsoft either way. Now that there are legitimate solutions for Windows on Mac, there is no reason for big MS to give a crap about it.

~Shard~
Apr 9, 2006, 11:39 PM
More good news on this front. I'm looking more and more forward to the Leopard preview at WWDC and seeing what exactly Apple will have in store for us regarding Boot Camp integration and so forth. It's going to be fun following all of these virtualization developments as well.

Exciting times! :cool:

excalibur313
Apr 9, 2006, 11:42 PM
Does the parrallel software allow virtualization too or is that a feature unique to vmware?

nataku
Apr 9, 2006, 11:55 PM
This Boot Camp and virtualization thing is good and all but I would prefer something like Darwine (link (http://darwine.opendarwin.org/)). This is just my opinion. I'd love to use some Windows-only apps without having to install WinXP. takes up precious HD space. Oh well... I hope the Darwine project continues to progress.

ziutek
Apr 10, 2006, 12:06 AM
There are going to be a few alternatives to Virtual PC, so its not a great disaster if microsoft drop this. I wouldn't be surprised if microsoft did - they use VPC in XBox 360 to run Xbox 1 games.. which is probably why VPC was bought in the first place.

I'm glad ( and quite surprised ) by VMWare's announcement - all good though.
I'm pretty sure Microsoft recompiled Xbox 1 games for the Xbox 360 instead of using emulation.

treblah
Apr 10, 2006, 12:09 AM
Meh.

If Apple has some awesome full hardware virtualization with no speed hit I will be interested. Right now I can go from Windows to OS X's Desktop in 26 seconds, and back in 45 seconds.

VanNess
Apr 10, 2006, 12:09 AM
I'm assuming the next OS X version will allow XP within OS X. If this comes true, why would anybody want VirtualPC?

Because if it turns up in 10.5, it will almost definitely be an IntelMac-only feature. Microsoft could theoretically continue to hawk VirtualPC to the non-upgrading, hold-on-to-your-PPC crowd, particularly if it continues to work for PPC-based systems in 10.5 as it does now in 10.4. They could just ride the PPC market for VirtualPC out until it finally dies.

“This is like building a brand new version for us,” Lefebvre said. “It’s not just a new operating system, it’s new hardware, too—this is a really big transition. It’s hard to say right now what it will look like or when it will be.”

Gee, looks like folks at Parallels had a somewhat different experience.

Abstract
Apr 10, 2006, 12:11 AM
I'm not interested in dual booting Windows, but the ability to run a (near) full-speed Windows install in a window would be nice.

But it would be slow as hell for things like games. That's why Boot Camp exists. All those drivers will let you get great performance out of it. Parallel's software is great, but it's not good for things like games, and you may even be better off using the Windows version of Photoshop or video editing software by through Boot camp.

Ensoniq
Apr 10, 2006, 12:17 AM
Is it really possible that 10 months after Apple announced the switch to Intel that Microsoft basically says "we have no clue what we're doing with VPC yet"? I don't buy it.

Here's a theory: Apple buys the rights to VPC for Mac from Microsoft. Apple then does their magic on it, and makes it a semi-transparent feature to be included in Leopard. (Similar to Classic and Rosetta.)

See the press Boot Camp is getting? See the press Parallels Workstation is getting? Like it or not, many businesses and individuals want/need to run Windows software. Macs have been able to do that for MANY years now, but let's face it...VPC and it's competitors have always been slow and cumbersome. Running emulation/virtualization on Intel hardware gives nearly native speed, only slightly slower than an actual dual-boot solution like Boot Camp.

I believe Boot Camp is a way for Apple to gauge user response, developer response, and press response to an Apple-provided and approved method for running Windows on the Mac. Apple will indeed have an ability to run Windows software as part of Leopard. But I am not convinced Boot Camp is anything more than a smoke screen for a much bigger feature. :)

P.S.

Go take a look at Parallels Workstation (http://www.parallels.com) right now if you have an Intel Mac. At $39.99 it's a steal, and the company deserves respect for being the only company to get a legitimate solution out the door for Intel Macs first. (Sorry MS, VMWare, and WinTel.)

ZildjianKX
Apr 10, 2006, 12:19 AM
I will get any one that has hardware video acceleration. It's going to be pretty imporant if you want to run Windows Vista with Aero.

Plecky
Apr 10, 2006, 12:20 AM
Does the parrallel software allow virtualization too or is that a feature unique to vmware?

Good question, from what I've read I believe that all three (virtual PC, vmware, and parallels) all allow/use virtualization as long as the hardware supports it. I read somewhere about parallels suffering on non-dual-core machines, aka the core solo minis. Beyond that I'm not sure if VMWare = Virtual PC = Parallels or how it plays out. If it's a choice of virtualization preference or how far it goes beyond that... What I do know is now is an exciting time for Apple/Mac users and I can't wait to see everything that comes out. I want a VirtualPC solution, although one just as good if not better then VirtualPC was for the PPC Macs and one that's also not in beta. Is parallels what I'm looking for since it's already entered beta 2 and looks like soon will be fully offered for 39.99 non-beta? I like the idea of Boot Camp except for the fact it's beta, it's youth, some security worries, and having to repartition my hard drive and restart every single time I want to change OS's. Running both simutaneously, and more specifically running Windows in a Mac OSX environment, would be a ideal solution. I've just never used/tried anything but VirtualPC so enlighten me. ;)

IJ Reilly
Apr 10, 2006, 12:26 AM
“This is like building a brand new version for us,” Lefebvre said. “It’s not just a new operating system, it’s new hardware, too—this is a really big transition. It’s hard to say right now what it will look like or when it will be.”

So Microsoft is unfamiliar with the Intel hardware architecture. That explains a lot.

powerbook911
Apr 10, 2006, 12:29 AM
Well, I am using boot camp and Parallels. They are both fantastic. Of course, I prefer booting directly into Windows, if I really have something to do in Windows, but Parallels is fun to play with. Parallels will be better, when sound works.

I think these solutions are great. I need to get some bigger hard drives though. All these extra OSs are starting to take up space. :)

Lollypop
Apr 10, 2006, 12:32 AM
I will definately get a copy of vmware providing it compares feature wise to their windows and linux counterparts. Have used it before and like all the slick features, neat integration and support for a bunch of other hardware and network features. Going to be VERY interesting to see what Apple does with 10.5!

BillyShears
Apr 10, 2006, 12:50 AM
Here's a theory: Apple buys the rights to VPC for Mac from Microsoft. Apple then does their magic on it, and makes it a semi-transparent feature to be included in Leopard. (Similar to Classic and Rosetta.)

I really doubt they'd buy VPC for Mac since it is basically useless now. VPC for Mac is designed to run on PPC processors and emulate x86. In other words, it won't run on x86, and it wouldn't be useful if it did. Like Microsoft said, they basically have to re-write it. I don't even think the x86 version would work well, since it doesn't use the same virtualization process as Parallels does. (i.e. I don't think VPC is optimized for the chip Apple uses -- Parallels is.)

That's my take, anyway. I'm not a hardware guy, so I've probably made some mistakes somewhere, but my understanding is VPC for Mac is basically useless. (Aside from selling to people with old PPC systems, as VanNess pointed out (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2303494&postcount=14).)

nagromme
Apr 10, 2006, 01:00 AM
Sounds like a healthy 3 or 4-way competition. Windows on Mac is pretty safe I'd say.

And I'd much rather have virtualization than Boot Camp--except for Boot Camp being (and staying) nice and free (since I plan to get Leopard anyway).

Ensoniq
Apr 10, 2006, 01:22 AM
VPC for Mac is designed to run on PPC processors and emulate x86. In other words, it won't run on x86, and it wouldn't be useful if it did.

Well talking about today's version of VPC, that is true... But I'm pretty sure Microsoft does have some version of VPC already running in their labs that does work on Intel Macs. They've been selling an x86 based version of VPC for Windows for years.

I'm just saying that if Apple bought the rights to VPC (including maybe importing some of Microsoft's VPC developers who are intimately familiar with the code) and then used it as a base for their overhaul, that would be easier in some ways than starting from scratch.

Apple would probably also want to buy VPC because they don't want JUST a virtualization program (for the Intel side) but also the emulation product (for the PPC side) so that Leopard could support running Windows on all the older non-Intel Macs that are out there. It would just be significantly slower than when run on the Intel machines. (Just like VPC is now...)

MacQuest
Apr 10, 2006, 01:35 AM
Most of my friends with Windows are wanting a Mac now.

The only thing that sux about this, is that pc users reading through these threads might think that this is just pro-Mac propoganda. :rolleyes:

All I can say is, IT'S TOTALLY TRUE!

I'm surprised at how many people in my workplace have forgotten that we sell PowerMacs. On Friday and today, I had to remind a couple of the techs that Apple has Macintosh tower CPU's. They've just become so accustomed to seeing only Apple iMacs, NoteBooks, and Mac minis that they had forgotten all about them.

I then took the side panel off one of the PowerMacs and showed them how clean everything is inside. Obviously, the PCI Express slot is what caused the most commotion amongst the "gamers".

However, the pricing is still out of reach for most of them since the lowest priced PowerMac is $1999, with the next 2 models coming in at $2499 and $2999.

I hope the new Intel "Mac Pros" that replace these Powermacs are Dual Core Duo's [Quad Core] across the line, then the price can stay the same and be justified.

I wish Apple would introduce a couple of "Mac mini Pro" towers with single Core Duo's and PCI Express at $999ish and $1299ish price points to compete with all those tower pc's that are around those price points [even lower after rebates :rolleyes:].

This would be a nice Mac lineup:

- Except for Mac mini Core Solo, all Macs should have at least Core Duos and Superdrives.
- Except for both Mac minis, all Macs should have dedicated graphics cards. - All "MacBooks/MacBook Pros" should be widescreen
- I have dropped the "i" from the iMac line and renamed them "Mac"
- I have adjusted both 15" MacBook Pro prices to previously seen PowerBook pricing

$0599 - Mac mini [Core Solo / integrated graphics]
$0799 - Mac mini [Core Duo / integrated graphics / SuperDrive with iDVD]
$0999 - MacBook [11" or 13" / 64MB VRAM ATI x1300]
$1099 - Mac mini Pro [single Core Duo mini-tower]
$1199 - MacBook [13" 128MB VRAM ATI x1300]
$1299 - Mac [17"]
$1399 - Mac mini Pro [single Core Duo mini-tower]
$1499 - MacBook Pro [13" / 128MB VRAM]
$1699 - Mac [20"]
$1799 - MacBook Pro 15" / 128MB VRAM]
$1999 - Mac Pro [dual Core Duo tower]
$2299 - MacBook Pro [15" / 256MB VRAM]
$2499 - Mac Pro [dual Core Duo tower]
$2999 - Mac Pro [dual Core Duo tower]
$2999 - MacBook Pro [17"... dual Core Duo ;) ]

You may go ahead and start praising my all knowing self now. :D

:eek: * changes into flame retardant suit * :eek:

BillyShears
Apr 10, 2006, 01:41 AM
Apple would probably also want to buy VPC because they don't want JUST a virtualization program (for the Intel side) but also the emulation product (for the PPC side) so that Leopard could support running Windows on all the older non-Intel Macs that are out there. It would just be significantly slower than when run on the Intel machines. (Just like VPC is now...)

Ah, OK, that makes sense to support the PPC side of OS X. I had not thought of that.

I'm not sure if they want to encourage people to stick with PPC Macs instead of buying new Macs (and paying for updates to the Universal versions of all their software). I would think they'd want to improve sales, but you might be right, too.

boncellis
Apr 10, 2006, 01:42 AM
I have a feeling Apple has something significant in store for Leopard. If I recall correctly, its release was rumored to be pushed back before the Boot Camp and BIOS firmware support announcements. I am still somewhat bewildered by the timing of it all, but I suppose it could be because Apple is busy integrating and consolidating everything into a more compact package within Leopard itself. Imagine a customizable startup in the System Preferences alongside Apple's own built-in virtualization capability. $40 for Parallels solution won't seem like such a steal then.

Steve.s
Apr 10, 2006, 01:43 AM
Any reason Q --> http://www.kberg.ch/q/ wasn't on that list? Its open source free and was available before parallels. Does it suck?

gauchogolfer
Apr 10, 2006, 01:51 AM
So Microsoft is unfamiliar with the Intel hardware architecture. That explains a lot.

Thanks, thanks a lot. Now I have to clean off my table since I spit cereal all over it. Thanks.

:D

boncellis
Apr 10, 2006, 01:51 AM
...I'm just saying that if Apple bought the rights to VPC (including maybe importing some of Microsoft's VPC developers who are intimately familiar with the code) and then used it as a base for their overhaul, that would be easier in some ways than starting from scratch.

That is a definite possibility. The first thing that came to my mind after the initial surprise wore off the day Boot Camp was unveiled was "what was the quid pro quo with MS?"

Maybe VPC was involved in a deal like that...of course, I could just be off my rocker.

By the way, where were the rumors from TS and AI or OSXRumors regarding Boot Camp? That came out of nowhere--if it's not hardware I guess it's not worth reporting. ;)

mattster16
Apr 10, 2006, 01:52 AM
I'm pretty sure Microsoft recompiled Xbox 1 games for the Xbox 360 instead of using emulation.

How would they recompile a disk people already own from before the 360? You don't have to go out and buy a new "Xbox 360 compiled Xbox 1" game. It's clear they are using emulation.

aussie_geek
Apr 10, 2006, 01:53 AM
The only thing that sux about this, is that pc users reading through these threads might think that this is just pro-Mac propoganda. :rolleyes:

All I can say is, IT'S TOTALLY TRUE!

I'm surprised at how many people in my workplace have forgotten that we sell PowerMacs. On Friday and today, I had to remind a couple of the techs that Apple has Macintosh tower CPU's. They've just become so accustomed to seeing only Apple iMacs and noteBooks, that they had forgotten about them.

I then took the side panel off one of the PowerMacs and showed them how clean everything is inside. Obviously, the PCI Express slot is what caused the most commotion amongst the "gamers".

However, the pricing is still out of reach for most of them since the lowest priced PowerMac is $1999, with the next 2 models coming in at $2499 and $2999.

I hope the new Intel "Mac Pros" that replace these Powermacs are Dual Core Duo's [Quad Core] across the line, then the price can stay the same and be justified.

I wish Apple would introduce a couple of "Mac mini Pro" towers with single Core Duo's and PCI Express at $999ish and $1299ish price points to compete with all those tower pc's that are around those price points [even lower after rebates :rolleyes:].

This would be a nice Mac lineup:

- Except for Mac mini Core Solo, all Macs should have at least Core Duos and Superdrives.
- Except for both Mac minis, all Macs should have dedicated graphics cards. - All "MacBooks/MacBook Pros" should be widescreen
- I have dropped the "i" from the iMac line and renamed them "Mac"
- I have adjusted both 15" MacBook Pro prices to previously seen PowerBook pricing

$0599 - Mac mini [Core Solo / integrated graphics]
$0799 - Mac mini [Core Duo / integrated graphics / SuperDrive with iDVD]
$0999 - Mac mini Pro [single Core Duo mini-tower]
$0999 - MacBook [11" or 13" / 64MB VRAM ATI x1300]
$1299 - Mac mini Pro [single Core Duo mini-tower]
$1299 - MacBook [13" 128MB VRAM ATI x1300]
$1299 - Mac [17"]
$1499 - MacBook Pro [13" / 128MB VRAM]
$1699 - Mac [20"]
$1799 - MacBook Pro 15" / 128MB VRAM]
$1999 - Mac Pro [dual Core Duo tower]
$2299 - MacBook Pro [15" / 256MB VRAM]
$2499 - Mac Pro [dual Core Duo tower]
$2999 - Mac Pro [dual Core Duo tower]
$2999 - MacBook Pro [17"... dual Core Duo ;)]

You may go ahead and start praising my all knowing self now. :D

:eek: * changes into flame retardant suit * :eek:


Way too many products to sell there mate..


aussie_geek

mozmac
Apr 10, 2006, 01:57 AM
Keep bringing on the virtualization. This is all such great news! Apple computers just gained so much more power.

BillyShears
Apr 10, 2006, 01:59 AM
Way too many products to sell there mate..

I actually thought that, too. But I chekced it out and Apple currently sells 13 computers. MacQuest suggested selling 15. It's probably the way he organized it like that, compared to Apple making a page in their store with two options per model (e.g. Two MacBook Pro options on the MBP page in the store. Three for the Power Mac.)

boncellis
Apr 10, 2006, 02:06 AM
Way too many products to sell there mate..


aussie_geek

I won't reiterate BillyShears' comments as they echo my own--I would like to see a product in between the Mini and the iMac, but I might be in the minority.

I just thought it was ironic that you would say "way too many products." Judging by your signature you might have to go out and get what MacQuest described just out of principle. ;)

Miner Willy
Apr 10, 2006, 02:15 AM
... I would like to see a product in between the Mini and the iMac, but I might be in the minority.

There used to be one until apple culled it recently, the eMac. Super tough, trusty, if a little slow now. A mini tower would be great for those who have alreadly got external drives but need more power than a Mac Mini.

ziutek
Apr 10, 2006, 02:18 AM
How would they recompile a disk people already own from before the 360? You don't have to go out and buy a new "Xbox 360 compiled Xbox 1" game. It's clear they are using emulation.
Um...not exactly.
To run old xbox games you have to download a recompiled binary of the game off of xbox live. You still use your orignal xbox 1 games for all the data.

Here's an article that backs me up:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=8996

MacQuest
Apr 10, 2006, 02:28 AM
This would be a nice Mac lineup:

- Except for Mac mini Core Solo, all Macs should have at least Core Duos and Superdrives.
- Except for both Mac minis, all Macs should have dedicated graphics cards. - All "MacBooks/MacBook Pros" should be widescreen
- I have dropped the "i" from the iMac line and renamed them "Mac"
- I have adjusted both 15" MacBook Pro prices to previously seen PowerBook pricing

$0599 - Mac mini [Core Solo / integrated graphics]
$0799 - Mac mini [Core Duo / integrated graphics / SuperDrive with iDVD]
$0999 - MacBook [11" or 13" / 64MB VRAM ATI x1300]
$1099 - Mac mini Pro [single Core Duo mini-tower]
$1199 - MacBook [13" 128MB VRAM ATI x1300]
$1299 - Mac [17"]
$1399 - Mac mini Pro [single Core Duo mini-tower]
$1499 - MacBook Pro [13" / 128MB VRAM]
$1699 - Mac [20"]
$1799 - MacBook Pro 15" / 128MB VRAM]
$1999 - Mac Pro [dual Core Duo tower]
$2299 - MacBook Pro [15" / 256MB VRAM]
$2499 - Mac Pro [dual Core Duo tower]
$2999 - Mac Pro [dual Core Duo tower]
$2999 - MacBook Pro [17"... dual Core Duo ;) ]

Way too many products to sell there mate..


aussie_geek

Really? I figured someone would say that. Actually, I only added 2 hypothetical ones; Mac mini Pro [mini towers] @ $999 and $1299. I've revised those Mac mini Pro's prices to $1099 and $1399 after giving it some thought though.

It makes sense to me that Apple might introduce 1 or maybe 2 upgradeable towers at half the cost [$1099 - $1499] of the current PowerMacs [$1999 - $2999], but still nearly twice the cost of the Mac minis [$599 -$799]. Especially now that Boot Camp and Intels virtualization allows winBlows XP to run on our Intel Macs. These would be perfect for gamers, working professionals who don't require workstation level hardware [such as the PowerMacs / Mac Pros] or that level's pricing , and anyone else who would like upgradeable hardware.

I added the 13" MacBook Pro @ $1499 because whether or not it will be in the MacBook Pro line or be the highest in the MacBook line, is irrelevant. It is in Apple's current line, and I believe there will be a notebook unit at that price point.

But if that line-up seems a little "too much", then just remove 2 and that's the same number of units in Apple's current line-up.

phatpat88
Apr 10, 2006, 03:00 AM
If Microsoft can't build a proper WMP, and instead just paid Flip4Mac to do it, I have the feeling that they Will eventually just make a deal w/ one of the companies already with working Betas to provide their software Free in order to allow Microsoft to sell more copies of WinBloze.

I think If they can get their act together, they need to FOCUS ON OFFICE and really start some innovation there- they have a good product attachment rate with that - and It is crucial for them to hold onto that, less the open source software gain a bigger foothold for WORD and EXCEL. [Think: Buying a new Mac? Mail and NeoOffice= FREE, and keynote for those with more professional needs]

javierbds
Apr 10, 2006, 03:01 AM
I believe MS has versions of its products for 'Mactels'.
I believe it is not in their interest to release them yet ...
(also because there is not yet a big enough installed base)
(not all reasons are similar to buying a basic interpreter for 1$ ... :( )

I believe Apple is opening all options with MS (and other big names Adobe ...) to avoid being slowed down on 'Mactel' adoption ...

I believe Vista vs Leopard is going to be a BIG time in the history of personal computers.

I believe !!!

Elijahg
Apr 10, 2006, 03:07 AM
Maybe Apple will only allow Windows to run in a window, not as the only operating system after Leopard is released. i.e. Windows will not be able to start independently, it would need to be started from within Leopard.

MacQuest
Apr 10, 2006, 03:09 AM
I actually thought that, too. But I chekced it out and Apple currently sells 13 computers. MacQuest suggested selling 15.

Looks like you rushed to my defense before I could defend myself. :D
I wouldn't post a totally outlandish line-up, I was posting what Apple already has and simply added 2 items that I think would fill a very obvious gap in our Mac line-up. Non-workstation performance, size, or priced mini towers.

The Mac mini Pro.

With Boot Camp and Intel virtualization technology utilizing software crawling out of the woodwork [Parallel, VMWare, VirtualPC?], this would be an EXCELLENT time to introduce 1 or preferrably 2 of these Mac mini Pros IMO!

Also, for those that think I listed too many products, remember that we had two 12" Powerbooks [combo and superdrive] at all stores until just a while ago. So Apple had 14 Macs for a good while there. Kinda makes my 15 not seem like "too many products", right "mate" (aussie_geek)?

I won't reiterate BillyShears' comments as they echo my own--I would like to see a product in between the Mini and the iMac, but I might be in the minority.

I don't think you're in the minority at all boncellis. But to be more accurate, these Mac mini Pro's would be more like a product in between the display-less Mac mini and the display-less Power Macs/Mac Pros.

There is a $1200 price difference between the high end Mac mini @ $799 and the lowest-end PowerMac/Mac Pro @ $1999. There is definately room for another product line and a Mac or two in there.

The more I think about it, these Mac mini Pro towers might be EXACTLY what Apple was planning for when they released the Mac minis with integrated graphics. Of course, I'm sure cost also played a factor. ;)

I just can't help but think of the potential huge sales that Apple would gain by introducing a couple of $1000 - $1500 Mac mini Pro upgradeable towers at this point, especially with Boot Camp and virtualization now available.

There are sooo many winBlows hardware manufacturers out there producing peecees at these price points, or at even less than $1000. I just don't think that Apple needs to take the "low" (price) road on this, since they can basically say, "2 computers for the price of 1, and we have something all of them don't; Mac OS X".

GREAT TIME TO BE A MAC USER!!! :)

kirktalon
Apr 10, 2006, 04:08 AM
Any reason Q --> http://www.kberg.ch/q/ wasn't on that list? Its open source free and was available before parallels. Does it suck?

I would be interested in how to get this to work. I think the documentation on this sucks but maybe I'm not looking hard enough.

It will be interesting to see how long the PPC Macs will be supported.

The first $800 I have free might just go for a Mac Mini.

SmpDigital
Apr 10, 2006, 04:21 AM
I have a feeling Apple has something significant in store for Leopard.

I think that too, eventually boot camp will become something like what classic was on earlier Mac OS X versions, maybe anything by means of user switching?

TheNightPhoenix
Apr 10, 2006, 04:34 AM
Um...not exactly.
To run old xbox games you have to download a recompiled binary of the game off of xbox live. You still use your orignal xbox 1 games for all the data.

Here's an article that backs me up:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=8996


Errr No, it is emulation. It even says so on xbox360.com.

"As you’ve heard from us before, backward compatibility on Xbox 360 is done through software. Now that we’ve solved the technical challenge and the emulator is working, we’re certifying each original Xbox title by hand to run on Xbox 360.

What I’m really proud to tell you and your readers is that it’s easy to get the emulation software, and it’s free. We’ll give gamers a choice—you can get the latest software updates from Xbox Live, burn a CD from xbox.com or sign up on Xbox.com for a CD that can be delivered to your home at a nominal shipping and handling fee. Once you get the CD, put it in your Xbox 360 and you’re ready to go"

BillyShears
Apr 10, 2006, 04:38 AM
Um...not exactly.
To run old xbox games you have to download a recompiled binary of the game off of xbox live. You still use your orignal xbox 1 games for all the data.

Here's an article that backs me up:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=8996

That article is from May 19 2005 and I am pretty sure it is wrong.

Wikipedia says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360#Backward_compatibility): "Backward compatibility is achieved through software emulation of the original Xbox hardware."

Xbox.com says (http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/backwardcompatibilitygameslist.htm): "Note: A software emulator is required for each original Xbox game you play on your Xbox 360™ console."

Updates to the emulator are downloaded from Xbox Live.

magi.sys
Apr 10, 2006, 05:12 AM
Am I the only one thinking these companies are waisting their time?
There's no way Apple isn't planning on making good use of Intel VT in their next OS revision (10.5). It would be crazy for them not too, especially for OS X Server, but client will likely have the feature too, with Server having more features for it. Microsoft is planning on it for windows, I'm sure Apple is too ;)

bousozoku
Apr 10, 2006, 05:21 AM
I'm assuming the next OS X version will allow XP within OS X. If this comes true, why would anybody want VirtualPC?

I'm not sure why they would but Virtual PC for Windows arrived as a virtualisation product before Microsoft bought Connectix and it was decent competition against VMWare.

In any case, it's nice to see polished alternatives arriving so quickly. While Microsoft may get a few more sales out of it, I believe that Apple will see a larger surge in sales.

rdowns
Apr 10, 2006, 05:25 AM
$0599 - Mac mini [Core Solo / integrated graphics]
$0799 - Mac mini [Core Duo / integrated graphics / SuperDrive with iDVD]
$0999 - MacBook [11" or 13" / 64MB VRAM ATI x1300]
$1099 - Mac mini Pro [single Core Duo mini-tower]
$1199 - MacBook [13" 128MB VRAM ATI x1300]
$1299 - Mac [17"]
$1399 - Mac mini Pro [single Core Duo mini-tower]
$1499 - MacBook Pro [13" / 128MB VRAM]
$1699 - Mac [20"]
$1799 - MacBook Pro 15" / 128MB VRAM]
$1999 - Mac Pro [dual Core Duo tower]
$2299 - MacBook Pro [15" / 256MB VRAM]
$2499 - Mac Pro [dual Core Duo tower]
$2999 - Mac Pro [dual Core Duo tower]
$2999 - MacBook Pro [17"... dual Core Duo ;) ]

You may go ahead and start praising my all knowing self now. :D

:eek: * changes into flame retardant suit * :eek:

I'm having a Performa flashback.

BillyShears
Apr 10, 2006, 06:18 AM
Am I the only one thinking these companies are waisting their time?
There's no way Apple isn't planning on making good use of Intel VT in their next OS revision (10.5). It would be crazy for them not too, especially for OS X Server, but client will likely have the feature too, with Server having more features for it. Microsoft is planning on it for windows, I'm sure Apple is too ;)

Maybe, but think about it this way.

1. They've got the virtualization product already for Windows and Linux, it's not like they are making it from scratch. Now, it's a lot of work to get it running on OS X, but the sales they get might make up for that.

2. If they [Parallels, VMWare, MS, etc.] get a good install base, people will be reluctant/unable to switch to Leopard's virtualization. Businesses don't just go updating their servers like that. If virtualization is the only big draw to Leopard, people will be less inclined to update.

3. Leopard is set for late 2006/early 2007. In the mean time, they can clean up in sales.

4. We don't know what form Apple's virtualization technology will take. Maybe they won't support something, maybe it will be really crappy overall.

However, I think virtualization in Leopard means:

1. Competitors need to get the products out ASAP to get as much marketshare as possible.

2. Solutions need to be low-cost since Leopard will most likely be $129, and they [Parallels, VMWare, VPC] may only be interim solutions for many users.

(Besides, don't all OS X software devs eventually get copied by Apple? iPod accessory makers, too.)

mark88
Apr 10, 2006, 06:30 AM
Personally I think Apple have missed a trick here. On one hand they've done fantastic with Boot Camp and Paralells is awesome. But Apple's hardware range let's the whole side down.

I've heard from many Windows users who want to buy an Intel mac after recent events, but they take one look at the models available and just think 'forget about it'.

£450 for a 1.5ghz, 512MB, 60GB, combo drive, intergrated graphics machine just takes the p**s. As soon as you start speccing up a mini to reasonable levels the price becomes very unattractive. Especially with the Core Duo.

The iMacs are by far the best value computers in Apples range but these have limited appeal, especially to people who already have monitors.

If you're a wannabe switcher who simply wants to replace their Windows desktop machine with an Intel Mac then basically the choices just aren't that appealing IMO.

Blackcat
Apr 10, 2006, 06:38 AM
I really doubt they'd buy VPC for Mac since it is basically useless now. VPC for Mac is designed to run on PPC processors and emulate x86. In other words, it won't run on x86, and it wouldn't be useful if it did. Like Microsoft said, they basically have to re-write it. I don't even think the x86 version would work well, since it doesn't use the same virtualization process as Parallels does. (i.e. I don't think VPC is optimized for the chip Apple uses -- Parallels is.)
[/URL].)

MS makes and sells VPC for Windows too. They could bring out Universal VPC if they wanted but I think they are stalling. The VT technology is new, but if a small company like Parallelis can harness it so soon, MS has no excuse at all. Of all people, MS get Intel tech early.

displaced
Apr 10, 2006, 06:56 AM
I'm having a Performa flashback.

*grin*

Ah, yes... the days when Apple seemed to be taking product-range advice from the automotive industry...

Performa 9100 GLXi CD Sprint Turbo Diesel 4x4 (nitrous available as an optional extra).

Happy days...

kirktalon
Apr 10, 2006, 07:04 AM
MS makes and sells VPC for Windows too. They could bring out Universal VPC if they wanted but I think they are stalling. The VT technology is new, but if a small company like Parallelis can harness it so soon, MS has no excuse at all. Of all people, MS get Intel tech early.

Maybe MS found out from the get go that Apple planned to do Boot Camp and that Apple is working/got virtualization all locked up too.

If so, why bother? Knowing that, they can be deliberately vague to protect relations with Apple.

Apple has been working on OS X for Intel all this time. I wouldn't be surprised if they dusted off Boot Camp 2003 from the shelf and then when the time is right go back to that shelf and get the virtualized for Windows portion.

As we all know VIsta is problem enough for MS now.

AidenShaw
Apr 10, 2006, 07:39 AM
$0599 - Mac mini [Core Solo / integrated graphics]
$0799 - Mac mini [Core Duo / integrated graphics / SuperDrive with iDVD]

$1099 - Mac mini Pro [single Core Duo mini-tower]
$1399 - Mac mini Pro [single Core Duo mini-tower]

I'd expect Apple to add a mini-tower - it could be called the "Mac". (Assuming that the PowerMac becomes the "Mac Pro".)

The "Mac" would use the Conroe chip - a single-socket dual-core 64-bit desktop chip.

It would be a small mini-tower - much smaller than a PowerMac. A real PCIe x16 graphics card slot, one or two more PCIe slots, room for at least one more disk (optical or HD).

The "Mac Pro" (PowerMac replacement) should get "Woodcrest" 64-bit chips - these are Xeon class multi-socket capable dual-core chips.

You won't see Yonah (Core Solo/Duo) chips in any of the new desktop Mac systems. The Yonah is 32-bit, and is a stop-gap measure for Apple. With Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest Apple will be able to field an all 64-bit lineup. (Also, none of the Core chips can run dual-socket - so they can't be used in a quad core system.)

The "Mac" mini-tower has a couple of big advantages for Apple

It fills the huge gap between the mini and the PowerMac
All the other Intel PC makers will have low-priced Conroe dual-core mini-towers
It lets Apple raise the price of the Mac Pro considerably (Xeon-class chips have always been more expensive)
It avoids the need for a crippled low end Mac Pro

mark88
Apr 10, 2006, 07:45 AM
I'd expect Apple to add a mini-tower - it could be called the "Mac". (Assuming that the PowerMac becomes the "Mac Pro".)

The "Mac" would use the Conroe chip - a single-socket dual-core desktop chip.

It would be a small mini-tower - much smaller than a PowerMac. A real PCIe x16 graphics card slot, one or two more PCIe slots, room for at least one more disk (optical or HD).

The "Mac Pro" (PowerMac replacement) should get "Woodcrest" chips - these are Xeon class multi-socket capable chips. (None of the Core chips can run dual-socket, neither can Conroe.)

The "Mac" mini-tower has a couple of big advantages for Apple

It fills the huge gap between the mini and the PowerMac
All the other Intel PC makers will have low-priced Conroe dual-core mini-towers
It lets Apple raise the price of the Mac Pro considerably (Xeon-class chips have always been more expensive)
It avoids the need for a crippled low end Mac Pro


I hope you're right, because I do agree that there is a huge hole in Apples range that's preventing many people making the switch.

bit density
Apr 10, 2006, 08:26 AM
One thing virtualization won't solve is connecting non-standard devices for which there are no Mac drivers. No Mac drivers means that even though the device is physically connected to the Mac, virtualized Windows won't see it, since the Mac doesn't either. So, dual-boot still has an advantage.

It would depend on what you mean by "non-standard." If you mean devices that have entirely different electrical connections that require deep changes to the system, yes. But these devices, outside of places where people have soldering irons, and really are doing stuff they generally should not be doing.

But it you mean, non-standard, but otherwise plugs into a USB port, no that should work just fine. Just because there isn't a mac driver doesn't mean that it won't work. Virtualization doesn't require that the mac side has to understand the device, it just has to understand the port.

bit density
Apr 10, 2006, 08:31 AM
Any reason Q --> http://www.kberg.ch/q/ wasn't on that list? Its open source free and was available before parallels. Does it suck?

Yes, first because it is not a virtualization product, it is an emulator, and second because it sucks, by several orders of magnitude.

alywa
Apr 10, 2006, 08:38 AM
The iMacs are by far the best value computers in Apples range but these have limited appeal, especially to people who already have monitors.

If you're a wannabe switcher who simply wants to replace their Windows desktop machine with an Intel Mac then basically the choices just aren't that appealing IMO.

I couldn't agree more. The mini just isn't enough for someone who wants to game, and the iMac is "too much" of a jump into the mac world, especially if folks already own a nice monitor.

I have to think a mid-level tower will come... the fabled "headless iMac". It would be the true switcher's machine. Imagine the high-end mini, but instead with full size hard-drive, upgradable video cards, and user-expandable RAM in a mid-size tower. It just makes sense.

BillyShears
Apr 10, 2006, 08:38 AM
MS makes and sells VPC for Windows too. They could bring out Universal VPC if they wanted but I think they are stalling. The VT technology is new, but if a small company like Parallelis can harness it so soon, MS has no excuse at all. Of all people, MS get Intel tech early.

Oh, I know MS makes VPC for Windows, but I thought we were talking about "buying" it, not licensing the technology. Anyway, AFAIK VPC doesn't use Intel's Virtualization Technology (VT), so I doubt Apple would want to license that. But you're right, I should have been more clear... sorry about that.

As for a small company getting it out before MS that doesn't really surprise me. From what I understand, MS is a management nightmare, and smaller companies are often quicker and more agile. That said, MS has had sufficient time to get it working, and they should have been working on VT anyway for their Windows version of VPC.

Bosunsfate
Apr 10, 2006, 08:45 AM
Well, the WWDC is certainly going to be full of interesting things...not just the new OS.

And the financial future is looking better and better for Apple.

Oh, what to write to Santa about.....::D

BillyShears
Apr 10, 2006, 08:48 AM
I couldn't agree more. The mini just isn't enough for someone who wants to game, and the iMac is "too much" of a jump into the mac world, especially if folks already own a nice monitor.

I have to think a mid-level tower will come... the fabled "headless iMac". It would be the true switcher's machine. Imagine the high-end mini, but instead with full size hard-drive, upgradable video cards, and user-expandable RAM in a mid-size tower. It just makes sense.

I don't know if that is Apple's style or not. Do you remember how surprised everyone was when the Mac Mini came out? If Apple release a "headless iMac", sales the iMac would probably plummet. Almost everyone has a monitor already, the only reason they get an iMac is because it's the closest specs you can get to what you want.

Apple benefits from the iMac with mindshare. When you see an iMac you think "Oooh cool", and you know what an iMac looks like. And they look damn good. If people start using external monitors, it won't be so clear that it's a Mac, it won't grab people's attention.

The laptops obviously have similar appeal. The Mac mini gets attention because it looks like there's no computer.

The Power Mac is usually used by pros and put up on the desk anyway for display. Those are less used by home users, anyway, so mindshare for Power Macs doesn't apply, I don't think.

(Then again, I didn't think Boot Camp would happen, so maybe they are gearing towards gamers and would release a mini tower.)

AidenShaw
Apr 10, 2006, 08:57 AM
The Power Mac is usually used by pros and put up on the desk anyway for display.
The ones that I've seen have all been on the floor - to get the noise off the desk. (Same with almost all PC towers as well.)

Maybe it's because the people that I know buy computers to be tools, not status symbols?

BillyShears
Apr 10, 2006, 09:10 AM
The ones that I've seen have all been on the floor - to get the noise off the desk. (Same with almost all PC towers as well.)

Maybe it's because that the people that I know buy computers to be tools, not status symbols?

Yeah, to be honest I don't know anyone with a Power Mac, I have just heard on here that that is the case. Also I've seen pictures of "rigs" on the Internet, but I guess those are the kinds of people that want to display their new toy. In any case, I think mindshare is less relevant for "pros." Pros will know if someone's using a Mac or not.

GregA
Apr 10, 2006, 09:20 AM
Right now I can go from Windows to OS X's Desktop in 26 seconds, and back in 45 seconds.I wonder how long it would take to hibernate Windows to the hard disk, and wake up Mac from the hard disk? And vice versa.

If Apple automated that you could switch OSes (saving the whole desktop) in < 30 seconds....?

Thinkpad-UTMEM
Apr 10, 2006, 09:38 AM
I'm not sure why they would but Virtual PC for Windows arrived as a virtualisation product before Microsoft bought Connectix and it was decent competition against VMWare.

In any case, it's nice to see polished alternatives arriving so quickly. While Microsoft may get a few more sales out of it, I believe that Apple will see a larger surge in sales.

I have been a longtime user of Virtual Machines on the Macintosh and on our Windows Machines.

I have uses SoftPC/SoftWindows/RealPC, VirtualPC for Windows and the Mac, The SoftMac Emulator, Basilisk II (Windows), and VM Ware.

I currently use VirtualPC and Basilisk II.

VPC runs slower than VM Ware on our Windows Systems. We mostly run a Windows 2000 environment as the Guest OS. It has much less overhead then WindowsXP and has been stable. We occasionally run MS DOS and a Windows 95 virtual machine to run specific legacy applications. The MSDOS virtual machine is easier to use than the command line in Windows XP.

Basilisk II is the best Macintosh Emulator we have used. It runs best with a Quadra ROM image and MacOS 8.1. We run legacy applications like MORE, print to a PDF and transfer that to the host for printing. It will bridge the internet connetion of the host. IT can read the host's hard disk for file transfer.

Basilisk II may be a very good way to implement Classic Support on the Intel Macs. There is a version for MaxOSX, but since it runs in Windows XP, it may be ironic that to run Classic Apps, one might have to run BootCamp and Windows XP.

I do not have experience with Sheepshaver, but it is probably another way to get MacOS 9 running in MacOSX on the Intel Macs. I do not have a copy of OS9 or one of the PowerPC ROM files that it requires. It does suggest that Apple could directly support MacClassic Apps if they wanted to.

VM Ware supports Windows and Linux. It does not support MSDOS. If you have a VirtualPC Vitual Machine, it will import it. One great option is their FREE VM Player that allows any user to run an existing virtual machine, either a VM Ware machine or a VirtualPC machine (at least VirtualPC for Windows).

With the speed of Parallel's Beta, the experimental nature of VMWare's product, the future of Software Virtualization is very Bright.

Apple only needs to introduce a right click button in the MacBooks and things will be very easy in the future. I will run the software and the OS I wiant without having to worry about which machine I have on my desk.

Next Need Project for the Virtualizion companies....

Virtual Playstation
Virtual XBox

(I know that the earlier project for a "Virtual Playstaion" was successfully techncally, but lost in the courtroom... It still is a good idea ...)

dr_lha
Apr 10, 2006, 10:16 AM
Good question, from what I've read I believe that all three (virtual PC, vmware, and parallels) all allow/use virtualization as long as the hardware supports it.
Just to note that All Intel Macs will support virtualisation, special hardware is not needed, as software virtualisation (how everyone did it before Vanderpool) works fine.

I read somewhere about parallels suffering on non-dual-core machines, aka the core solo minis.

This is true, the Core Solo seems to be very slow. However this isn't an issue with the Core Solo I think. I used to run VMWare on a 600Mhz original Athlon running Linux, and the performance running Win98SE under VMWare far exceeded that of running Parallels on a 1.5Ghz Core Solo.

The fact is the 1.5Ghz Core Solo blows away a 600Mhz Athlon, so I think the issue is with tuning of Parallels not with some lack of CPU power in the Solo.

ITR 81
Apr 10, 2006, 10:17 AM
I think MS will make at least one more VPC if not two..for all those PPC folks.
And until they can make virtualization play games then I'm not that interested.

So far for the gamer the Boot Camp is the best bet.
Virtualization however would be the best solution if it could do gaming well.

Krevnik
Apr 10, 2006, 10:20 AM
So Microsoft is unfamiliar with the Intel hardware architecture. That explains a lot.

Tsk, tsk... I would think you would know better than to take pot-shots like that one.

The difference here is that you have the MacBU doing the porting work, whom haven't worked with x86 very much, if at all... and Apple is using a brand-new Intel chipset. Even just consulting with the parts of MS who did the x86 virtualization consumes a lot of time to get up to speed on it. If they just kicked out the MacBU and put the Windows VPC guys, then THOSE guys would have to spend a lot of time getting up to speed on the Mac platform. Either way you are looking at a lot of retraining your employees.

AidenShaw
Apr 10, 2006, 10:47 AM
Just to note that All Intel Macs will support virtualisation, special hardware is not needed, as software virtualisation (how everyone did it before Vanderpool) works fine.
Yes, VT is more of a "hardware acceleration" for virtualization than a requirement. (At least as far as Parallels is concerned.)

This is true, the Core Solo seems to be very slow. However this isn't an issue with the Core Solo I think.
Are there any real benchmarks that show the speed?

One possibility that comes to mind is that the XP installation itself might be very slow, but after it is installed the speed is much better.

There's a good reason for this: when installing from the CD/ISO, only the XP drivers on the CD are used. After installation, the VMtools are installed, which have some higher performance drivers. So, the time for an installation can be a misleading "benchmark". (VMware has similar issues.)

If VT support helps in the "pre-driver" situation, then you might see a much larger difference in performance during an installation than during normal VM use.

lazyrighteye
Apr 10, 2006, 10:48 AM
I obviously have little to no idea if this is plausible, and being the first to suggest such silliness, "ridiculous" must surely be the case.

That said, could it be that MS acquired VPC to somehow (via reverse engineering?) gain an understanding of how they could offer OS X booting in Vista?

I know, crazy talk. Move along.

manu chao
Apr 10, 2006, 11:01 AM
I wonder how long it would take to hibernate Windows to the hard disk, and wake up Mac from the hard disk? And vice versa.

If Apple automated that you could switch OSes (saving the whole desktop) in < 30 seconds....?

Hibernation on my Powerbook with 1.5 GB of RAM and a 2.5" 7200 rpm drive takes about 5-7 s each way.

So look for a grand total of 10-15 s for the switch.

If you really have a lot of RAM, maybe one could lock part of the RAM for Windows and part for OS X, than the switch could be as fast as 2-3 s.

manu chao
Apr 10, 2006, 11:12 AM
Have a look at these entries on macintouch:
http://www.macintouch.com/readerreports/virtualization/index.html#apr10

First entry explains that virtualisation is not yet that simple.

Further down, somebody mentions that running OS X as a virtual system might not be all that legal (PearPC might therefore be just tolerated by Apple).

BillyShears
Apr 10, 2006, 11:14 AM
I obviously have little to no idea if this is plausible, and being the first to suggest such silliness, "ridiculous" must surely be the case.

That said, could it be that MS acquired VPC to somehow (via reverse engineering?) gain an understanding of how they could offer OS X booting in Vista?

I know, crazy talk. Move along.

That's not silly. You can already run OS X on a generic PC, though I believe it is illegal (and I know it is not supported by Apple). So Microsoft wouldn't need to buy anything. If a bunch of hackers could figure it out, surely Microsoft could... copy their work.

Here is the website if you are interested:
http://www.osx86project.org/

plinden
Apr 10, 2006, 11:17 AM
I have a feeling Apple has something significant in store for Leopard. If I recall correctly, its release was rumored to be pushed back before the Boot Camp and BIOS firmware support announcements. I am still somewhat bewildered by the timing of it all, but I suppose it could be because Apple is busy integrating and consolidating everything into a more compact package within Leopard itself. Imagine a customizable startup in the System Preferences alongside Apple's own built-in virtualization capability. $40 for Parallels solution won't seem like such a steal then.
I hope that Leopard does have integrated virtualization support a la Parallels. But it's really unlikely that Leopard will be released before early 2007, so $40 seems like a steal to me for use for the next year, especially compared to VMWare's $250 per VM.

I've been playing about with Parallels Workstation and will buy it once it's released, since I don't play GPU intensive games. (Example benchmark - PCPitstop shows the CPU as equivalent to a 1.8 Pentium-M running XP). I have VMs running WinXP Home, Debian and Fedora Core 4. I'm going to dig out my old Win95 disks to see if I can install that (just for the hell of it).

Still, despite my respect and admiration for Parallels software, I hope Leopard has a better and faster solution, and I'll be using it from when it's released, if it's better.

However, I don't really know how it or any competitor could be better - 90% native CPU speed is way beyond what I had ever hoped for in virtualization. Graphics hardware acceleration isn't possible - although I hope I have the opportunity to eat my words on that.

Bro
Apr 10, 2006, 11:19 AM
MS makes and sells VPC for Windows too. They could bring out Universal VPC if they wanted but I think they are stalling. The VT technology is new, but if a small company like Parallelis can harness it so soon, MS has no excuse at all. Of all people, MS get Intel tech early.

Good point in bringing up the other emulation software MS got with the purchase of Connectix. MS probably didn't buy Connectix because of VPC for Mac. It was for all the other emulation software. Legacy Windows and Windows CE with all the ARM, MIPS, SH, and x86 processors that can be emulated in your development environment on WinXP. This really speeds up development.

AidenShaw
Apr 10, 2006, 11:28 AM
especially compared to VMWare's $250 per VM.
Nonsense.

VMware Workstation is $189 (http://www.vmware.com/vmwarestore/newstore/), and you can run as many VMs as you have RAM to support.

VMware Server is a free download, as is VMware Player.

None of the VMware virtualization products have a per-VM fee. (Not sure about their management products like VMotion)

plinden
Apr 10, 2006, 11:28 AM
Any reason Q --> http://www.kberg.ch/q/ wasn't on that list? Its open source free and was available before parallels. Does it suck?
Hmm ... I played about with it but didn't get into it much, and was looking forward to seeing a good fast verison of Q (they were making a lot of progress).

But, as far as I can tell you need to create a special disk image, which you can't currently do for Windows on Intel iMacs. You could import a VPC image though.

I installed a couple of the prebuilt Linux images from http://free.oszoo.org/download.html and they ran fine, but they were much slower than native speeds.

There's no knowing how much more progress they'll make on this, but I expect Boot Camp and Parallels Workstation has taken the wind out of their sails, for a while anyway.

It might be good to have a free opensource version, but $40-$50 is the cost of one game, and with Parallels, you get to run pretty much any OS you want.

Nonsense.

VMware Workstation is $189 (http://www.vmware.com/vmwarestore/newstore/),
Ok, I was misinformed - I should have looked it up myself. It's still 4x the price. I doubt they'll sell the Mac version for less, since that means they would have to lower their Windows and Linux prices. Of course, it remains to be seen how Parallels future stability and support compares to VMWare.

Even if VMWare hadn't been considering releasing a Mac OS version, I'm sure the news over the past week would have made them reconsider.

bdkennedy1
Apr 10, 2006, 11:58 AM
Leave it to Microsoft to come in last. While they're "thinking", companies are doing.

jeriqo
Apr 10, 2006, 12:02 PM
“This is like building a brand new version for us,” Lefebvre said. “It’s not just a new operating system, it’s new hardware, too—this is a really big transition. It’s hard to say right now what it will look like or when it will be.”

It took a few days for a small company (parallel) to create one.. and still is too big for Microsoft.

dr_lha
Apr 10, 2006, 12:17 PM
Are there any real benchmarks that show the speed?

Not that I know of. My evidence is entirely anecdotal, but my recollection is that Win 98 used to run near Native on VMware, but under Parallels on a Core Solo seemed extremely sluggish compared even to my native installation on an old Athlon. There may be an issue here than Win 98 may just be too old to run well on a Core Solo I guess.

One possibility that comes to mind is that the XP installation itself might be very slow, but after it is installed the speed is much better.

V. possible. I'm using Win98 and the initial scandisk takes about 30 minutes. Under VMware this takes about 2 minutes using a similar size disk.

There's a good reason for this: when installing from the CD/ISO, only the XP drivers on the CD are used. After installation, the VMtools are installed, which have some higher performance drivers. So, the time for an installation can be a misleading "benchmark". (VMware has similar issues.)

No doubt that the VMware drivers perk things up. However my issues seem to be mainly related to the speed accessing the HD, rather than the graphics.

dr_lha
Apr 10, 2006, 12:19 PM
“This is like building a brand new version for us,” Lefebvre said. “It’s not just a new operating system, it’s new hardware, too—this is a really big transition. It’s hard to say right now what it will look like or when it will be.”

It took a few days for a small company (parallel) to create one.. and still is too big for Microsoft.
They already had a product running on Linux and Windows however. Plus where do you get this "few days" figure from? For all we know Parallels have been working on the Mac port since July last year when the developer Intel Macs were released.

dongmin
Apr 10, 2006, 12:20 PM
Graphics hardware acceleration isn't possible - although I hope I have the opportunity to eat my words on that.Isn't Vista's GUI supposed to be hardware-accelerated? I wonder if this will be a major sticking point in the future, even for non-gaming tasks.

I hope that Apple has a virtualization solution that addresses the graphics hardware issue, but then maybe they don't want to provide such a solution, to ensure performance superiority of OS X over Vista.

plinden
Apr 10, 2006, 12:26 PM
Are there any real benchmarks that show the speed?.
I ran the tools on www.pcpitstop.com ... I'm not sure how valid they are, but before installing VMTools, my WinXP Home VM scored 5100 on their CPU test, and 5600 after installing the VMTools.

This is meaningless without a comparison, but thankfully PCPitstop compared it to a 1.8GHz Pentium-M, which scored just over 5600.

Edit: I've done the tests again, and this is a screen dump comparing CPU, RAM and disk - the disk score is low because I have only 15GB virtual drive.

lazyrighteye
Apr 10, 2006, 12:54 PM
It took a few days for a small company (parallel) to create one.. and still is too big for Microsoft.

Maybe you knew about it for a few days, but I'd suggest it took Parallels more than that to go live. ;)

kingtj
Apr 10, 2006, 03:21 PM
I assume part of the reason MS is delaying/stalling on a VPC update is internal conflict as to what directon they want to go with the whole thing.

Like others here, I can't see them totally discontinuing the product, because it's still going to be pretty much the only way a PPC Mac owner can run Windows -- and hey, it just means that many more Windows licenses they get to sell people if they keep it alive.

But there are other considerations. For starters, VPC could really use an update/rewrite even if they didn't do a thing to improve support on Intel Macs. (The big problem I've seen with it is the weird integer math it does. Sometimes, for example, you download a file in IE and instead of 95% done, you get 94.99999936% or something wacko like that. This also screws with some financial software developers who can't use VPC to test their Windows-based apps because of the small math errors it creates. From what I read, this was done on purpose for performance reasons. It was much faster to approximate some calculations with small margins of error than to do the math correctly, when convertiing from x86 to PPC code.) I sure would at least liked to have seen them include a "toggle" to do "true math" or not.

But also, MS probably has to figure out exactly how Apple plans on implementing Windows support in OS X Leopard before making a move on VPC. Depending on how it's done, VPC might still have a place on an Intel-based Mac. (EG. VPC allows running other OS's like Linux or BSD or even IBM's OS/2, as well as Windows. OS X probably won't do any of that natively.)


So Microsoft is unfamiliar with the Intel hardware architecture. That explains a lot.

billyboy
Apr 10, 2006, 04:27 PM
I have to think a mid-level tower will come... the fabled "headless iMac". It would be the true switcher's machine. Imagine the high-end mini, but instead with full size hard-drive, upgradable video cards, and user-expandable RAM in a mid-size tower. It just makes sense.

Apple have done something with the mac mini price and that indicates a couple of possibilities:

either ,they think the mac mini is still the switchers' choice of new Mac, but put the price up $100 because they knew the boot camp option and Parallels were coming soon, ie real value was going to be added to the original mac mini concept.

or the mac mini isnt the switch machine they hoped it would be, so they put a few extra bucks on to maximise what sales they are getting, meanwhile they have a possible mini tower (with video potential aplenty for gamers) plus Boot Camp/Parallels - at a decent price to bring people across from PCs in their droves.?

Whatever the outcome, you have to say, Steve Jobs has loads of moves up his sleeve to build the Apple brand. No single option apart from the iPod has been a run away success, but cumulatively, Apple product ranges are getting ever more compelling for growing numbers of people.

dr_lha
Apr 10, 2006, 08:13 PM
I just got VT-x (or VMX whatever, Vanderpool) working with Parallels on the Mac mini Core Solo. Basically making the machine go to sleep, then waking up seems to enable the VT-x extensions, and Parallels runs much faster as a result.

Cool, and obviously the VT-x being disabled in the Mac Mini is a bug.

MacQuest
Apr 11, 2006, 12:05 AM
$0599 - Mac mini [Core Solo / integrated graphics]
$0799 - Mac mini [Core Duo / integrated graphics / SuperDrive with iDVD]

$1099 - Mac mini Pro [single Core Duo mini-tower]
$1399 - Mac mini Pro [single Core Duo mini-tower]


I'd expect Apple to add a mini-tower - it could be called the "Mac". (Assuming that the PowerMac becomes the "Mac Pro".)

I'm actually thinking it'll be called a "Mac Pro mini" as opposed to my earlier "Mac mini Pro", or your "Mac" naming suggestions. It makes sense to me as this would be a smaller form factor Mac Pro and a mini tower... BAM! Mac Pro mini. I hope they just drop the "i" from iMac and call that the "Mac".

It would be a small mini-tower - much smaller than a PowerMac. A real PCIe x16 graphics card slot, one or two more PCIe slots, room for at least one more disk (optical or HD).

Exacltly what I meant. I like those specs and form factor. :)

The "Mac" mini-tower has a couple of big advantages for Apple

It fills the huge gap between the mini and the PowerMac
All the other Intel PC makers will have low-priced Conroe dual-core mini-towers
It lets Apple raise the price of the Mac Pro considerably (Xeon-class chips have always been more expensive)
It avoids the need for a crippled low end Mac Pro


Yup. As I initially stated, the high end Mac mini is $799 and the lowest end PowerMac/Mac Pro is $1999. There is a nice $1200 price gap right there that I think this Mac Pro mini would fill nicely.

However, I don't think that Apple will be looking to raise the price of the Mac Pro considerably. I think Apple will use dual Core Duo 64-bit Conroe's across the line when initially introduced [WWDC in August], and then upgrade the highest end model to a dual Core Quad 64-bit Kentsfield in Q1 of '07. This would be in line with their current line-up which has single G5 dual core's in the two lower end PowerMacs, and dual G5 dual core's in the highest end PowerMac.

I think pricing will be set at $1999, $2499, and $2999 initially, with the high end dual Quad Core Kentsfield coming in at $3299 - $3499 after it's introduction in Q1 of '07.

Regardless, I just want a couple of "Mac Pro mini's" to be priced in that $1000 - $1500 price range. ;)

Although I was hoping to see these mini towers fairly soon [at NAB within the next 2-3 weeks], I now realize that if they are in fact named Mac Pro's in anyway, shape, or form, then we won't see them until WWDC in August alongside the introduction of the "Mac Pro" line.

That will make for a truly nice WWDC though. ;)

MacQuest
Apr 11, 2006, 01:20 AM
If Apple release a "headless iMac", sales the iMac would probably plummet. Almost everyone has a monitor already...

I would have to somewhat disagree. Yeah, almost everyone has a monitor... CRT that is.

LCD display sales are rising steadily, but still have a long way to go. The iMac is a great solution for those people who don't have LCD's yet, and there's a lot of them. A Mac Pro mini [mini tower / headless iMac :rolleyes:] would fly out of stores and not hurt iMac sales one bit IMO.



Apple benefits from the iMac with mindshare. When you see an iMac you think "Oooh cool", and you know what an iMac looks like. And they look damn good.

Agreed.

If people start using external monitors, it won't be so clear that it's a Mac, it won't grab people's attention

Apple's got plenty of attention grabbing products and I believe this proposed "Mac Pro mini" will be one of them as well, just not to the same extent. This unit will prioritize critically needed function [upgradeability in a low cost, mini tower Mac] over form [unique designs in other product lines will offset this].

The Power Mac is usually used by pros and put up on the desk anyway for display.

The only places I've seen Power Macs up on desks [as opposed to on the floor or below the desk in a dedicated desk space] is at the stores that are trying to sell them, and therefore are showcasing them and have the room/airspace to do so which dissipates the heat and noise nicely. In smaller real work/home environments, workspace [especially on the desktop] is usually a concern.

Those are less used by home users, anyway, so mindshare for Power Macs doesn't apply, I don't think.

Exactly. Which is why a Mac Pro mini tower at half the cost of the current PowerMacs, with a decreased footprint and profile, makes sense for home users who are intimidated by the PowerMac's size and price.

People still buy lots of desktop peecees for work and/or home in the $800 - $1300 price range, to connect to their existing monitors, keyboards and mice. Apple's $200 premium for a superior machine is easily justified and puts the Mac Pro mini in the $1000 - $1500 range.

I would be first in line for a lower end $1099 upgradeable Mac Pro mini tower and finally buy a 20" Apple Cinema Display @ $799 too. That would be a pretty sweet $2000ish system. Actually, I would probably choose the 23" ACD so that I could have HD resolution.

I'm hoping that we'll see some Apple Cinema Display price drops at NAB: 20" @ $599 [-$200] / 23" @ $999 [-$300] / 30" @ $2099 or $1999 :eek: [- $400 / $500]

(Then again, I didn't think Boot Camp would happen, so maybe they are gearing towards gamers and would release a mini tower.)

So after all your reasoning as to why we wont see Mac Pro min towers, you think there is a possibility that this may happen?!!!

Way to "play it safe", BillyShears. :rolleyes: ;) :D

BillyShears
Apr 11, 2006, 01:59 AM
I would have to somewhat disagree. Yeah, almost everyone has a monitor... CRT that is.

LCD display sales are rising steadily, but still have a long way to go. The iMac is a great solution for those people who don't have LCD's yet, and there's a lot of them. A Mac Pro mini [mini tower / headless iMac :rolleyes:] would fly out of stores and not hurt iMac sales one bit IMO.

Yeah, but the average person goes into an Apple store and looks at this tower. "And I don't need to buy a monitor? Well, I guess I'll just use mine since it seems to work fine." Maybe they'd be talked into buying an LCD, but since they already dropping $1000+, they might not.


Exactly. Which is why a Mac Pro mini tower at half the cost of the current PowerMacs, with a decreased footprint and profile, makes sense for home users who are intimidated by the PowerMac's size and price.

Oh, it would make sense for home users and it would sell well. I don't think it would make sense for Apple. They lose mindshare and their upselling. Right now if you want more than a mini you need to get an iMac (which costs more than a mini tower), or a Power Mac (which costs more than an iMac).


So after all this, you think this might happen?!

Way to "play it safe" BillyShears. :rolleyes: ;) :D

I don't really think I can claim to make a good guess right now with Apple. A couple years ago, people could guess pretty well since they had a pretty stable policy. Now nobody knows what Apple's thinking, for the most part.

Also I'm not one to say "won't happen ever" except in the most obvious of cases.

MacQuest
Apr 11, 2006, 06:55 AM
Yeah, but the average person goes into an Apple store and looks at this tower. "And I don't need to buy a monitor? Well, I guess I'll just use mine since it seems to work fine." Maybe they'd be talked into buying an LCD, but since they already dropping $1000+, they might not.

Apple can't be held entirely responsible for people with poor sales abilities who can't "qualify" a customer properly in order to find out what they may or may not be willing to purchase. It is those salespeople's jobs to sell a solution and then upsell, or downsell, when appropriate.

That's why the Apple Shops at CompUSA and the Apple Stores were so necessary and have been so well received. Now customers have a place to go where they can focus on Apple products and talk to people who have been trained on Apple products by Apple themselves.

Not releasing a new, very distinct [much more upgradeable than a Mac mini or iMac, much lower price than a PowerMac] and much needed [$1200 price gap between "similar" products, the $799 Mac mini & $1999 PowerMac... the iMac is not a similar product] Mac product line for "fear" of driving sales away from another existing product line is a very weak business model.

Fill all the product line gaps and thoroughly train the sales people on each product line, as well as how to qualify a customer to find out which product line best suits them is what needs to be done in any sales environment.

If no one released any new products for fear of "taking" sales away from an existing product that is "remotely" similar [yes, the Mac mini would be very different from the Mac Pro mini, and both of those are/would be very different from the iMac], then we would all have one product o choose from.

Doesn't make good business sense, does it?

Oh, it would make sense for home users and it would sell well. I don't think it would make sense for Apple. They lose mindshare and their upselling. Right now if you want more than a mini you need to get an iMac (which costs more than a mini tower), or a Power Mac (which costs more than an iMac).

This makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever.

You say "it would sell", but you "don't think it would make sense for Apple" because they "lose mindshare" and the potential to "upsell"?

WHAT?!!!:eek: :confused: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Okay, here goes:

If it sells, then it makes sense for Apple, because regardless of which Mac product is purchased, Apple's "mindshare" will increase with any Mac product sold, and the potential to "upsell" is dictated by the customers willingness and/or ability to pay, whether it's an all inclusive unit like the iMac at that moment because they want it all know and have either set a solid mental budget or have an actual physical budget, or a planned purchase over time like a Mac Pro mini tower now with the intent to buy a display in [whatever amount of time] because they like the upgradeability option of the mini tower which the iMac does not accomodate.

Whew.

It is the sales person's responsibility to qualify the customer taking all of the above parameters [and any others that I may have missed] into account, and sell the appropriate solution which is a lot easier to do when there is not huge gaps in the product line and pricing matrix, made painfully obvious by the fact that every other competitor has a product filling that same gap in both those categories.

Apple went Intel [besides the fact that IBM & Motorola blew it] to level the hardware playing field. Apple released Boot Camp to invite direct competition from a weaker opponent on it's own, now leveled hardware playing field. the truth cannow be experienced by the users themselves, side by side and hands-on.

Apple is only one product line [Mac Pro mini tower] away from giving every peecee hardware manufacturer a swift kick in the (insert sensitive and very painful when kicked anatomical part here.)

AidenShaw
Apr 11, 2006, 08:09 AM
I think Apple will use dual Core Duo 64-bit Conroe's across the line when initially introduced [WWDC in August.
No.

The Core Duo cannot be used in a dual-socket configuration. Neither will the Conroe.

The Core Solo/Duo are replacing the Pentium M in the Intel lineup - mobile and power-sensitive use (blades, AIO, SFF).

The Conroe will replace the Pentium. Strictly single socket, single or dual-core - but only one chip. This is the "desktop" market chip.

Woodcrest will replace the Xeon. Dual socket capable for a dual dual-core. (Some models quad socket capable.) Usually larger cache (Woodcrest expected to be 4 MiB L2.) These are workstation/server chips


However, I don't think that Apple will be looking to raise the price of the Mac Pro considerably.
...
This would be in line with their current line-up which has single G5 dual core's in the two lower end PowerMacs, and dual G5 dual core's in the highest end PowerMac.
I disagree for two reasons....

1. The "Mac" (or "Mac Pro mini-tower") will eliminate the need for the crippled entry-level PowerMac. A higher end mini-tower would seriously overlap the low-end PowerMac - so make the "Mac Pro" line dual-socket only.

2. Intel's traditionally charged a premium for Xeon CPUs and the associated chipsets. Woodcrest will start at $850 per 3 GHz CPU (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29510), vs $530 for the top Conroe (http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2006/04/05/intel_conroe_pricing_details/) and $423 for the top Core Duo (after the price cut).

This doesn't include the chipset - and as an indicator for that you can buy an Intel mobo for a dual-core Pentium D for $105 at Newegg.com - but a dual-socket Xeon SE7525RP2 - Entry Level Server Board is $296 according to Froogle.
______________________

So, I'd predict the Mac Pro (PowerMac) to increase in price simply because the entry model is axed - but to also have a real price increase because the "Xeon" CPUs and chipsets are much more expensive than the rumoured price of the G5s.

It Apple sticks with a single socket entry-level "Mac Pro", it would need to have significant expansion capability beyond today's G5. Two hard drives and one optical in a case the size of the G5 is absurd. A single socket "Mac Pro" that held 4 to 6 HD and two optical would make sense, though. ("Sense" because while it would overlap the mini-tower in CPU performance, it could have I/O options that gave it added usefulness.)

One other thing to consider is that Apple could use different CPU models and motherboards within the "Mac Pro" lineup. I've been making the case that a single-socket Xeon wouldn't make sense - but Apple could use the mini-tower motherboard in the single-socket Mac Pro systems, and a Woodcrest dual-socket mobo in the quad core configs.

~Shard~
Apr 11, 2006, 08:58 AM
I think Apple will use dual Core Duo 64-bit Conroe's across the line when initially introduced [WWDC in August]

What the hell is a "dual Core Duo Conroe"??? :confused: Sorry, but you can't just go merging chips like that. Either you're referring to Core Duo or Conroe, which is it? Regardless, Core Duos cannot be used in a dual setup and I don't believe Conroe can be either, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Maybe instead fo going for a "dual Core Duo Conroe" you should wait for the "quad dual Duo quad core Kentsfield Meroms", I hear they're going to be a smoking processor... :p :cool:

dr_lha
Apr 11, 2006, 09:52 AM
It Apple sticks with a single socket entry-level "Mac Pro", it would need to have significant expansion capability beyond today's G5. Two hard drives and one optical in a case the size of the G5 is absurd. A single socket "Mac Pro" that held 4 to 6 HD and two optical would make sense, though. ("Sense" because while it would overlap the mini-tower in CPU performance, it could have I/O options that gave it added usefulness.)
Why pray-tell would an "entry level" Mac Pro need room for 4-6 hard drives? 2 optical drives I can just about understand (although I think is really unnecessary).

BTW - Mid-level Apple Mac Tower - never going to happen folks.

AidenShaw
Apr 11, 2006, 11:02 AM
Why pray-tell would an "entry level" Mac Pro need room for 4-6 hard drives? 2 optical drives I can just about understand (although I think is really unnecessary).
Choice.

Some people don't need a fire-breathing quad, but they do need expansion for disks (think small office server).

Dell recognizes this, and puts the same mobo in a choice of configs:

http://img.dell.com/images/global/products/optix/gx_4_chassis_180x110.jpg


BTW - Mid-level Apple Mac Tower - never going to happen folks.
I'll bookmark this note so that you can eat crow when Apple announces the Conroe mini-tower.

Thinkpad-UTMEM
Apr 11, 2006, 12:25 PM
Good point in bringing up the other emulation software MS got with the purchase of Connectix. MS probably didn't buy Connectix because of VPC for Mac. It was for all the other emulation software. Legacy Windows and Windows CE with all the ARM, MIPS, SH, and x86 processors that can be emulated in your development environment on WinXP. This really speeds up development.

Microsoft has always been interested in any technology that allowed one to run their OS.

In the days after the founding of Microsoft to provide a Basic for the first Personal Computers, and before MSDOS and PCDOS the engine that drove Microsoft was the Microsoft SoftCard. It was a plug in card with a Z80 for the Apple II and Apples //e that allowed the Apple computer to boot and run CP/M (provided by Microsoft) and Wordstar. It was very successful.

If Bootcamp allows Macs to rune Windows XP, it will be no different than the market 29 years ago...

bousozoku
Apr 11, 2006, 01:58 PM
Microsoft has always been interested in any technology that allowed one to run their OS.

In the days after the founding of Microsoft to provide a Basic for the first Personal Computers, and before MSDOS and PCDOS the engine that drove Microsoft was the Microsoft SoftCard. It was a plug in card with a Z80 for the Apple II and Apples //e that allowed the Apple computer to boot and run CP/M (provided by Microsoft) and Wordstar. It was very successful.

If Bootcamp allows Macs to rune Windows XP, it will be no different than the market 29 years ago...

No different? How could that be? Microsoft didn't do anything but include Digital Research's CP/M with the card. Besides, it was a very stable operating system for the time.

dr_lha
Apr 11, 2006, 02:16 PM
Choice.

Some people don't need a fire-breathing quad, but they do need expansion for disks (think small office server).

Dell recognizes this, and puts the same mobo in a choice of configs:

http://img.dell.com/images/global/products/optix/gx_4_chassis_180x110.jpg

We're not talking about servers now are we? Apple only makes rack mount servers. So what do you want the low end Mac Tower to be, a server computer, a desktop computer or a workstation? Pick one.

Most people here I think are after something like a iMac, with some expandability and no screen. 4-6 hard drives doesn't fit into that market.



I'll bookmark this note so that you can eat crow when Apple announces the Conroe mini-tower.
Looking forward to it.

phatpat88
Apr 11, 2006, 02:59 PM
Here's a theory: Apple buys the rights to VPC for Mac from Microsoft. Apple then does their magic on it, and makes it a semi-transparent feature to be included in Leopard. (Similar to Classic and Rosetta.)


Why bother doing that? Chances are apple would be able to start from scratch and do something themselves faster, cheaper, and better than buying old code from MS

dongmin
Apr 11, 2006, 03:34 PM
Choice.

Some people don't need a fire-breathing quad, but they do need expansion for disks (think small office server).

Dell recognizes this, and puts the same mobo in a choice of configs:

http://img.dell.com/images/global/products/optix/gx_4_chassis_180x110.jpg
It's not exactly what you're talking about but people've been asking for a 'MacHome' for ages now. Take the Mini mobo, add a couple PCI-e slots, and replace the notebook HDD with a 3.5-incher. Put it in a case that you could stand up or lay horizontally in a stereo-component-type setup. Offer it with a boatload of entertainment-oriented BTO options like 512MB graphic card or DVR card. The cost of manufacturing the basic box wouldn't be much more than the Mini; Apple could probably get away with just a $100 premium. AND Apple could make a KILLING on the BTO options.

AidenShaw
Apr 11, 2006, 03:57 PM
We're not talking about servers now are we? Apple only makes rack mount servers.
Actually, Apple makes all kinds of servers:

http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/specs.html

Mac OSX Server Requirements

Xserve G5
Xserve (G4)
Power Mac G5
Power Mac G4
Macintosh Server G4
Power Macintosh G3 (Blue & White)
Macintosh Server G3 (Blue & White)
iMac G5
iMac (G4)
eMac (G4)
Mac mini (G4) computer

It looks like Apple will call just about anything without a battery a "server".

So what do you want the low end Mac Tower to be, a server computer, a desktop computer or a workstation? Pick one.
The point is that the user should be able to choose which one of these three options a system will perform.

My main contention is that there will be a Conroe (64-bit dual core, single socket) mini-tower sitting between the MiniMacIntel and the current large PowerMac G5.

That price gap is too large to sustain, and Intel's pricing tiers for single-socket vs. multi-socket chips will force Apple to raise the price of the multi-socket PowerMac replacement.


Most people here I think are after something like a iMac, with some expandability and no screen. 4-6 hard drives doesn't fit into that market.
Completely agree. These people would want the mini-tower, with room for one extra disk (optical or HD), a PCIe graphics slot, a couple of empty RAM slots.

Please go back and reread my comment.

I'm sorry if it wasn't clear, but I was trying to say "since the mini-tower would overlap a low-end big tower in performance - the only reason to keep a low-end big tower in the lineup is if it had much more expansion than the mini-tower, say 4-6 disks".

dr_lha
Apr 11, 2006, 04:01 PM
It's not exactly what you're talking about but people've been asking for a 'MacHome' for ages now. Take the Mini mobo, add a couple PCI-e slots, and replace the notebook HDD with a 3.5-incher. Put it in a case that you could stand up or lay horizontally in a stereo-component-type setup. Offer it with a boatload of entertainment-oriented BTO options like 512MB graphic card or DVR card. The cost of manufacturing the basic box wouldn't be much more than the Mini; Apple could probably get away with just a $100 premium. AND Apple could make a KILLING on the BTO options.
Although I'd like to see this, I think Apple likes to have clear space between their lines. A system like this for only $100 more than a Mini doesn't make sense to me, knowing how Apple like to do business.

The comparisons with Dell are the issue here, Dell is the anti-Apple in terms of its product line. They allow you to go from A-Z with every single permuation along the way. Apple definitely prefer simplicity:

Mac Mini
iMac
Power/Pro Mac

with about $500 gap between the models (i.e. Core duo mini, $799, low in iMac, $1299. High end iMac $1699, Low end Mac Pro $2099(?)).

I think the best we'll see in terms of a mid-range Apple tower is if they produce a lower-end PowerMac type computer, but then that overlaps with the iMac too much.

dr_lha
Apr 11, 2006, 04:08 PM
Mac OSX Server Requirements

Xserve G5
Xserve (G4)
Power Mac G5
Power Mac G4
Macintosh Server G4
Power Macintosh G3 (Blue & White)
Macintosh Server G3 (Blue & White)
iMac G5
iMac (G4)
eMac (G4)
Mac mini (G4) computer

It looks like Apple will call just about anything without a battery a "server".

Yes, yes. However "server hardware" is usually characterised by something that can take a lot of HDs, the 4-6 you mentioned.


My main contention is that there will be a Conroe (64-bit dual core, single socket) mini-tower sitting between the MiniMacIntel and the current large PowerMac G5.

My contention is that you'll be dissappointed. I think the cheapest Apple tower will remain at 2 grand. We'll see what CPU it takes. I highly doubt that Apple will be introducing a "4th box" as it were, to go along side the mini, iMac and whatever replaces the PowerMac.


That price gap is too large to sustain, and Intel's pricing tiers for single-socket vs. multi-socket chips will force Apple to raise the price of the multi-socket PowerMac replacement.

I think what we'll see here is Apple high end machines will be stonkingly expensive, in line with the Intel prices of >$500 per chip.


I'm sorry if it wasn't clear, but I was trying to say "since the mini-tower would overlap a low-end big tower in performance - the only reason to keep a low-end big tower in the lineup is if it had much more expansion than the mini-tower, say 4-6 disks".
OK, I'm not really convinced of your logic here, but I'll let it slide. ;)

AidenShaw
Apr 11, 2006, 04:10 PM
It's not exactly what you're talking about but people've been asking for a 'MacHome' for ages now. Take the Mini mobo, add a couple PCI-e slots, and replace the notebook HDD with a 3.5-incher. Put it in a case that you could stand up or lay horizontally in a stereo-component-type setup. Offer it with a boatload of entertainment-oriented BTO options like 512MB graphic card or DVR card. The cost of manufacturing the basic box wouldn't be much more than the Mini; Apple could probably get away with just a $100 premium. AND Apple could make a KILLING on the BTO options.
Oh, something that looks like this:

http://hpshopping.speedera.net/www.shopping.hp.com/shopping/images/products/pn065aa_400.jpg

dr_lha
Apr 11, 2006, 04:12 PM
Oh, something that looks like this:

http://hpshopping.speedera.net/www.shopping.hp.com/shopping/images/products/pn065aa_400.jpg
Those things haven't exactly been selling like hot cakes though have they?

PS:

http://www.marigold.cz/media/1/20050112-amiga-cdtv.jpg

ManchesterTrix
Apr 11, 2006, 04:15 PM
We're not talking about servers now are we? Apple only makes rack mount servers.


Last I looked they offer Server software as an installed option on the G5 Tower.

dr_lha
Apr 11, 2006, 04:19 PM
Last I looked they offer Server software as an installed option on the G5 Tower.
You can install server software on anything, hell I've run a server off an old Pentium 1 laptop. What I meant was server hardware. I.e. something that can take 4-6 HDs internally.

AidenShaw
Apr 11, 2006, 05:55 PM
What I meant was server hardware. I.e. something that can take 4-6 HDs internally.
XServe G5 only holds 3 drives, not a server in your opinion?

Other Intel workstations that are the size of the PowerMac G5 typically hold more than two 3.5" HDs and one optical drive...


HP xw8200 (http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF06a/12454-296719-296721-307907-296721-424560.html) - five 3.5" bays and three 5.25" optical bays
Dell PW670 (http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/precn_670?c=us&cs=555&l=en&s=biz&~page=2&~tab=specstab#tabtop) - three 3.5" bays, three 5.25" bays


Why is it that so many people on these boards dismiss as stupid anything that they themselves don't need?

Why can't they believe that someone would want to put several disks in an office tower, and want to run it as a server?

ManchesterTrix
Apr 11, 2006, 06:08 PM
You can install server software on anything, hell I've run a server off an old Pentium 1 laptop. What I meant was server hardware. I.e. something that can take 4-6 HDs internally.

I'm not talking a out installing server software on anything. If Apple is selling G5 towers preloaded with Server software, then it would reason that they intend "server" as a very real potential use for the tower.

dongmin
Apr 11, 2006, 07:40 PM
Oh, something that looks like this:

http://hpshopping.speedera.net/www.shopping.hp.com/shopping/images/products/pn065aa_400.jpg

Actually, no, nothing like that. I said it could go on top of AV components, but it shouldn't look or function anything like that. It should be a Mac through and through. It should borrow the Mini's aesthetics but allow you to stand it up vertically or horizontally, like you can with the playstation/xbox.

The idea is that, at its most basic level, it's just a 'stretched' Mini. The PCI-e slots and the extra HDD space allows people to configure it however they want. Apple can offer different preconfigured models:

1. Gaming machine - badass graphics card; basic HDD; maybe surround-sound card

2. Entertainment Center - DVR card with hardware encoding/decoding; two bigass HDDs; HDMI

3. Xserve Mini - ???

dr_lha
Apr 11, 2006, 07:50 PM
XServe G5 only holds 3 drives, not a server in your opinion?
When exactly did I say that? I simply pointed out that a computer that held 4-6 HDs would be a server machine, I didn't say a machine had to hold 4-6 HDs to be a server.

This is a ****ing pointless argument if ever there was one!

For the record I don't think of G5 hardware as "server hardware" however. I think of it as a workstation running server software because that is what it is.

AidenShaw
Apr 11, 2006, 09:20 PM
When exactly did I say that? I simply pointed out that a computer that held 4-6 HDs would be a server machine, I didn't say a machine had to hold 4-6 HDs to be a server.
What you said was:

What I meant was server hardware. I.e. something that can take 4-6 HDs internally.
You said "id est", not "exempli gratia". "Id est" is commonly translated as "that is", which in this case means that you clearly state that a system needs to support at least 4 disks to be considered a server.

Don't use foreign language phrases if you don't know what they mean.

For the record I don't think of G5 hardware as "server hardware" however. I think of it as a workstation running server software because that is what it is.
In the case of the PowerMac G5 running as a server, I agree. The PowerMac doesn't have ECC memory, which to me is not acceptable for server hardware.

However, a "server" is in the eye of the beholder. If a small office needs a file server, running OSX Server on a MiniMac with a 1394 drive might be what they need. Then it's a server.

octubre29
Apr 12, 2006, 12:20 AM
Get ready for the most unreliable mac ever. Smart people know that a computer is just a computer without the software. The problem with PC's is not the hardware, god knows if Alienware made a computer running OSX it would be a screamer. What is really wrong is the Windows OS and god save your souls if you can stomach the usual crashes brought on by Windows on your mac.

Billy Boo Bob
Apr 12, 2006, 05:15 AM
As for a small company getting it out before MS that doesn't really surprise me. From what I understand, MS is a management nightmare, and smaller companies are often quicker and more agile. That said, MS has had sufficient time to get it working, and they should have been working on VT anyway for their Windows version of VPC.
But the people working on VPC for Mac are a handful of folks in the Mac Business Unit. Mac programmers tucked away in their own little shack working on Mac programs. (I guess, there has to be *some* sharing of knowledge between the MBU and the Windows Office group in order to keep file fomats in sync).

I think one reason for the delay is that you'll find if/when VPC does come back out, it'll be the nicest of the bunch. You'll find a lot tighter integration between the Mac and any of the VMs (and across VMs, too, probably). Drag and drop a Mac folder on the sharing icon on the bottom and you have a new lettered drive on the PC. Drag from the Mac desktop onto the Windows desktop and you copy the file/folder (and the other way). Better networking and USB options, too, I'm sure. The MBU would have to work with some of the guys/gals in the OS group, too, to make sure they understand some of the insides of XP and Vista to make the extended features work.

I haven't used Parallels yet, and they might have some of this, but I doubt that they've gone far beyond making XP run at a nice clip and providing the basics for networking and USB support. I would think that the MBU is doing a ground up rewrite of the Mac version which require much different coding to mix and match OS X to Windows, as opposed to mixing one Windows with another, as in the Windows version of VPC.

I dunno. Can you drag and drop an iso image file from the Mac and turn it into a lettered drive in Parallels? Make virtual floppies (images) (not that they'll be necessary much any more) that will boot the PC if "inserted" (loaded)? Can you expand and shrink "fixed size" PC drive image files in Parallels?

I'm not asking sarcastically as if I think I know they don't... These are honest questions from someone who's still struggling with a tired old dog (eMac 800) and won't be able to get an Intel Mac for a while to learn it myself. I'm just curious about it (and admittadly a bit lazy to go looking around at their site to find out). :o

systimax
Apr 12, 2006, 08:14 AM
No Parallels cant do that..but Vmware can. And much better then VPC from MS


But the people working on VPC for Mac are a handful of folks in the Mac Business Unit. Mac programmers tucked away in their own little shack working on Mac programs. (I guess, there has to be *some* sharing of knowledge between the MBU and the Windows Office group in order to keep file fomats in sync).

I think one reason for the delay is that you'll find if/when VPC does come back out, it'll be the nicest of the bunch. You'll find a lot tighter integration between the Mac and any of the VMs (and across VMs, too, probably). Drag and drop a Mac folder on the sharing icon on the bottom and you have a new lettered drive on the PC. Drag from the Mac desktop onto the Windows desktop and you copy the file/folder (and the other way). Better networking and USB options, too, I'm sure. The MBU would have to work with some of the guys/gals in the OS group, too, to make sure they understand some of the insides of XP and Vista to make the extended features work.

I haven't used Parallels yet, and they might have some of this, but I doubt that they've gone far beyond making XP run at a nice clip and providing the basics for networking and USB support. I would think that the MBU is doing a ground up rewrite of the Mac version which require much different coding to mix and match OS X to Windows, as opposed to mixing one Windows with another, as in the Windows version of VPC.

I dunno. Can you drag and drop an iso image file from the Mac and turn it into a lettered drive in Parallels? Make virtual floppies (images) (not that they'll be necessary much any more) that will boot the PC if "inserted" (loaded)? Can you expand and shrink "fixed size" PC drive image files in Parallels?

I'm not asking sarcastically as if I think I know they don't... These are honest questions from someone who's still struggling with a tired old dog (eMac 800) and won't be able to get an Intel Mac for a while to learn it myself. I'm just curious about it (and admittadly a bit lazy to go looking around at their site to find out). :o

Photorun
Apr 12, 2006, 01:11 PM
Choice.Dell recognizes this, and puts the same mobo in a choice of configs:

http://img.dell.com/images/global/products/optix/gx_4_chassis_180x110.jpg

All fine and dandy but I'm thinking Apple could make something that looked hella less FUGLY than the Dull Chumputer pieces of crap pictured.

ryanflanders256
Apr 12, 2006, 01:53 PM
Beta 3 is out.

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

AidenShaw
Apr 12, 2006, 04:21 PM
All fine and dandy but I'm thinking Apple could make something that looked hella less FUGLY than the Dull Chumputer pieces of crap pictured.
Dark metal and plastic is just fine lurking in the shadows under a desk - they more or less disappear.

Not at all like the garish PowerMac G5....

:D

Billy Boo Bob
Apr 12, 2006, 04:28 PM
No Parallels cant do that..but Vmware can. And much better then VPC from MS
That's cool. And, I suppose that Parallels might at some point, too.

I'm not saying that MS is the only one I want. Myself, I'll go ahead with one of the others once I have a MacTel (due to lack of $). The only thing that I'm thinking is that some potential switchers (we need a new term for those that will still want or need to use Windows primarily on their Mac PC (to begin with)) will want to stick with the Microsoft branding all the way around. The not-so-tech-knowledgable ones might feel more comfortable going with MS's version of virtualization instead of an unknown (to them) third party solution.

So, even if Parallels, VMWare, and others can match the features, MS has the advantage of brand recognition (even if at a higher price). Plus, they stand a chance to sell more copies of XP/Vista bundled with it to cut into the bootleg % rate of the OS that will surely happen with the other solutions. I think it would be in their own interest to continue with VPC development.

Billy Boo Bob
Apr 12, 2006, 05:01 PM
Beta 3 is out.

http://www.parallels.com/en/download/mac/
I looked through their site but couldn't find it. Just curious what was fixed / improved in this version. I'm sure it's probably included in the download, but I haven't been downloading since I have no MacTel.

ManchesterTrix
Apr 12, 2006, 06:25 PM
I looked through their site but couldn't find it. Just curious what was fixed / improved in this version. I'm sure it's probably included in the download, but I haven't been downloading since I have no MacTel.

The list from the email I got was: No need to reinstall Parallels Workstation if its moved from the default file location
Mac OS X no longer restarts when Parallels Workstation is left running and host wakes up from "Sleep" mode
Kernel no longer panics when working with several VMs
Improved speed and performance
Idling guest OS now consumes only 1-2% of CPU power
Bridged networking issues fixed
Sound support introduced
Improved wi-fi support (especially for MacBook pros)
Improved mouse synchronization tool
Keyboard mapping and repeating bugs fixed
CD/DVD problems fixed
Many other minor bug fixes

Sound does work if a little bit flakey at times, I notice it stutters sometimes.

Billy Boo Bob
Apr 12, 2006, 07:36 PM
The list from the email I got was: No need to reinstall Parallels Workstation if its moved from the default file location
Mac OS X no longer restarts when Parallels Workstation is left running and host wakes up from "Sleep" mode
Kernel no longer panics when working with several VMs
Improved speed and performance
Idling guest OS now consumes only 1-2% of CPU power
Bridged networking issues fixed
Sound support introduced
Improved wi-fi support (especially for MacBook pros)
Improved mouse synchronization tool
Keyboard mapping and repeating bugs fixed
CD/DVD problems fixed
Many other minor bug fixes

Sound does work if a little bit flakey at times, I notice it stutters sometimes.
Good news, though. Sounds like they're coming along with it. I'm sure the stopping of kernal panics, and no longer restarting coming out of sleep will be welcomed fixes by the early testers/adopters.