PDA

View Full Version : VMWare On Mac OSX Coming?


MacRumors
Jun 22, 2006, 08:00 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

With the recent release of the final version of Parallels Desktop for Mac OS X (Intel), some are wondering where market-leader VMWare is in developing a virtualization solution for OS X, if at all. While previous comments (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/04/20060410002601.shtml) by VMWare CEO Diane Greene had stated that their product was running on Macs in their labs, little has been indicated about a release timetable, or if the company was going to release the solution at all.

Virtualization.info (http://www.virtualization.info/2006/06/interview-virtualizationinfo.html) recently interviewed Raghu Raghuram, Vice President of Platform Products at VMware. While not offering a ton of new information, he did indicate that announcements were forthcoming.

With Apple switching to x86-based processors, robust and proven virtualization capabilities for Apple users is an interesting opportunity. We have stated that we do have VMware running on Mac OS X in our labs - stay tuned for future announcements in this area.

Arcus
Jun 22, 2006, 08:02 AM
This would be ultra sweet.

Core Trio
Jun 22, 2006, 08:07 AM
Now I dont have an intel mac, and ive never even seen parallels in action, but the general concensus seems to be that it is a great piece of software. Aside from a lack of high end graphics support, is there anything that VMware could possibly improve on what parallels has already done? Or are we just going to have many versions of the same software from Parallels, VMware, and Microsoft (VirtualPC)

jephrey
Jun 22, 2006, 08:17 AM
I say, the more options the better. If VPC makes software too, that'd be great. I don't know if there are any limitations or small quirks when using parallels software, and if there will be any with VMWare or VPC, but it's quite possible that each will offer something slightly different. Plus, the competition can only do good things. Right now, my only real option is VPC, and although I'm happy with it, it'd sure be nice if a bunch of other softwares were around to push the importance of perfecting it.

Anyhow, my opinion is that apple should either buy one of these companies, or work on their own virtualization software. It's debateable for sure, but my hunch says that boot camp and a piece of virtualization software could really help the push to get people to switch.

Jephrey

kainjow
Jun 22, 2006, 08:27 AM
A little late in the game, I'd say. The only thing VMware can do is offer a cheaper alternative to Parallels, and the ability to use existing VMware machines from Linux/Windows on your Mac without having to recreate them (which wouldn't be that many users).

g4pismo
Jun 22, 2006, 08:30 AM
One of the benefits of VMware, if they port to OSX, is they will have all the major OS's covered. I use a Mac,Windows and Linux systems at work. I find that I often move my VM's around quite a bit. I can share Virt.PC VM's with my Windows box and Mac, but I can’t share them with my Linux box. Same problem with VMWare today, I can share between my Linux box and Windows, but not with the Mac. This would allow me to use one platform.

[kainjow beat me to it]

bigandy
Jun 22, 2006, 08:46 AM
A little late in the game, I'd say. The only thing VMware can do is offer a cheaper alternative to Parallels, and the ability to use existing VMware machines from Linux/Windows on your Mac without having to recreate them (which wouldn't be that many users).


hahaha. cheaper than parallels?? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

dicklacara
Jun 22, 2006, 08:51 AM
This is good news.

Also, there is at least one other solution on the horizon: Q at

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

Q is not as refined as Parallels (alpha), but it is pretty good and has some nice features:

1) you can run the Vista Beta 2 on Q

2) Q will run on PPC or intel Macs

3) Q can import VPC virtual machines

4) Q has multiple, pre-installed OSes available for download

I have run many windows emulators over the years (SoftWindows, Virtual PC, etc.) and the current offerings (especially on a MacTel) are great.

I have never owned a PC, and never will... but there are some Win apps that I must run.

I try to support them all (purchase or donation) because you can never have too many options...

My current favorite is running Parallels with a Win real-time Stock Market app while running a TV Market show streamed from the family room with CyTV (OS X only). With virtue Desktop I immediately switch between full-screen Stock Info & full-screen TV... really neat

Dick

ebow
Jun 22, 2006, 08:54 AM
A little late in the game, I'd say. The only thing VMware can do is offer a cheaper alternative to Parallels, and the ability to use existing VMware machines from Linux/Windows on your Mac without having to recreate them (which wouldn't be that many users).

The could be innovative and find a way to use the Windows partition from Bootcamp as the hard drive within VMWare, as an option. That would allow those who want it to have only one Windows setup, accessible through both a virtualization product (within OS X) and standalone with full access to hardware. There are probably way more potential snags or roadblocks to this than I can imagine, but there may be room for differentiation.

balamw
Jun 22, 2006, 08:57 AM
hahaha. cheaper than parallels?? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
They offer a free version for Windows/Linux.

The other thing that they offer is Enterprise credibility... Not knocking Parallels, but VMWare has been at this for a while and has street cred.

Personally, I still want Crossover Office!

B

IscariotJ
Jun 22, 2006, 09:02 AM
It's doubtful if VMware's offering will be a cheaper alternative to Parallels, considering that VM Workstation is currently about $180, I think ( I'm discounting VMware Player, as it doesn't allow the creation of VM's, and Parallels don't have an equivalent product to the free VMware Server ).

Feature-wise, there isn't much between them ( VMware supports ACPI, for example ). As has been pointed out, the main benefit to VMware, is the ability to move the VM's between machines/OS's. I haven't tried, but I don't think it's possible to move a VM from OSX to Win32/Linux with Parallels.

I'd be happy to see VMware come out with a Mac offering ( and soon ). The more options, the better off we are. I can see the only loser here being Microsoft. VMware already have a reputation for credible VM software, and Parallels have the distinction of being the first to market. The lack of info on VPC for Intel Macs ( apart from a mention saying they were talking with Apple to see if it is feasible, see here, http://www.microsoft.com/mac/default.aspx?pid=macIntelQA ) makes me wonder if MS are wondering if it's worth the bother.

Be interesting to see if Apple make a move on Parallels, in the long run. I think that VMware will be a little too large for Apple to swallow.

aristobrat
Jun 22, 2006, 09:05 AM
Aside from a lack of high end graphics support, is there anything that VMware could possibly improve on what parallels has already done?
We use VMWare at work for a bunch of servers. It would be cool to be able to move a copy of the Virtual Machine from a server to my MacBook if I want to dink around with it.

IscariotJ
Jun 22, 2006, 09:11 AM
They offer a free version for Windows/Linux.

To be fair to Parallels, they aren't comparable products, though. Parallel Workstation/Desktop is the equivalent of VMware Workstation ( which isn't as cheap as Parallels ). If/when VMware release Server on OSX, I think it will be overkill for the majority of people who run VM's on their iMac/MB/MBP ( as must VMware, why else have Workstation and Server? ).

Having tried VMware Server, I must admit, I was very impressed, even taking into account that it's in beta ( though very near to release ).

John Jacob
Jun 22, 2006, 09:24 AM
The could be innovative and find a way to use the Windows partition from Bootcamp as the hard drive within VMWare, as an option. That would allow those who want it to have only one Windows setup, accessible through both a virtualization product (within OS X) and standalone with full access to hardware.

That would be the killer feature for me. Boot into Windows natively from BootCamp for 3D games, use the VM for all other Windows apps. Once that is possible, I'll trade in my PowerBook for an Intel Mac stat.

bretm
Jun 22, 2006, 09:33 AM
That would be the killer feature for me. Boot into Windows natively from BootCamp for 3D games, use the VM for all other Windows apps. Once that is possible, I'll trade in my PowerBook for an Intel Mac stat.

But you can do that now with parralels for $39. So why do you need to wait for VMWare?

ccunning
Jun 22, 2006, 09:35 AM
That would be the killer feature for me. Boot into Windows natively from BootCamp for 3D games, use the VM for all other Windows apps. Once that is possible, I'll trade in my PowerBook for an Intel Mac stat.
This is a feature VMWare has always offered as far as I know. I can't imagine a Mac version would be any different.

But you can do that now with parralels for $39. So why do you need to wait for VMWare?
I was wondering if parallels could access a boot camp installation. I hadn't seen any confirmation of this anywhere before. Good to know.

dicklacara
Jun 22, 2006, 09:47 AM
I was wondering if parallels could access a boot camp installation. I hadn't seen any confirmation of this anywhere before. Good to know.


Not yet... they are looking into it!

witness
Jun 22, 2006, 09:49 AM
But you can do that now with parralels for $39. So why do you need to wait for VMWare?
Parallels is very similar to VMWare Player (the free edition), with the exception that it allows you to create a VM.

VMWare Workstation is a much more advanced product. It has the ability to branch and merge. You can even have teams working on the same virtual machine images. You can also take snapshots and rollback to any point. Also, apart from Windows, Parallels guest OS support is very poor (try running, FreeBSD 6 or Ubuntu 6.06 and you will see what I mean). Parallels is also very buggy, for example, it has major issues when run on non US computers.

I am a paying customer of Parallels, but only because there is no alternative. As a VMWare user of many years, I would be one of the first to pay for VMWare for OS X even if it costs 10 times more than Parallels it is worth every penny.

rtao
Jun 22, 2006, 10:01 AM
my Parallels desktop is going to expire in a couple of days, and I was about to pay for it..... now I think I am going to hold back for a while.... since we are using VMWare in the office, which make so much easier for me if I could have vmware in my macbook pro rather then the a bit buggy Parallels....

morespce54
Jun 22, 2006, 10:13 AM
my Parallels desktop is going to expire in a couple of days, and I was about to pay for it..... now I think I am going to hold back for a while.... since we are using VMWare in the office, which make so much easier for me if I could have vmware in my macbook pro rather then the a bit buggy Parallels....

so even the final release of Parallels is still buggy ???

aristobrat
Jun 22, 2006, 10:29 AM
I think that how buggy Parallels is depends on what you do with it.

For normal day-to-day XP stuff, I've had zero issues with it. Trying to get my BlackBerry to work as a USB modem (something that works great in regular Windows XP) doesn't work currently in Parallels (the released version).

I also use another copy of Parallels to run a Linux web/email server on a Mac mini, and it's been up solid for over 60 days. (would be longer, but I had to reboot the Mini for a firmware update).

kinesin
Jun 22, 2006, 10:30 AM
We use VM throughout our company, and it's a great product. I'm currently running VMWare workstation on Debian, with windows clients.

For those saying you can't install using vmware player - yes you can. Just download the CD booting images, or modify the config file, 'google' it's real easy. :D

The ability to boot of a hard drive/parition or disk image makes VMware a great product, and it's dam useful as having DR images of all our servers available to boot if needed.
Off course the killer is that it should be able to use all the old images we already have - including rogue SCO openserver5 clients that were a right bitch to install.

foniks2020
Jun 22, 2006, 10:37 AM
so even the final release of Parallels is still buggy ???


I have a final release copy (yes, paid for ;-p ) and so far it is less buggy than the last RC. I haven't had a chance to fully test it out as yet but overall it seems to run more smoothly.

This is to be expected though as the final release should have debug code removed if nothing else... but no guarantee that there aren't still major bugs, just that my limited use hasn't triggered them.

Object-X
Jun 22, 2006, 10:43 AM
Parallels just got my $50 so VMWare is taking too long. Early bird gets the worm I guess. Doesn't matter anyway, I believe that Apple is going to include some kind of virtualization in Leapord; so buying Parallels is a temporary measure. I do find it interesting that Apple seems to be pushing Parallels over it's own Bootcamp on their web site. Makes you wonder if they helped Parallels or if they may buy them. I guess I suspected that VMWare was waiting for Apple to show off Leapord next month before deciding to get into this market.

Squareball
Jun 22, 2006, 11:11 AM
I guess I suspected that VMWare was waiting for Apple to show off Leapord next month before deciding to get into this market.

My guess is that VMWare's tech has been licensed by Apple for inclusion into Leopard.

I find it highly unlikely that a big company like VMWare (Big name in virtualization for many years) looked at all the people just clamoring to run Windows inside side OSX and said "Let's wait and see".

Apple is also known for licensing and buying tech they want rather than rolling their own. They did it with iTunes for instance. Yes, they could have made their own codebase for iTunes had they wanted to, but why reinvent the wheel?

witness
Jun 22, 2006, 11:13 AM
so even the final release of Parallels is still buggy ???
If you are using OS X with a US keyboard layout, only want to use Parallels for Windows XP and are not planning on connecting external devices to the virtual machine, then Parallels (release version) is pretty reliable.

CaptainScarlet
Jun 22, 2006, 11:14 AM
Blah Blah Blah..

If you cant use these virtualization programs to play the high graphic intensive games, then forget it.

Sure I see the benefits to be able to run multiply OS all at the same time.


But I'll stick to boot camp and go play Oblivion on my 17" Macbook Pro then...

dancormier
Jun 22, 2006, 11:26 AM
Blah Blah Blah..

If you cant use these virtualization programs to play the high graphic intensive games, then forget it.

Sure I see the benefits to be able to run multiply OS all at the same time.


But I'll stick to boot camp and go play Oblivion on my 17" Macbook Pro then...

Very nice ...

AidenShaw
Jun 22, 2006, 11:43 AM
Having tried VMware Server, I must admit, I was very impressed, even taking into account that it's in beta ( though very near to release ).
Note that "VMware Server" is really "VMware GSX Server V4" - the name was changed.

It's not a beta of a new product, it's a beta of a proven product (GSX V3) incorporating features of another proven product (VMware Workstation V5.5).

Not to knock the product, but in no way is it a new start.

bhirt
Jun 22, 2006, 11:53 AM
Parallels is very similar to VMWare Player (the free edition), with the exception that it allows you to create a VM.

VMWare Workstation is a much more advanced product. It has the ability to branch and merge. You can even have teams working on the same virtual machine images. You can also take snapshots and rollback to any point. Also, apart from Windows, Parallels guest OS support is very poor (try running, FreeBSD 6 or Ubuntu 6.06 and you will see what I mean). Parallels is also very buggy, for example, it has major issues when run on non US computers.

I am a paying customer of Parallels, but only because there is no alternative. As a VMWare user of many years, I would be one of the first to pay for VMWare for OS X even if it costs 10 times more than Parallels it is worth every penny.

I couldn't agree more. I also pay for Parallels because there are no other options. Snapshots and branching are such a huge feature for me as a web developer. I can have one VM running XP and have different branches for every version of IE supported. Same for Opera, firefox and other browsers. When trying to track down bugs that only effect certain installations this is a wonderful feature. There are a bunch of other reasons why snapshots and branching are very powerful features.

Neuron
Jun 22, 2006, 12:08 PM
"My guess is that VMWare's tech has been licensed by Apple for inclusion into Leopard. "

That would be great if true, however with Intel based XServes to be released shortly, VMWare Server would open the door to traditional Wintel server sites (like mine). VMware plus a low end SAN is something I am looking at to reduce the glut of machines I have in my comms rooms. 2 or 3 Intel Xserves + an XServe Raid or two with VMWare would cover most of our current and future needs.

ChrisA
Jun 22, 2006, 12:10 PM
.....he did indicate that announcements were forthcoming.

I think I know when the forthcoming announcement will happen: VMware will be included in the next version of Mac OS. We will learn this in August.

I use VMware daily. It's great. If you have enough RAM and a strong enough CPU you can keep multiple virtual machines running full time. Each runs as fast as a "real" PC. I keep multiple versions of Linux and Solaris inside virual machines. I need this for testing to see that my software runs on these platforms. It is very fast on my duel Xeon box. I expect it would be fast on a Woodcrest powered Power Mac (mac pro?) and run acceptably fast on a Core Dual Mini. if you load in 2GB RAM.

Neuron
Jun 22, 2006, 12:13 PM
p.s. I do currently run Parallels on my MacBook Pro. I actually find the XP vm I run as a test machine (configured with all our corporate software) runs as smooth as one of our Dell laptops. In fact I now leave my Dell in it's docking station at work, and use the Parallels VM to VPN in when I work from home.

thogs_cave
Jun 22, 2006, 12:14 PM
I have a final release copy (yes, paid for ;-p ) and so far it is less buggy than the last RC. I haven't had a chance to fully test it out as yet but overall it seems to run more smoothly. This is to be expected though as the final release should have debug code removed if nothing else... but no guarantee that there aren't still major bugs, just that my limited use hasn't triggered them.

I also have my final release copy (also paid for), and overall the experience is good. I have had some problems with networking (virtual machines don't want to pick up my DHCP server at work), b ut it's pretty impressive. I have WinXP Pro and RedHat ES running alongside OS X, and it gives me the ability to analyze OS_specific issues for my users w/o a good deal of effort.

Yes, there are limitations (more with linux than windoze), but they are small. Parallels Desktop is worth every penny.

ChrisA
Jun 22, 2006, 12:23 PM
I couldn't agree more. I also pay for Parallels because there are no other options.

Not quite true. QEMU is free, Open Source and does a few things Parallels can't do. For example QEMU will run a a PPC host and emulate an X86 or it can run on an X86 host and emulate a PPC. And of course can handle the X86 or an X86 case like Parallels. Other plataforms like SPARC and ARM or there too but not all combinations work yet. People have used QEMU to boot PPC Mac OS on an X86 PC but again these odd cases are not well suported but the X86 of X86 is well tested.

QEMU will run VMware images and Microsoft virtual pc images and some others even on a PPC or SPARC

kalisphoenix
Jun 22, 2006, 12:24 PM
I'm running Gentoo on Parallels and it's rock-solid. So far, Linux seems to be the best OS to run a Wiki on, and since I do all my work on a Wiki, I need Linux. However, my household currently has only one computer, and OS X is my general-purpose OS....

Either way, I haven't had any problems with Parallels. I used VMWare extensively on my PCs, and I liked it too. I didn't really use snapshots or anything like that. I thought they were lame. Just do backups the old-fashioned way -- by copying a file. Need backups more often? Hello, cron.

The nice thing is that I have a shrinking/expanding disk image reserved for my work (aside from the fixed-size disk holding the OS), so I can back the two up independently. It's pretty pimp.

Black Monolith
Jun 22, 2006, 12:57 PM
VMWare for OS X is a very good thing indeed. It seems that VMWare actually works properly with USB 1.1 devices. Parallels should be ashamed of themselves for pushing a final release out the door without proper USB support. Now if only we could get support for USB 2.0 devices too....

morespce54
Jun 22, 2006, 12:58 PM
If you are using OS X with a US keyboard layout, only want to use Parallels for Windows XP and are not planning on connecting external devices to the virtual machine, then Parallels (release version) is pretty reliable.

Thanks!
But what's that about the US keyboard layout??? :confused:

Boony
Jun 22, 2006, 01:04 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

With the recent release of the final version of Parallels Desktop for Mac OS X (Intel), some are wondering where market-leader VMWare is in developing a virtualization solution for OS X, if at all. While previous comments (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/04/20060410002601.shtml) by VMWare CEO Diane Greene had stated that their product was running on Macs in their labs, little has been indicated about a release timetable, or if the company was going to release the solution at all.

Virtualization.info (http://www.virtualization.info/2006/06/interview-virtualizationinfo.html) recently interviewed Raghu Raghuram, Vice President of Platform Products at VMware. While not offering a ton of new information, he did indicate that announcements were forthcoming.

This is very good, but why ?

Once in a time, some years ago, I did some beta-testing for Connectix Virtual PC. It was born on a Mac platform and did some cool stuff like learning another Processor-architecture. Yes, bringing the same product out on an Intel-Based Platform. So the people behind connectix had the same capabilities what Apple Corp. can do with it's operating system. Boxing the mac-os out on different Microprocessor Architectures. What I see, there's no company more that can port an Operating System over on a different Microprocessor Architecture anymore. Just Apple. OK, Parallels make's the product available for another OS, but the same Intel Architecture. The same with VMWare, now they're porting cause OS X runs on an Intel Architecture.

In fact, it's poor manufacturing. I thought Microsoft did it once, porting Windows (server) over on another Processor Architecture. But they've dropped the product. And, what are the goals (a time ago) by buying over Connectix ? To get some foot in the door of Apple, or promote M$ Virtual Machine instead of porting Word over to OS X native (on PPC), you can buy a Windows License ? To Shake Apple Corp. with the words: And what if you users get no Word anymore ?

But see the facts, M$ is loosing grip on everything they've porting to another processor architecture and OS. Like a BIG Elephant that moves slowly, little mice makes better products. In fact Apple Corp. is at the moment a BIG winner, as a little mice in the BIG and slowly M$, IBM blues and Sun micro systems industry. (I think you will remember Project Looking Glass - And look at Apple's OS X Dashboard, Frontrow ....)

In the last run, the better OS (like OS X) will virtualize the simple standards like Windosez etc .... I think VM Ware knows that, and step by step it's doing its plans: Server virtualizations on (L)unix user friendly systems like MAC OS X.

Microsoft Windows is dead, it's an OLD architecture ... It's a wheel re-invented with wistle and bells ... But it rolls anymore

Peter

Gasu E.
Jun 22, 2006, 01:38 PM
VMWare is the gold standard in this space, it is industrial-strength, it has a dominant market share, and it has a huge IT player behind it (EMC). It's not aimed at game-players. But for those who think Apple should be making a play for the Enterprise space (and BTW, I'm not one of them), this would be a significant win.

croasmun
Jun 22, 2006, 01:41 PM
http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.php/archive/intel_patent_reveals_virtual_machine_geared_for_consumer_desktops/

Anybody read this? Looks like transparent support of Windows apps through a VM implimentation presented through a "unified desktop interface." Sounds to me like double click an .exe file and away you go.

Presumably you'd still have to pay for/install Windows for the VM to have an OS to host, but, wow, this patent seems to describe a computer on which [literally] everything JUST WORKS. (.exe, .app, etc.)

mozmac
Jun 22, 2006, 01:58 PM
Competition will be good.

AidenShaw
Jun 22, 2006, 02:26 PM
What I see, there's no company more that can port an Operating System over on a different Microprocessor Architecture anymore. Just Apple.
Don't check any facts, because you'll find out that Microsoft Windows (the NT-based version) has been released, sold and supported on:

MIPS R-series RISC processors
Digital's Alpha Processors
Motorola/IBM PowerPC processors
Intel IA64 processors (Itanium)
Intel/AMD 32-bit x86 processors (386/486/...)
Intel/AMD x64 processors (EM64T/AMD64)


Only Apple? What about Digital/Compaq/HP's OpenVMS system? (VAX, Alpha, Itanium). HP/UX? SunOS/Solaris?

Also, don't forget that OSX is based on NextStep and one of the BSD variants - both of which ran on x86 since before Next bought Apple. Apple's "genius" was in simply not breaking the existing multi-architecture port - they didn't suddenly do something fantastic last summer.

It's not magic, and it doesn't indicate that Apple is the brightest bulb in the pack - Apple's following in the footsteps of everyone else...

Microsoft Windows is dead, it's an OLD architecture...
Yes it's old (NT was first released 12 years ago), but UNIX might very well be older than your parents.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Unix.png

AidenShaw
Jun 22, 2006, 02:33 PM
is there anything that VMware could possibly improve on what parallels has already done? Or are we just going to have many versions of the same software from Parallels, VMware, and Microsoft (VirtualPC)
VMware supports multi-CPU virtual machines, so that your VM can use both of the CPUs in your dual-core system.

VMware also supports running 64-bit VM operating systems (Windows XP 64-bit, Linux 64-bit, ...) even if it's running on a 32-bit host. (The host must be an x64-capable CPU - so that doesn't help Apple users until next week when Woodies show up.)

mguthart
Jun 22, 2006, 03:38 PM
It'll be interesting to see what develops from this. While it is encouraging, I wouldn't be surprised if they came up with a reliable way to first get the intel-MacOSX to run under VMWare on the PC. (Nothing against the fine efforts going on at the OSx86 project by the way).

Don't get me wrong - I love the Mac as much as anyone else out there.

But realistically their development time/cost efforts would be much less going this route first, especially as they could leverage the various VMWare versions they already have built. It could also buy them some time for getting a native Mac version polished up and released.

Just a thought.

Evangelion
Jun 22, 2006, 04:34 PM
What I see, there's no company more that can port an Operating System over on a different Microprocessor Architecture anymore.

Um, Linux? Not only does it run on about zillion architectures, the latest version of the kernel added support for Sun's Niagara-processors. So it's still being ported to different architectures as we speak. It's just that there has been no major new releases of CPU-architectures. But when there is, Linux is usually the first OS to support the new arch. Linux was first to support x86-64 for example. Solaris ran first on Niagara (naturally), but Linux was the second OS to run on it (IIRC).

NetBSD is also very good at this porting-stuff, but it seems that Linux is overtaking it.

ezekielrage_99
Jun 22, 2006, 06:20 PM
Kind of interesting but it begs the question why now after the release of Boot Camp, I can see many people will be interested but if you can easily run Windows XP next the Mac OSX with little problems why bother with VMWare.

With that said I'd prefer VMWare instead of running Windows XP ;)

jayducharme
Jun 22, 2006, 07:44 PM
You're all mentioning many of the virtual PC products out there except one: has anyone tried GuestPC? (It's at > http://www.lismoresystems.com <)

I've been using it for a while and I'm really impressed. I mainly wanted to run Rollercoaster Tycoon without having to keep a separate PC in the house. I tried iEmulator, and it was terrible. So I was hesitant to plunk down $40 for GuestPC, but I'm glad I did. On my dual 1.8 PowerMac G5 with 3.5gb RAM, Rollercoaster Tycoon runs as well as it did on my PC. On my iMac G5 with 1gb RAM, it runs okay but is a bit sluggish with larger parks. Still, pretty impressive for a virtual PC.

The company keeps actively working on the software; I get update notices every couple of months, and the speed keeps improving. I also like the fact that I can install any version of Windows that I want (I prefer 98). My only gripe is that so far the virtual video card is pretty crappy, with only 64k color support. But I can live with that, since most of the games I want to play had pretty crappy graphics.

jayducharme
Jun 22, 2006, 07:45 PM
BTW, has anyone heard of MS viruses corrupting the new Intel Macs if Windows is booted into? It would be a real problem if a virus prevented re-booting the machine. I've heard that virtualization software contains any viruses to the data file (which can easily be deleted), so any threat is greatly reduced.

gkhaldi
Jun 23, 2006, 02:24 AM
Too little , too late for VMWare. Their arrogant behavior will haunt them. A couple of large manufacturers have already abandoned more or less VMWare. Most of them opt for Xen (Open Source) or HW virtualisation (now that's the way to go).

For me, I got Parallels (official release) running on my Macbook Pro. I build images with Suse, RH, Solaris, MS-DOS (yep, still use a very old accounting program for consulting previous fiscal years) and Windows.

I haven't had a single crash, freeze (exept when shutting down SUSE) or malfunction. If only my Macbook could accomodate 4GB of RAM (or more):D :D

gkhaldi
Jun 23, 2006, 02:25 AM
BTW, has anyone heard of MS viruses corrupting the new Intel Macs if Windows is booted into? It would be a real problem if a virus prevented re-booting the machine. I've heard that virtualization software contains any viruses to the data file (which can easily be deleted), so any threat is greatly reduced.

With virtualization everything is contained in one large image. A virus comes in the virtualized environment, it'll stay there (unless you open a socket to yr base system which would make it vulnerable / prone for infection).

gkhaldi
Jun 23, 2006, 02:27 AM
If you are using OS X with a US keyboard layout, only want to use Parallels for Windows XP and are not planning on connecting external devices to the virtual machine, then Parallels (release version) is pretty reliable.

I have had no problems whatsoever. Been running SUSE, RH4, Solaris10, DOS and XP, NT4, 98.

topicolo
Jun 23, 2006, 02:48 AM
So when is parallels going to increase support for USB devices? I tried using a USB memory stick and a writing tablet on it with no luck whatsoever. Apparently webcams of any kind don't work either.

Palad1
Jun 23, 2006, 05:44 AM
pretty please with sugar on top?

ro2nie
Jun 23, 2006, 06:00 AM
I've been using VMware on windows, and I can say it's a great piece of software.

I guess it will run much better on Mac OS X.
VMware for windows supports lots of USB and Firewire peripherals. It supports my external hard drive, external flash drive, my digital camera and my printer.

The only thing it doesn't support is my webcam.

AidenShaw
Jun 23, 2006, 08:40 AM
I've been using VMware on windows, and I can say it's a great piece of software.

I guess it will run much better on Mac OS X.
Why do you guess that?

VMware on Linux and VMware on Windows seem to be almost identical as far as I can tell - why would it be "better" on OSX than on the other two platforms?

AidenShaw
Jun 23, 2006, 10:27 AM
If only my Macbook could accomodate 4GB of RAM (or more):D :D
It should, the other Yonah laptops accept 2 GiB SO-DIMMs for a max of 4 GiB of RAM. The chipset doesn't support more than 4 GiB, however, so you won't get anything higher.

I have 4 GiB in my Dell Latitude 2.16 Core Duo...

seashellz
Jun 23, 2006, 10:58 AM
now if they could only get it to run OS 9.2 along with all the others

swingerofbirch
Jun 23, 2006, 01:40 PM
It seems to me financially risky for any developer to make inroads into an area where Apple has intentions. Look at what happened to Watson and Konfabulator.

SiliconAddict
Jun 23, 2006, 05:16 PM
Too little , too late for VMWare. Their arrogant behavior will haunt them. A couple of large manufacturers have already abandoned more or less VMWare. Most of them opt for Xen (Open Source) or HW virtualisation (now that's the way to go).

For me, I got Parallels (official release) running on my Macbook Pro. I build images with Suse, RH, Solaris, MS-DOS (yep, still use a very old accounting program for consulting previous fiscal years) and Windows.

I haven't had a single crash, freeze (exept when shutting down SUSE) or malfunction. If only my Macbook could accomodate 4GB of RAM (or more):D :D


Umm dude. VMWare Workstation is the BEST virt software on the market hands down.

SiliconAddict
Jun 23, 2006, 05:19 PM
It seems to me financially risky for any developer to make inroads into an area where Apple has intentions. Look at what happened to Watson and Konfabulator.


There is a difference between dual booting an OS and virt an OS. As far as anyone know Apple is only focusing on dual booting with Windows. If it stays that way there is no reason that VMWare workstation couldn't be a powerful addition to the Mac. God know there are times when I would rather virt an app in OS X instead of rebooting into Windows. Then there would be times I would like to simply boot into Windows to run Civ IV, Black and White 2, Pirates!, etc.

Stella
Jun 23, 2006, 05:22 PM
Buying VPC also allowed microsoft to build the emulator to allow Xbox 360 to run XBox 1 - which is PPC 970... This functionality would be / *is* far more profitable than for purely selling VPC to Apple users.

Windows NT used to run on multiple architectures, but slowly, microsoft axed them. The Alpha was the last to go.

Windows is far from dead.


This is very good, but why ?

Once in a time, some years ago, I did some beta-testing for Connectix Virtual PC. It was born on a Mac platform and did some cool stuff like learning another Processor-architecture. Yes, bringing the same product out on an Intel-Based Platform. So the people behind connectix had the same capabilities what Apple Corp. can do with it's operating system. Boxing the mac-os out on different Microprocessor Architectures. What I see, there's no company more that can port an Operating System over on a different Microprocessor Architecture anymore. Just Apple. OK, Parallels make's the product available for another OS, but the same Intel Architecture. The same with VMWare, now they're porting cause OS X runs on an Intel Architecture.

In fact, it's poor manufacturing. I thought Microsoft did it once, porting Windows (server) over on another Processor Architecture. But they've dropped the product. And, what are the goals (a time ago) by buying over Connectix ? To get some foot in the door of Apple, or promote M$ Virtual Machine instead of porting Word over to OS X native (on PPC), you can buy a Windows License ? To Shake Apple Corp. with the words: And what if you users get no Word anymore ?

But see the facts, M$ is loosing grip on everything they've porting to another processor architecture and OS. Like a BIG Elephant that moves slowly, little mice makes better products. In fact Apple Corp. is at the moment a BIG winner, as a little mice in the BIG and slowly M$, IBM blues and Sun micro systems industry. (I think you will remember Project Looking Glass - And look at Apple's OS X Dashboard, Frontrow ....)

In the last run, the better OS (like OS X) will virtualize the simple standards like Windosez etc .... I think VM Ware knows that, and step by step it's doing its plans: Server virtualizations on (L)unix user friendly systems like MAC OS X.

Microsoft Windows is dead, it's an OLD architecture ... It's a wheel re-invented with wistle and bells ... But it rolls anymore

Peter

Stella
Jun 23, 2006, 08:06 PM
It seems to me financially risky for any developer to make inroads into an area where Apple has intentions. Look at what happened to Watson and Konfabulator.

VMWare are established , well respected and offer multiple platform VMs... Apple won't worry them - particularly for companies. Companies will choose VMware because of prior experience and reputation.

Any Apple offering will not meet the needs - it will be basic functionality, compared to that of VMWare products.

javierbds
Jun 24, 2006, 03:14 AM
Could VMWare offer this, the other way around legally?
I mean, can you legally run virtualized OSX on a Windows box over VMWare?

Because this would be something a little different and it seems VMWare is the company that would be more interested in doing it ...
(I know you can hack OSX into a PC, but not legally ...)

Not that I need to, but if there is some OS X only sw that IT groups may want to run, maybe this would be a possible path to migration or a risk to Apple's Hw ...

AidenShaw
Jun 24, 2006, 02:32 PM
Could VMWare offer this, the other way around legally?

I mean, can you legally run virtualized OSX on a Windows box over VMWare?
That's up to Apple. Current licensing terms for OSX would not allow this, even if the DRM were not an issue.

Some_Big_Spoon
Jun 24, 2006, 11:13 PM
WINE, not VMWare or even Parallels. I don't want windows, I just want to run the apps.

Serious question, why use windows when you don't have to?

Some_Big_Spoon
Jun 24, 2006, 11:15 PM
What are a few apps you use that are 9.2 and below only?

now if they could only get it to run OS 9.2 along with all the others

AidenShaw
Jun 25, 2006, 09:35 AM
WINE, not VMWare or even Parallels. I don't want windows, I just want to run the apps.

Serious question, why use windows when you don't have to?
If WINE truly worked, then it would be a serious question.

Too many apps don't work right with WINE, though.

Palad1
Jun 25, 2006, 04:27 PM
WINE, not VMWare or even Parallels. I don't want windows, I just want to run the apps.

Serious question, why use windows when you don't have to?

Because mono is not going to be usable under osX for a long time...