PDA

View Full Version : No Virtualization in Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard)?


MacRumors
Jul 9, 2006, 11:00 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Macworld reports (http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/07/07/windowsmac/index.php) on comments by Needham and Company analyst Charles Wolf on Apple's Windows-compatiblilty plans for upcoming versions of Mac OS X.

Specifically, Wolf asked Phil Schiller about Apple's plans for incorporating "virtualization" software in the next version of Mac OS X (Leopard):

[Phil Schiller] said ‘absolutely not, the R&D would be prohibitive and we’re not going to do it. Our solution is dual boot.’ (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/04/20060405094135.shtml)

Virtualization allows users to launch a copy of Windows under Mac OS X to run applications side-by-side, while "Dual Boot" requires users to reboot to switch between Windows and Mac OS X.

There had been some speculation that Apple was going to adopt Parallel's virtualization solution since it is now promoted (http://www.apple.com/getamac/windows.html) on their Get a Mac campaign, but was conclusion was entirely speculative. Also, early Leopard rumors (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/03/20060324092148.shtml) claimed that it would incoporate Virtualization from Apple, but this appears to be inaccurate.

Meanwhile, Codeweavers (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/06/20060630170338.shtml) is taking this virtualization a step further by attempting to run specific Windows applications under Mac OS X without requiring Windows to be loaded at all.

MacsRgr8
Jul 9, 2006, 11:02 AM
Good news for Parallels....

;)

Asar
Jul 9, 2006, 11:03 AM
dual boot is fine with me. how else you gonna play 3d games?

SuperSnake2012
Jul 9, 2006, 11:03 AM
Oh no... :(

MacsRgr8
Jul 9, 2006, 11:08 AM
dual boot is fine with me. how else you gonna play 3d games?

There were rumors about Codeweavers being DirectX compatible, and that Half Life 2 would be able to run.
I seriously doubt that all (newest) games would run well though... :rolleyes:

Dual Booting will always be the easiest option for 3D gaming. And as most new 3D games need all the CPU power you have available, I don't really see it as a bother to have to shutdown Mac OS X, and reboot into Windows.

ifjake
Jul 9, 2006, 11:10 AM
I think this is something that third party companies will be best suited for. Virtualization is cool, but I don't want Apple having to support windows stuffs to take away from the ability to make the Mac side of it all the more compelling and exciting.

JoeMacDaddy
Jul 9, 2006, 11:14 AM
Apple needs to treat Windows just like they did Classic. They need to minimize Windows into an emulation mode. For security purposes, a vitrual sandbox for the Windows environment and the files created in that environment (e.g. Java sandboxing and GreenBox technologies).

This is the only way to give Windows switchers the peace of mind to have a seamless environment and feel secure in their purchase.

just my $.02.
;)

QCassidy352
Jul 9, 2006, 11:14 AM
bah, dual boot is crap. Running windows in a little box while still within OS X is appealing; actually running windows is most certainly not. Who wants to restart all the time?

eude
Jul 9, 2006, 11:15 AM
I guess this saves them from a lot of troubles and accusations. They would have to deal with getting all the windows apps to work inside OSX. Like when windows apps crash inside OSX. Then people might think it is OSX's fault.
responsibilities would get very messy and not easy to explain to end users.

It also encourages developers to keep developing natively for OSX.

a tactical choice.

reyesmac
Jul 9, 2006, 11:16 AM
If these new intel chips allow you to run more than one OS at a time why cant you boot Windows and Mac on the same machine at the same time? The one that is not being used would be in low power mode and when you "switch" it will power up and run full screen. I am sure they can do this without spending so much in R&D.
There is also the instant on type of boot where your OS is stored in ram and then instantly comes on after you boot up. Even if you can't run two OS at the same time they can reduce the boot time to almost zero.

Electric Boris
Jul 9, 2006, 11:18 AM
I gotta say that I'm getting pretty tired of hearing about virtualization and accomodating Windows on a Mac. I mean, talk about lowering the bar. Less Apple employees working on this means more working on something that actually matters. Yes, I know it's all about sales, but the focus lately seems to be Windows on a Mac ("Hello, I'm a PC" campaign) Windows vs. a Mac or whatever. How about just let the machine and program speak for themselves and let the Windows users just suffer in ignorance.

Collin973
Jul 9, 2006, 11:19 AM
Oh well...no biggy. Rebooting takes what 30 seconds? I didnt really care either way...if it did...cool...if it didnt...alright. Still buying the first rev b mbp...

dashiel
Jul 9, 2006, 11:20 AM
oh please. phil schiller claimed that apple wouldn't accomodate windows on intel boxes since the announcement. iirc i think he made a statement the day to that effect the day before boot camp was released.

i'm not saying virtualization will appear in 10.5, but taking phil schiller's comments — to an analyst no less — at face value is just silly.

MacsRgr8
Jul 9, 2006, 11:22 AM
bah, dual boot is crap. Running windows in a little box while still within OS X is appealing; actually running windows is most certainly not. Who wants to restart all the time?

It all depends on what you are using Windows for.

I only use it for playing the newest games which are not availabe on the Mac.

And playing a heavy-duty 3D game like BattleField 2 orso, you don't want to have any other apps or resources using any kind of CPU time. So, like I said before, for Windows gaming rebooting into Windows is your best option anyway.

But if you use apps that you would like to use next to Mac OS X, then virtualization is the best bay.
And we have Parallels anyway. :)

oh please. phil schiller claimed that apple wouldn't accomodate windows on intel boxes since the announcement. iirc i think he made a statement the day to that effect the day before boot camp was released.

i'm not saying virtualization will appear in 10.5, but taking phil schiller's comments — to an analyst no less — at face value is just silly.

He said that Apple won't do anything to stop Windows running on an Intel Mac.
He kept his word alright.

Some_Big_Spoon
Jul 9, 2006, 11:25 AM
If they (apple) don't do it, someone else (codeweavers, VMWare, parallels) will. They get to stay out of the malay, and reap all of the benefits. Granted, the solution won't be as elegant, but it will work regardless.

chicagdan
Jul 9, 2006, 11:28 AM
It all depends on what you are using Windows for.

I only use it for playing the newest games which are not availabe on the Mac.

And playing a heavy-duty 3D game like BattleField 2 orso, you don't want to have any other apps or resources using any kind of CPU time. So, like I said before, for Windows gaming rebooting into Windows is your best option anyway.

But if you use apps that you would like to use next to Mac OS X, then virtualization is the best bay.
And we have Parallels anyway. :)

Guys, we're only six months into this ... the number of options to run Windows inside of Mac is going to expand significantly whether Apple does it themselves or not.

1) Parallels -- and they're working on adding Direct X.

2) Codeweavers and other wine-based solutions

3) VMWare

4) Virtual PC

I think it makes complete sense for Apple to stay out of this market because others are willing to spend the R&D dollars. Let Apple innovate for the Mac, let others worry about getting Windows to run in a window.

DavidLeblond
Jul 9, 2006, 11:28 AM
Dual booting would kill my uptime! I'm going to wait and see what Codeweavers does... I'd much rather buy their solution then have to pay for a Windows license!

supremedesigner
Jul 9, 2006, 11:34 AM
Dual booting would kill my uptime! I'm going to wait and see what Codeweavers does... I'd much rather buy their solution then have to pay for a Windows license!

I second that! I'd rather use any PC softwares/games rathter than buying pricey bloated XP.

MacsRgr8
Jul 9, 2006, 11:34 AM
1) Parallels -- and they're working on adding Direct X.


That's nice.
But I would still prefer to reboot the Mac into Windows, for getting max CPU time and free RAM (well... for the bigger games that is, ofcourse).

But, as Steve once said, is good to have options. :)

Kirkmedia
Jul 9, 2006, 11:35 AM
I'm sure there are many situations that will make Running Windows and OSX
at the same time very convenient. But if rebooting into one OS or the other
makes the computer more stable, then that's what I want to do.

Also, Macrumors keeps refering to me as a "Newbie" but I've been posting here for awhile. When will I
be a "regular"?

DavidLeblond
Jul 9, 2006, 11:40 AM
But if rebooting into one OS or the other
makes the computer more stable, then that's what I want to do.


The best way to make the computer more stable is to get it as far away from Windows as possible ;).

Kirkmedia
Jul 9, 2006, 11:49 AM
Let's say, you are booted up in Windows, and you get infected by a virus
or malware. Will this affect how OSX will function when rebooted?

Is anyone interested in discussing this?

Lancetx
Jul 9, 2006, 11:49 AM
IMO, Parallels is a more than acceptable solution for me already, considering I only need Windows on a very limited basis these days. Whether virtualization is included in Leopard or not doesn't really make much difference to me. Oh well, I guess we'll all find out for certain next month at WWDC, it's all just speculation until then anyway.

wmmk
Jul 9, 2006, 11:51 AM
Dual booting would kill my uptime! I'm going to wait and see what Codeweavers does... I'd much rather buy their solution then have to pay for a Windows license!
why is your uptime so very important?
with bootcamp, you can boot into linux and use WINE, which is free. if you need ease of use, get paralells. believe it or not, companies other than apple do make good products.:rolleyes:

on a different topic, less than 25% of mac users are on intel. if leopard's updates are intel-centric, ppc users (the ones running office, aka students and studio 8 and CS2, aka creative people, both of which make up a huge part of the mac market) will be ticked off, and stay with tiger, which would actually be good for apple.

Kingsly
Jul 9, 2006, 12:05 PM
[Phil Schiller] said ‘absolutely not, the R&D would be prohibitive and we’re not going to do it. Our solution is dual boot.’

Where have I heard that before... oh yeah, Steve Jobs discussing a video capable iPod.

Azmordean
Jul 9, 2006, 12:16 PM
I think this is a good thing. By all accounts, paralells has created an excellent product. If Apple goes and includes something in OS X every time, it will seriously thwart 3rd party developers. What developer will want to develop for OS X if they know the likely result is "apple will watch us, see how our product goes over, and if it works well, they'll do it themselves, throw it into the OS and put us out of business." Certainly core features can be put in the OS but I don't see virtualization as a core feature. It is something the GREAT majority of mac users will never use. Most will simply use OS X only. Others will want to game, but that means dual boot. There is only a small percentage of Mac users that will want or need to constantly run Windows "in a box." For them, paralells is a perfectly good option.

Stridder44
Jul 9, 2006, 12:16 PM
dual boot is fine with me. how else you gonna play 3d games?


Exactly, Im not surprised at all. It's not like it was even gonna happen anyway. I like how some people are freaking out though....

I think this is something that third party companies will be best suited for. Virtualization is cool, but I don't want Apple having to support windows stuffs to take away from the ability to make the Mac side of it all the more compelling and exciting.

Amen!! Come on guys its not like there arn't any other solutions

CommodityFetish
Jul 9, 2006, 12:27 PM
Guys, we're only six months into this ... the number of options to run Windows inside of Mac is going to expand significantly whether Apple does it themselves or not.

1) Parallels -- and they're working on adding Direct X.

2) Codeweavers and other wine-based solutions

3) VMWare

4) Virtual PC

I think it makes complete sense for Apple to stay out of this market because others are willing to spend the R&D dollars. Let Apple innovate for the Mac, let others worry about getting Windows to run in a window.

5) Alky -- translating game source code PC->Mac... (www.alkyproject.com)

I agree this is a good move on apple's part. Virtualization is '3rd party functionality'.

Demoman
Jul 9, 2006, 12:41 PM
This subject has been talked to death. I seems to me there is a market for all three solutions; dual-boot, virtualization and Codeweavers solution.

As an IT manager, Codeweavers is the clear choice for me. That is if they offer the applications I would want. I sure do not want to license Windows if I do not have to. At present, I am running my Window apps through Citrix and it works well. But, this is not a solution available to home users.

EagerDragon
Jul 9, 2006, 12:52 PM
I would have prefered to see Apple go out of its way to run windows along side OSX. Perallel solution is nice but leaves the gamers out, requires purchase of windows, and is just as subseptible to viruses as regular windows. Codeweaver solution would be more virus and trojan resistance.

I can see the headlines..... Apple makes computers that run windows applications safer.

Just my 2 cents, 98 to go.
I guess it comes from being a security consultant.

Evangelion
Jul 9, 2006, 12:54 PM
the R&D would be prohibitive

Really? How come Parallels managed to do it, even though the have just a fraction of the resources Apple has? How come Linux managed to do it with just few people working on the code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux-VServer)? And I bet that the guys behind Xen had a fraction of Apple's resources as well.

If Leopard does not support virtualization, then we will have a situation where Windows and Linux will support it, but OS X does not. Dual-booting is tedious and crude, virtualization would be a lot more elegant solution.

RichP
Jul 9, 2006, 01:00 PM
I am more inclined to agree this is more of a tactical move. Make windows seemless in OSX, and it DOES reduce the "need" for developers to release an OSX edition.

I much rather see OSX run windows with full hardware acceleration in a window, but then I have, well, a more secure version of windows running a program. Then the need for OSX (not from useability, but for virus and stability issues) is lessened.

Who knows, what is the real definition of "dual boot" Perhaps leopard, with intels virtualization tech, WILL mean actually simultaneous boot, and we will have the OS equivalent of fast-user switching.

A little off-topic, but all of us want windows to be in its own safe, restricted, area. How much damage could a windows virus do to a mac with bootcamp?

macnews
Jul 9, 2006, 01:04 PM
Really? How come Parallels managed to do it, even though the have just a fraction of the resources Apple has? How come Linux managed to do it with just few people working on the code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux-VServer)? And I bet that the guys behind Xen had a fraction of Apple's resources as well.
I think the R&D is more about making sure it is right. If Apple deploys a Parallels solution consumers and investors will expect it to work RIGHT, the first time. Things like DirectX, which Parallels doesn't support, airport, firewire 400/800 connections, etc, etc would all need to be throughly researched. There will not be much leeway as this would be a huge step. Plus, you then have the supporting staff when you start selling this on the street. Imagine all the calls from people trying to figure out how to get windows working correctly!

If Leopard does not support virtualization, then we will have a situation where Windows and Linux will support it, but OS X does not. Dual-booting is tedious and crude, virtualization would be a lot more elegant solution.

Correct me if I am wrong, but virtualization is supported on the chip level, not OS. In other words, the Intel chips in new macs support (or to some extent) virtualization. This has nothing to do with the OS supporting it. PPC users will be stuck no matter what, unless you get something like Virtual PC that runs on PPC. I say leave it to the third party developers. At some point Apple may take include it but for right now, focus on making Leopard better and improving the hardware offerings.

MikeTheC
Jul 9, 2006, 01:19 PM
Hmm...

I disagree with the notions here that Apple should support, or give the appearance of supporting, the Win32 environment. Even for computer companies producing boxen intended to run Windows, Windows support is a major expense and a major liability.

I think the thing a lot of people here don't understand is what it means to lend your name to something, like Apple saying anything beyond "we've provided a means for users of their own accord to allow Windows to run on our boxen." And it's not just mere plausable deniability, folks. Believe me, and I speak with 5 years' experience working for Sony's computer support call center, supporting Windows is a huge millstone. It's simply not one Apple has any good business case for supporting. It's eminently more desirable to leave the support of such capabilities to third parties, who's staff can be 100% devoted to supporting that functionality.

In my opinion, the ONLY thing Apple should be doing is putting in whatever basic code is necessary for (or, conversely, not writing code that is antithetical to) both dual-boot and virtualization. This gives Apple more than just an easy out; it allows them to say (in total honesty) they're facilitating users' requests not to be restricted in their OS choice, and in many ways and on many levels allows them to brag about bringing a better overall solution to the market than Microsoft does.

There are really no downsides to this approach, folks.

And, as someone else already mentioned, this also eliminates the 1990s Apple tendency to see a cool 3rd party app and just suck it right into the OS, leaving the developer high and dry with no customer base to sell their product to.

Why do you think that Apple doesn't go hog wild selling all kinds of multi-function mice and keyboards? Why bother? Not everyone is going to want one, and not everyone is going to want the same thing, and Apple can't possibly be profitable making 5 or 10 versions of the same thing. And, it again leaves the opportunity open for third parties to provide a solution and make a good living doing it. (And, what's more, this is a further differentiation on a B2B level between Apple and Microsoft).

Microsoft: Make a product of sufficient appeal, and we'll steal your customer base for it.

Apple: Make a product of sufficient appeal, and we'll feature it in our Apple Stores.

Which one do you think is the more compelling option for developers?

Just my 2¢.

treblah
Jul 9, 2006, 01:25 PM
Let's say, you are booted up in Windows, and you get infected by a virus
or malware. Will this affect how OSX will function when rebooted?

Is anyone interested in discussing this?

No, for both questions. :)

EagerDragon
Jul 9, 2006, 01:29 PM
For gaming I can see the dual boot, for most people parallel solution is the way to go, but.... both have 2 major problems:
1) Have to buy Windows
2) Virus and other malware (Parrallel a little less)

No, it should not affect OSX file system and files unless you start sharing files between the two OS(s) by using FAT, FAT32 or some other way to move the files.

What both solutions need to clean up, is a way to perform read-only disk imaging, install windows, create a disk image, install your games, create a disk image of the games also (no need to fish for the CD(s). When malware hits, reboot from the disk image and re-install windows, then reinstall the software, keep the data files in a different drive and use virus checker against them. I don't know about you but I can never find a CD when im looking for it, LOL.

Codeweaver solution is the way to go if you want a safer environment since you are using libraries and not the windows OS. It would be a lot harder to install and run malware when using the code weaver solution (but not impossible). Some subceptability still exist due to having to emulate the API's so closely. This is where Apple should put its money, keep it open, but pay for the programmers time to continue development and maybe give them some Mac(s), participate, and give them some emulation hardware so they can kick the tires good. I think Apple can easily afford 12 millions easy on this and get a hell of a lot of switchers in return. The publicity would be thru the roof and I can see M$ loosing a lot of sleep.

UMMM, maybe ill can do some security code reviews for WINE or Codeweaver.

I had the security team from Microsoft at my shop and we talked at lenght about their process to security review their code and the controls they place before new code is released. They are doing good, but as long as they continue having to support older OS versions and continue adding functionality like they do with IE, they will always have some serious issues in my opinion. Ease or use and integration can be one of the worst security risks to the software if you do not have a solid foundation.

will that be 6 cents?
:)

Evangelion
Jul 9, 2006, 01:30 PM
I think the R&D is more about making sure it is right.

Others do manage to get it right, why can't Apple, even though they have a lot more resources at their disposal?

Imagine all the calls from people trying to figure out how to get windows working correctly!

And that's different from Boot Camp.... How, exactly?

Correct me if I am wrong, but virtualization is supported on the chip level, not OS. In other words, the Intel chips in new macs support (or to some extent) virtualization.

You still need software to make it happen. If Leopard does not support virtualization, you need something like Parallels to make it happen. The CPU has hardware-support for it, but that support alone does NOT enable virtualization.

Apple could ship Leopard with no virtualization. In which case you could still get virtualization through third-party apps (like Parallels). But the thing is that many other OS'es would be shipping with virtualization out of the box.

m-dogg
Jul 9, 2006, 01:36 PM
Well...they could get around that whole R&D issue by buying Parallels...then technically he would not be lying.

OR

Maybe they plan to save full blown virtualization for a later OS X release. Like maybe when a larger percentage of their user base is running Intel-based machines. It's tough to advertise an Intel-only feature as a major reason for all the existing Mac users to upgrade their OS. And frankly, I don't care about using Windows. I left that for OS X, and I don't see any real reason to go back!

Speaking of the Mac user base, does anyone know if there are any figures floating around that show what percentage of mac users are running Moto/IBM vs Intel?

Evangelion
Jul 9, 2006, 01:38 PM
Hmm...

I disagree with the notions here that Apple should support, or give the appearance of supporting, the Win32 environment.

They already do that with Boot Camp (which WILL be part of Leopard). Why is Boot Camp OK, whereas virtualization is not? Besides, Apple could (and should) just tell everyone that "Problems with Windows are not Apple's concern".

I think the thing a lot of people here don't understand is what it means to lend your name to something, like Apple saying anything beyond "we've provided a means for users of their own accord to allow Windows to run on our boxen."

And I really fail to see the difference between virtualization and Boot Camp there. Well, the difference might be that virtualization is clean and elegant, whereas Boot Camp is crude and crummy. Why is Boot Camp OK, but virtualization is not?

supporting Windows is a huge millstone. It's simply not one Apple has any good business case for supporting.

And what makes you think that Apple would be "supporting" Windows? Is Apple supporting Windows because they are providing people with Boot Camp? How would virtualization change things?

There are really no downsides to this approach, folks.

I can see it already: "If OS X is the most advanced OS in the world, how come both Linux and Windows support virtualization right out of the box, whereas OS X needs hand-holding from third-party software?".

And, as someone else already mentioned, this also eliminates the 1990s Apple tendency to see a cool 3rd party app and just suck it right into the OS, leaving the developer high and dry with no customer base to sell their product to.

You mean sonething like Konfabulator? Or Watson?

I am more inclined to agree this is more of a tactical move. Make windows seemless in OSX, and it DOES reduce the "need" for developers to release an OSX edition.

But it would still be Windows. Just because running Windows on the Mac is easier does NOT change the fact that Windows is still crummy OS. OS X wuld have all those nice bells and whistles, whereas Windows would not. Just because Windows would be running on a Mac does not mean that the OS is magically better. No, it would still be the same sucky Windows that runs on Dells.

EricNau
Jul 9, 2006, 01:42 PM
I would be happy with "Fast OS Switching" (similar, of course, to Fast User Switching).

It seems to be a good compromise.

vniow
Jul 9, 2006, 02:02 PM
1) Parallels -- and they're working on adding Direct X.

Link? And it won't mean much if they can't get full hardware acceleration.


I'm not sure if I quite believe what they're saying here fully. They may not be doing virtualisation like we're used to, but more inline with a Classic type environment. They have the technology for running two operating systems at the same time (http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.php/archive/apple_files_patent_system_and_method_for_creating_tamper_resistant_code/) and Intel filed a patent for a unified user interface (http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.php/archive/intel_patent_reveals_virtual_machine_geared_for_consumer_desktops/) for virtualised apps. Think Classic style, where the virtualised environment isn't restricted to a window in an application, its transparent and apps you're running on the second OS interact like they would as if they were running on the first.

Something's coming, it may not be with 10.5 but the technology's there. We're going to see it sooner or later.

Peace
Jul 9, 2006, 02:04 PM
I'm still trying to figure out how Boot Camp is a "Beta"..I mean how much better can they do the dual-boot.Other than drivers for Windows which isn't really part of the dual-boot process..

How do they improve it? better graphics ?

Something is going on that we don't know about..

EagerDragon
Jul 9, 2006, 02:17 PM
Something's coming, it may not be with 10.5 but the technology's there. We're going to see it sooner or later.

The Intel filling is similar to what most people would love to have. Full integration of more that one OS at the GUI level, where people can not detect it is windows or OSX or Linux by looking at it. Clicking on an object starts the program and it runs in a window with full cut and paste between windows and network sockets so the programs can talk to each other and share data.

The combination of Intel idea (we had the same idea) and Codeweaver libraries, will likely be in Leopard to one extend or another. I do think the intel integrated gui idea has been discussed extensivly with Apple and was submitted to prevent others from using it. I think it is Apple's if they want it, and I think they do.

DavidLeblond
Jul 9, 2006, 02:18 PM
why is your uptime so very important?


I was kidding, of course. I use a tactic called "humor" to get through my day... doesn't work for everyone.

Anyway, my point is rebooting is a pain. Installing 2 operating systems just to use X application or X game is a pain. I want it to be easier.

I'm still trying to figure out how Boot Camp is a "Beta"..I mean how much better can they do the dual-boot.Other than drivers for Windows which isn't really part of the dual-boot process..

How do they improve it? better graphics ?

Something is going on that we don't know about..

"Beta" keeps them from having to support it.

50548
Jul 9, 2006, 02:21 PM
They already do that with Boot Camp (which WILL be part of Leopard). Why is Boot Camp OK, whereas virtualization is not? Besides, Apple could (and should) just tell everyone that "Problems with Windows are not Apple's concern".

Your logic is totally wrong, Evangelion...Boot Camp is a stand-alone package to allow those that WANT to run Windows to do that...also, it's a BETA product, and expressly disclaimed by Apple as a non-supported product. And finally, it's something that must be downloaded/installed separately by the user.

And I really fail to see the difference between virtualization and Boot Camp there. Well, the difference might be that virtualization is clean and elegant, whereas Boot Camp is crude and crummy. Why is Boot Camp OK, but virtualization is not?

See above. The difference is not only about being "clean", it's about being completely built into a system you are supposed, as a company, to support.

It's impossible for Apple to say that "certain" parts of the OS X are not supported...and that's why virtualization is subject to a very delicate decision in terms of R&D and corporate interest.

And what makes you think that Apple would be "supporting" Windows? Is Apple supporting Windows because they are providing people with Boot Camp? How would virtualization change things?

See above again...with virtualization, Apple cannot just escape the support trap...it's there, in the OS X, and cannot be waived...it's not a case of supporting Windows (this is easier to be disclaimed), it's a case of supporting the environment over which Windows is run...unfortunately, both elements are not easily separated, especially in the minds of wannabe Apple users or switchers.

I can see it already: "If OS X is the most advanced OS in the world, how come both Linux and Windows support virtualization right out of the box, whereas OS X needs hand-holding from third-party software?".

The fact that OS X does that with 3rd party products means nothing in terms of feature package...in the end, Windows can have the best virtualization set...this means crap, if it cannot run OS X.

The opposite side is that OS X is THE best OS out there...and it can also run Linux/Windows etc., either via Parallels, Boot Camp or other emulation software. This is more than anyone will ever have on a PC.

You mean sonething like Konfabulator? Or Watson?

This practice is rightly done by any developer or hardware producer out there, but Apple gets the flak for being the only maker of a homogeneous software/hardware duo.

In some cases, Apple just buys what it wants (as with Watson or FCP), as Microsoft always did...in others, it just develops over an idea that might be there or not (as Konfabulator)...I would like to see Arlo Rose's comments regarding the '85 Desk Accessories or the widget/DA-like software that was in NeXT waaaaaaaaaaaay before Konfabulator ever existed...people whine too much.

MikeTheC
Jul 9, 2006, 02:44 PM
Evangelion:

I was all set to write a response, but BRLawyer pretty much wrote what I had planned.

We're not trying to argue against Virtualization per-se. Clearly it has some user-friendliness advantages over dual-booting. However, it is *not* as clean an option (from a programming standpoint) and it certainly is not as safe an option from a liability-of-support standpoint.

When you dual-boot, you're providing a nice, clean "sandbox" for Windows to play in. There's really no concern about OS-OS interaction. Also, if anything goes to hell in it (apps, user data, the OS itself) Apple can honestly say "Hey, it doesn't have anything to do with us. Go talk to Microsoft." Which, as I've already indicated, is exactly as it should be.

mjstew33
Jul 9, 2006, 02:46 PM
I wonder what's going to be the next big thing in this OS version then.. :confused:

Evangelion
Jul 9, 2006, 02:56 PM
Your logic is totally wrong, Evangelion...Boot Camp is a stand-alone package to allow those that WANT to run Windows to do that...also, it's a BETA product, and expressly disclaimed by Apple as a non-supported product. And finally, it's something that must be downloaded/installed separately by the user.

Didn't you get the memo? Apple has stated that Boot Camp will be part of Leopard. So how exactly is my logic "totally wrong"? Boot Camp is a beta of a feature that will come standard with Leopard.

See above. The difference is not only about being "clean", it's about being completely built into a system you are supposed, as a company, to support.

See above: Boot Camp will be an official part of Leopards feature-set. Again: why is Boot Camp OK whereas virtualization is not?

See above again...with virtualization, Apple cannot just escape the support trap...it's there, in the OS X, and cannot be waived...it's not a case of supporting Windows (this is easier to be disclaimed), it's a case of supporting the environment over which Windows is run...unfortunately, both elements are not easily separated, especially in the minds of wannabe Apple users or switchers.

Others can make it work. Parallels can make it work. Why can't Apple?

The fact that OS X does that with 3rd party products means nothing in terms of feature package...in the end, Windows can have the best virtualization set...this means crap, if it cannot run OS X.

There ARE other OS'es out there than OS X.

The opposite side is that OS X is THE best OS out there

debatable. For some users it is, for others it's not. My wife prefers Linux to OS X ;). And OS X is not the be-all-end-all OS out there. For some tasks some other OS would be superior.

and it can also run Linux/Windows etc., either via Parallels

Third-party app that costs money.

Boot Camp

Crummy and un-elegant.

This is more than anyone will ever have on a PC.

There are Linux-solutions out there that will allow you to run OS X on Linux (on Apple-hardware, of course). So Linux will be able to run Linux, Windows, OS X and lots of other OS'es.

This practice is rightly done by any developer or hardware producer out there, but Apple gets the flak for being the only maker of a homogeneous software/hardware duo.

I fail to see how that comment answered my question.

In some cases, Apple just buys what it wants (as with Watson or FCP)

Apple didn't buy anything from Karelia Software (the makers of Watson).

in others, it just develops over an idea that might be there or not (as Konfabulator)

Dashboard is a 1:1 copy of Konfabulator. Anyone who disputes that is a RDF-infected fanboy.

I would like to see Arlo Rose's comments regarding the '85 Desk Accessories

They aren't actually that similar in the end. YOu are just using that as an excuse because that was what Steve Jobs used as an excuse.

Evangelion
Jul 9, 2006, 03:01 PM
Evangelion:

I was all set to write a response, but BRLawyer pretty much wrote what I had planned.

We're not trying to argue against Virtualization per-se. Clearly it has some user-friendliness advantages over dual-booting. However, it is *not* as clean an option (from a programming standpoint) and it certainly is not as safe an option from a liability-of-support standpoint.

When you dual-boot, you're providing a nice, clean "sandbox" for Windows to play in. There's really no concern about OS-OS interaction. Also, if anything goes to hell in it (apps, user data, the OS itself) Apple can honestly say "Hey, it doesn't have anything to do with us. Go talk to Microsoft." Which, as I've already indicated, is exactly as it should be.

You guys are basically making up excuses for lack of a feature in Leopard. Apple could handle Windows-problem nicely. Hell, every time user loads a virtualized OS, OS X could present a splash-screen stating that Apple is in no shape or form liable for anything that happens inside a virtualized non-Apple OS. You are trying to come up with ANY reason why Apple should not offer this feature. Benefits of this feature FAR exceed any perceived negatives.

Seriously, everyone thought virtualization ws a great idea when we thought that Leopard would have it. Now that is seems that it will not have it, everyone turned 180 degrees and thinks that virtualization is a bad idea. It's like the Intel-switch all over again.

"Booo, Intel sucks! PPC rules! What was that? Apple is switching over to Intel? Yay, Intel kicks ass! PPC sucks!"

Electro Funk
Jul 9, 2006, 03:04 PM
bah, dual boot is crap. Running windows in a little box while still within OS X is appealing; actually running windows is most certainly not. Who wants to restart all the time?

agreed... i was really looking forward to virtualization in leapord....

without it... i dont see any big improvements...

guess we'll just have to wait and find out...

Doctor Q
Jul 9, 2006, 03:08 PM
Dual boot and virtualization each have advantages and disadvantages, so consumers ought to have both options available, for a price. But that doesn't mean the virtualization option has to come from Apple. So I'm not concerned about Apple's plans in this area.

amac4me
Jul 9, 2006, 03:08 PM
The strategic thing for Apple to do would be to deny it. Does the video capable iPod come to mind? Recall that Steve Jobs denied that Apple would include the ability to play videos on an iPod.

guzhogi
Jul 9, 2006, 03:40 PM
I just bought the July, 2006 MaximumPC magazine today that compared the speed of 3 apps (Doom 3 and some photography software common to both OSes) of Windows XP & Mac OS X on an Intel iMac and the Windows versions were faster. Kinda weird. Hopefully this will change w/ Mac OS X 10.5. I wonder if Windows Vista would be able to run on Intel Macs when (more likely if) it ships.

^squirrel^
Jul 9, 2006, 03:47 PM
I like the idea of being able to run small windows app such as MSN messenger. The mac messenger sucks and it would be good to have voice and video work on OSX.

weg
Jul 9, 2006, 04:25 PM
Apple needs to treat Windows just like they did Classic. They need to minimize Windows into an emulation mode.


Mac OS/2? ;-)

Voidness
Jul 9, 2006, 04:35 PM
The way I see Apple improving Boot Camp in 10.5, is to incorporate some sort of "quick boot" and "quick shutdown", in a way similar to Safe Sleep in the latest Powerbooks and Macbook Pros. So instead of completely shutting down Mac OS X, it just saves all the RAM contents to the hard drive, and then boots into Windows. Shutting down Windows will quickly return to Mac OS X with everything intact.

mattcube64
Jul 9, 2006, 05:08 PM
I want Boot Camp for the few games that I play. However, I do plan on buying Parrallels just to have it there.

codo
Jul 9, 2006, 05:11 PM
The way I see Apple improving Boot Camp in 10.5, is to incorporate some sort of "quick boot" and "quick shutdown", in a way similar to Safe Sleep in the latest Powerbooks and Macbook Pros. So instead of completely shutting down Mac OS X, it just saves all the RAM contents to the hard drive, and then boots into Windows. Shutting down Windows will quickly return to Mac OS X with everything intact.


Sounds perfectly feasible - Very Apple.

Not long to go now, until we get a peek.

aussie_geek
Jul 9, 2006, 05:24 PM
oh well, all it means is we will need a copy of parallels to run our windows stuff. dual boot is great for gaming - the only reason where you would boot into windows rather than virtual technology.

still gets a negative vote. apple should have incorporated their own version of parallels into the os. there must be more than just technical reasons for this. i am sure there would be some legal implications of supporting an osx native virtualisation program.

aussie_geek

inkswamp
Jul 9, 2006, 05:41 PM
The strategic thing for Apple to do would be to deny it. Does the video capable iPod come to mind? Recall that Steve Jobs denied that Apple would include the ability to play videos on an iPod.

Exactly! Kudos to you for bringing out such an excellent example.

I was going to comment that we weren't there to hear Shiller's response, nor are we certain as to the context of the question or any hidden motives to keep future plans quiet. I think Apple has shown itself willing to bluff in the face of questions and speculation from observers. The iPod video example above illustrates that perfectly.

I'm willing to bet there was a little tongue-in-cheek tone to Shiller's answer, an I'm-not-going-to-tell-you-the-truth-and-we-know-it sort of thing that maybe the reporter didn't catch.

His response seems a little evasive, just on the surface, and a tad off-base. Just offering the ability to run Windows doesn't automatically mean Apple must support it. If it's an elective feature, Apple can simply fend support calls off with a standard sort of "You'll have to call Microsoft" type of disclaimer. Providing that's made clear up-front, I see no problem with that, and MS should support Windows even on a Mac. What's the problem?

So I'm not sure I buy it. Apple is very definitely moving the in the direction of greater Windows compatibility and offering a Windows-in-OS X type of feature is a no-brainer.

We'll see, I guess, in a few weeks.

Peace
Jul 9, 2006, 05:58 PM
Exactly! Kudos to you for bringing out such an excellent example.

I was going to comment that we weren't there to hear Shiller's response, nor are we certain as to the context of the question or any hidden motives to keep future plans quiet. I think Apple has shown itself willing to bluff in the face of questions and speculation from observers. The iPod video example above illustrates that perfectly.

I'm willing to bet there was a little tongue-in-cheek tone to Shiller's answer, an I'm-not-going-to-tell-you-the-truth-and-we-know-it sort of thing that maybe the reporter didn't catch.

His response seems a little evasive, just on the surface, and a tad off-base. Just offering the ability to run Windows doesn't automatically mean Apple must support it. If it's an elective feature, Apple can simply fend support calls off with a standard sort of "You'll have to call Microsoft" type of disclaimer. Providing that's made clear up-front, I see no problem with that, and MS should support Windows even on a Mac. What's the problem?

So I'm not sure I buy it. Apple is very definitely moving the in the direction of greater Windows compatibility and offering a Windows-in-OS X type of feature is a no-brainer.

We'll see, I guess, in a few weeks.


I agree with that completely..Why would Shiller flat out deny a potential part of Leopard instead of the normal "We don't comment on future releases" jive?..Apple sure doesn't tell us in advance what will be in Leopard except for "Boot Camp"..And since that's "Beta" we don't really know what form the final release will be in..

My guess is smokescreen..

iMikeT
Jul 9, 2006, 06:06 PM
Why do people find it so difficult to have to restart a computer to run another operating system?

chicagdan
Jul 9, 2006, 06:08 PM
I agree with that completely..Why would Shiller flat out deny a potential part of Leopard instead of the normal "We don't comment on future releases" jive?

Because he was talking to a financial analyst, not a customer or reporter. They tell those guys a lot more than they tell the rest of us. I think what Shiller said makes sense ... it's stupid for Apple to devote resources (and declare open war with Microsoft if the solution did not require Windows) when so many others are doing it for them.

Doctor Q
Jul 9, 2006, 06:14 PM
Why do people find it so difficult to have to restart a computer to run another operating system?If your goal is to switch everything you are working on and change to another O.S., another login identity, and another set of applications and documents, restarting may be fine.

But if you run mostly Mac apps and want to run one Windows app occasionally, as if it was one of your Mac apps, and being able to keep it in a window under Mac OS X while you go back and forth between other applications, running Windows under Mac OS X much better suits you.

chicagdan
Jul 9, 2006, 06:15 PM
Why do people find it so difficult to have to restart a computer to run another operating system?

Because people on this website always dream of impossible next steps for Apple then throw tantrums when their unconfirmed visions don't materialize. It has nothing to do with the usefulness of existing or likely new options, if the next OSX doesn't read minds and kill cylons, they'll label it a disappointment.

Peace
Jul 9, 2006, 06:19 PM
Because he was talking to a financial analyst, not a customer or reporter. They tell those guys a lot more than they tell the rest of us. I think what Shiller said makes sense ... it's stupid for Apple to devote resources (and declare open war with Microsoft if the solution did not require Windows) when so many others are doing it for them.

For all intent and purpose that "analyst" might as well have been a reporter since the statement Phil made is all over the internet.


And I have many,many times seen Steve Jobs interviewed by analyst on CNBC etc.And every time he says "As you know.We don't discuss upcoming features in our OS"

SmurfBoxMasta
Jul 9, 2006, 06:20 PM
If these new intel chips allow you to run more than one OS at a time why cant you boot Windows and Mac on the same machine at the same time?

With the Intel solution being HARDWARE virtualization, you could, everything else being discussed here is using SOFTWARE emulation, which is an entirely different animal..........

the REAL question here is whether or not Apple will start using the Intel chips that support hardware virtualization ?

My guess is: HELL YES! But ONLY when they feel the time is right. Unless they buy up or liscense one of the software solutions first and incorporate it into OS 10.5 or 6........

maybe they could even offer the intel solution as a BTO option, but include the software as a standard OS feature for those of us who dont wanna pay the extra $$ for the new chips :D

MikeTheC
Jul 9, 2006, 06:21 PM
Ok, Evangelion, obviously you're just not willing to actually listen to anybody else's comments or try to understand a point of view other than your own. You're just waiting for the opportunity to keep talking about your world view.

So, you know what... you win. You're always right. Gee, you know, I just don't understand how I could be so hopelessly stupid and not see the light.

We're done here, folks.

MacRumorUser
Jul 9, 2006, 06:23 PM
MMMM interesting mr.bond !!

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=211673

Looks like my previous thread about Apple to buy Parallels may have more weight behind it :) It will be another Emagic style take-over. Buy Parallels, use it's software and maybe re-brand it Apple Parallels and end the development of the windows workstation version......

generik
Jul 9, 2006, 06:36 PM
You guys are basically making up excuses for lack of a feature in Leopard. Apple could handle Windows-problem nicely. Hell, every time user loads a virtualized OS, OS X could present a splash-screen stating that Apple is in no shape or form liable for anything that happens inside a virtualized non-Apple OS. You are trying to come up with ANY reason why Apple should not offer this feature. Benefits of this feature FAR exceed any perceived negatives.

Seriously, everyone thought virtualization ws a great idea when we thought that Leopard would have it. Now that is seems that it will not have it, everyone turned 180 degrees and thinks that virtualization is a bad idea. It's like the Intel-switch all over again.

"Booo, Intel sucks! PPC rules! What was that? Apple is switching over to Intel? Yay, Intel kicks ass! PPC sucks!"

Bravo, quoted for truth. Thinking difference simply means "Thinking differently from the rest, we can't think for ourselves".

JackSYi
Jul 9, 2006, 06:54 PM
I suspect that Windows applications will run in Mac OS X without needing Windows.

boncellis
Jul 9, 2006, 07:29 PM
I think the only thing to read into this is that there will be no virtualization in the near future. When you think about it, it makes sense because the majority of Apple's machines are still PPC. Developing a virtualization solution for PowerPC would certainly be cost prohibitive like Mr. Schiller says, but once the Intel machines take over it will probably be far enough into the future that integrating virtualization into the OS will no longer be so expensive.

In the meantime, which may be awhile as it turns out, I suppose boot camp will sell its share of Intel Macs.

F14CRAZY
Jul 9, 2006, 07:34 PM
Hmmm, I had/have Virtual PC 6. It seems like with the crazy power of the Core Duo and all that virtualization would work out fine

solvs
Jul 9, 2006, 08:11 PM
See above: Boot Camp will be an official part of Leopards feature-set. Again: why is Boot Camp OK whereas virtualization is not?
Because it's separate from OS X. You're rebooting into Windows, so you're running Windows. OS X isn't running. That's the way they decided they want to do it.

Others can make it work. Parallels can make it work. Why can't Apple?
Apparently they don't want to. I don't agree, but I can understand why. They're happy with Boot Camp, and are more than willing to let third parties pick up the slack. If they did without buying Parallels, we'd be complaining that they put another third party out of business even if they were already planning on doing this.

Third-party app that costs money.
So's Windows for Boot Camp. So's VPC. WINE is free. They don't want to support Windows at all.

Crummy and un-elegant.
Yes it is, but that's what Apple has decided to do.

Apple didn't buy anything from Karelia Software (the makers of Watson).
They offered. Even told him what they were planning on doing with Sherlock, which seemed an obvious next step. He said no.

Dashboard is a 1:1 copy of Konfabulator.
And Konfab is just like Desk Accessories (http://daringfireball.net/2004/06/dashboard_vs_konfabulator). You do know Arlo Rose used to work for Apple right? And that he knew what Apple was working on before Tiger came out? I'm not happy they did it the way they did, but I can't say I blame them anymore than I blame him for being upset.

Apple is just a company as is M$. They don't owe us anything. They don't owe their developers anything. Sucks, but that's the way it is. I don't understand why anyone expects anything else.

Stella
Jul 9, 2006, 08:13 PM
Not an issue, just buy the existing solutions. Apple doesn't need to create one, when there are a few alternative existing solutions out there.

heisetax
Jul 9, 2006, 08:14 PM
why is your uptime so very important?
with bootcamp, you can boot into linux and use WINE, which is free. if you need ease of use, get paralells. believe it or not, companies other than apple do make good products.:rolleyes:

on a different topic, less than 25% of mac users are on intel. if leopard's updates are intel-centric, ppc users (the ones running office, aka students and studio 8 and CS2, aka creative people, both of which make up a huge part of the mac market) will be ticked off, and stay with tiger, which would actually be good for apple.


Steve would like this to be the case & then he would declare the PPC Mac dead & end any support for any PPC Mac. This would be very bad for the 75-95% of the Mac Users.

I really wonder what the real % of Macs that are being used compared to PPC Macs. The simple question here on MacRumors say 23%. To date I have not seen or talked to anyone that owns an Intel Mac. I've seen them at the local NE Furniture Mart (overall best computer store in town), CompUSA Mac Store Within a Store, or an out of town Apple Store. Are they selling that many Intel Macs that nearly 1 in 4 Macs are now Intel Macs?

Bill the TaxMan

magi.sys
Jul 9, 2006, 08:56 PM
I don't really care for Leopard to have virtualization, but I sure hope OS X 10.5 Server has it. It sure would be nice to boot up multiple instances of OS X server and other OSes on one server (like Linux, Solaris, *BSDs).

Kingsly
Jul 9, 2006, 09:17 PM
the R&D would be prohibitiveReally? How come Parallels managed to do it, even though the have just a fraction of the resources Apple has? How come Linux managed to do it with just few people working on the code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux-VServer)? And I bet that the guys behind Xen had a fraction of Apple's resources as well.

If Leopard does not support virtualization, then we will have a situation where Windows and Linux will support it, but OS X does not. Dual-booting is tedious and crude, virtualization would be a lot more elegant solution.
Yeah, smells like a red herring to me.

wmmk
Jul 9, 2006, 09:24 PM
I don't really care for Leopard to have virtualization, but I sure hope OS X 10.5 Server has it. It sure would be nice to boot up multiple instances of OS X server and other OSes on one server (like Linux, Solaris, *BSDs).
that's actually a great idea. wow. email your idea to apple!

mjstew33
Jul 9, 2006, 09:50 PM
Worthless.

Apple just sends them an automated note as they don't want to be sued if the product is in the making..

fblack
Jul 9, 2006, 10:00 PM
It makes sense. Apple for all their early adoptions of tech, is also very tight fisted with their cash and resources--which is good because they are not the 800LB gorilla that M$ is with scads of cash. They have to pick and choose their fights so to speak.:)

macnews
Jul 10, 2006, 12:10 AM
You guys are basically making up excuses for lack of a feature in Leopard. Apple could handle Windows-problem nicely. Hell, every time user loads a virtualized OS, OS X could present a splash-screen stating that Apple is in no shape or form liable for anything that happens inside a virtualized non-Apple OS. You are trying to come up with ANY reason why Apple should not offer this feature. Benefits of this feature FAR exceed any perceived negatives.

Seriously, everyone thought virtualization ws a great idea when we thought that Leopard would have it. Now that is seems that it will not have it, everyone turned 180 degrees and thinks that virtualization is a bad idea. It's like the Intel-switch all over again.

"Booo, Intel sucks! PPC rules! What was that? Apple is switching over to Intel? Yay, Intel kicks ass! PPC sucks!"

I don't know what your issue is but this topic seems to have put a burr in your saddle.

Would I like to see virtualization in OSX native - yes. But I am not sure what your complaint is about having a third party support it? You claim OSX will fall behind when all the other OS's will support virtualization. Frankly, I don't see Windows ever supporting running a different OS - be it OSX, Linux, Unix, etc. And when doesn't Linux do something third party? Linux is the epitomy of the third party type of stuff - basically open source being all the third parties.

Please, what ever that burr is - don't get pissed at me, I'm just asking questions admitting I don't know everything there is to know about virtualization. If you know more, please inform me how this would work vs repeating your same arguement.

I just don't see why MS, Apple or Linux will support this. Linux may be the only one as the open source community drive much of what is Linux. If they want it I'm sure someone will develop it but for a corporate driven product, why encourage people to buy your competition?

macnews
Jul 10, 2006, 12:27 AM
I just bought the July, 2006 MaximumPC magazine today that compared the speed of 3 apps (Doom 3 and some photography software common to both OSes) of Windows XP & Mac OS X on an Intel iMac and the Windows versions were faster. Kinda weird. Hopefully this will change w/ Mac OS X 10.5. I wonder if Windows Vista would be able to run on Intel Macs when (more likely if) it ships.

Doom 3 requires (according to www.doom3.com) Windows 2000/XP and DirectX - neither of which run on OSX natively. I tried to find what "photography" software MaximumPC wrote on but since you said it is common to both OSes I am guessing Photoshop. In that case, Photoshop also has to run under rosetta, thus doesn't run at full steam on an Intel chip. As a result, they are not comparing Apples-to-Windows correctly. So NOT weird at all, and it has nothing to do with a change in 10.5. It will have everything to do with comparing one piece of software running natively on both systems.

BillyShears
Jul 10, 2006, 12:35 AM
Prediction: At WWDC, Apple announces support for WINE/OS X. They will sponsor the open source project, but it will not be included in OS X by default.

Evangelion
Jul 10, 2006, 01:04 AM
Because people on this website always dream of impossible next steps for Apple then throw tantrums when their unconfirmed visions don't materialize.

There is nothing "impossible" about virtualization.

Evangelion
Jul 10, 2006, 01:11 AM
So's Windows for Boot Camp. So's VPC. WINE is free. They don't want to support Windows at all.

Again: they don't have to support Windows. Hell, by your logic they are already supporting Windows with Boot Camp! doesn't Apple ship with Windows-drivers for their devices with Boot Camp?

If Apple doesn't want to support Windows at all, then they shouldn't be shipping Boot Camp.

Yes it is, but that's what Apple has decided to do.

So that makes it OK?

They offered.

Karelia Software disagrees with you:

Many users have contacted Karelia, congratulating us on Apple "buying out" Watson. However, Karelia Software was not involved in any aspect of Sherlock 3, other than serving as ... shall we say ... inspiration. While Apple recently recognized Watson as 2002's "Most Innovative Mac OS X Product" -- and we appreciate the recognition -- the company didn't hesitate to make use of Watson's specific innovations for its next OS release, without any concessions to Karelia.

He said no.

To what?

Evangelion
Jul 10, 2006, 01:39 AM
I don't know what your issue is but this topic seems to have put a burr in your saddle.

Apple has the right to not ship certain features in their OS. And I'm not denying that. I just think that it's retarded for them to NOT ship this feature. Virtualization is the next big think in computers and OS'es, and Apple is going to miss the boat. So they offer us dual-booting. Well, whoop-de-doo! 1994 called, it wants it's technology back.

Would I like to see virtualization in OSX native - yes. But I am not sure what your complaint is about having a third party support it?

Because the feature is important, and it's dumb to not offer native support for it? And because having to rely on third-parties means spending even more money?

You claim OSX will fall behind when all the other OS's will support virtualization. Frankly, I don't see Windows ever supporting running a different OS - be it OSX, Linux, Unix, etc.

MS has stated that Linux can run virtualized on top of Windows.

And when doesn't Linux do something third party? Linux is the epitomy of the third party type of stuff - basically open source being all the third parties.

The Linux-kernel is lined up for having native support for virtualization. And there are several distros already shipping with virtualization built in(SUSE for example).

Please, what ever that burr is - don't get pissed at me, I'm just asking questions admitting I don't know everything there is to know about virtualization. If you know more, please inform me how this would work vs repeating your same arguement.

I don't really understand the issue of "how this would work?".

I just don't see why MS, Apple or Linux will support this. Linux may be the only one as the open source community drive much of what is Linux. If they want it I'm sure someone will develop it but for a corporate driven product, why encourage people to buy your competition?

Because some people need other OS'es besides OS X. While OS X is a fine OS, it's not a perfect OS for all users and in all situations. Take my household for example: I'm running Tiger as we speak. But my wife prefers Ubuntu Linux to OS X (really!). So I promised her that when I get a new computer (a Macintel) she will get Linux back (I don't want to run it on my PPC-Mini). Now, when that happens, what would my options be?

a) Run dual-boot solution. Every time my wife wants to use the computer, the computer needs to be rebooted in to Linux. Can you say "tedious"? Why yes, you can

b) Virtualized OS. Whenever my wife wants to use the computer, she just clicks on an icon on her Dock (or whatever) that will load Linux for her. Elegant and convenient.

Besides elegance, what other differences would there be between those two? Well, in the first user-case, my wife would not be exposed to OS X, since she would just reboot to Linux. In the latter case, my wife would be exposed to OS X quite often. And I might come fed up with constant dual-booting that I might switch back to Linux (I have moved back and forth between OS X and Linux, so I could do it quite easily).

Maybe Apple is dropping this feature because they are afraid that no-one would use OS X anymore. That argument brings two comments to my mind:

A) Apple doesn't seem to have much faith in their OS. If OS X is truly that good (and it IS very good), why are they so afraid of people dropping it for Windows (or Linux)?

B) Are we, the users, being screwed over because of Apple's corporate-interests? Users would love this feature. True, not everyone would use it, but some would. And those who don't want it, would not be forced to use it. But those that do need it would love Apple for offering this feature. Are they being screwed over because of point A?

This wouldn't be the first time either. Take syncing for example. Apple offers a very nice method of syncing data between different computers. But the user needs to have a .Mac-account for it. Isn't that quite retarded if the user has (for example) just a laptop and a desktop that are sitting swide by side in his study? Why couldn't he sync locally over his own LAN, why does he need to send that data to .mac-servers, where they are then re-send back to the other machine? Why couldn't that be handled locally through Bonjour for example?

Linux has iFolder (http://www.ifolder.com/index.php/Main_Page) for something like this, whereas Apple is pushing their $99/year .Mac-subscribtion. Do the users really want to pay for something like syncing? There are no real technical reasons why local syncing would not work, this is just another way of extracting more money from the users.

Yes, iFolder runs on Mac. But only as a client not as a server. And this is (again) a feature that should come with OS X as standard.

gh0sted
Jul 10, 2006, 01:47 AM
I think the best possible choice for apple is the 3rd party solution to virtualization. If you do incorporate virtualization into 10.5 where is dual booting left? If you remove it, then the 3D gamers freak out about their system resources. I don't see apple wanting to ship Leopard with 2 ways of running Windows, it'd seem kind of directionless.

Bregalad
Jul 10, 2006, 02:01 AM
I can't see why there is any argument about why Apple wants to go with dual booting over virtualization.

Boot Camp: Your Apple hardware is running Windows. If something goes wrong it's Windows that's to blame. Apple says "We made it possible for you to install and run that other operating system on your Mac, we don't actually recommend or support doing so."

Virtualization: Windows is running along with the MacOS. If something goes wrong it's a Mac running MacOS X with an Apple supplied tool for running Windows, therefore Apple is at least partly to blame and most certainly has to deal with the support call.

Parallels: Windows is running inside a 3rd party application. If something goes wrong it may still be a Mac running MacOS X, but the ability to run Windows along-side OS X was added by a 3rd party so Apple can quickly point the finger at them.

Bregalad
Jul 10, 2006, 02:01 AM
I can't see why there is any argument about why Apple wants to go with dual booting over virtualization.

Boot Camp: Your Apple hardware is running Windows. If something goes wrong it's Windows that's to blame. Apple says "We made it possible for you to install and run that other operating system on your Mac, we don't actually recommend or support doing so."

Virtualization: Windows is running along with the MacOS. If something goes wrong it's a Mac running MacOS X with an Apple supplied tool for running Windows, therefore Apple is at least partly to blame and most certainly has to deal with the support call.

Parallels: Windows is running inside a 3rd party application. If something goes wrong it may still be a Mac running MacOS X, but the ability to run Windows along-side OS X was added by a 3rd party so Apple can quickly

Silentwave
Jul 10, 2006, 04:07 AM
What is so surprising here?

Honestly anyone who believes that some analyst talking to apple's director of marketing would get him to say *anything* about what may be their next big MARKETING coup, their next big super feature, and so on, knowing that this analyst would tell it to the media, must not pay much attention. Apple will say what looks best for them at the moment. Why say 'oh we have dual boot now but we'll have virtualization next dont worry' when they could continue to promote their existing solution.

solvs
Jul 10, 2006, 05:32 AM
Hell, by your logic they are already supporting Windows with Boot Camp!
Kinda, but not Windows itself. Mostly they don't seem to want to support being able to run OS X and Windows at the same time, but won't stop any others from doing it. Dual booting is the road they have taken. They won't be supporting any type of WINE/Crossover thing either because that's a whole nother ball of wax.

So that makes it OK?
It makes it what they're doing. They don't have to do anything at all. As long as they make OS X good, I don't really care about Windows. If I have to use a Windows program, I'm looking forward to running it in a little window in something like VPC. If Apple did do something, it would be nice, but I can't really say I expect them to. You give them far more credit that I do.

Karelia Software disagrees with you:
Not exactly the whole story. Just like with Audion, they told him what was coming next and offered him a job. He refused. See here (http://www.macobserver.com/article/2002/07/29.7.shtml) and here (http://daringfireball.net/linked/2006/january) (scroll down to Jan 6, 3rd story). I can see why he'd be mad, but I don't think Apple should stop developing their software just so they don't upset 3rd parties who are building off of that software.

Again, this is just business. I don't always like it, but I understand how it works. If you think Apple is any different, you're going to be disappointed.

Macnoviz
Jul 10, 2006, 05:59 AM
5) Alky -- translating game source code PC->Mac... (www.alkyproject.com)

I agree this is a good move on apple's part. Virtualization is '3rd party functionality'.

That looks great

any results yet?

JFreak
Jul 10, 2006, 06:23 AM
bah, dual boot is crap. Running windows in a little box while still within OS X is appealing; actually running windows is most certainly not. Who wants to restart all the time?

That would be a great way to show Windows-using people how often Windows actually crashes. While people would first probably think like "this stupid Mac won't let my old apps play nicely", they would in not-so-long time realize that it is the Windows window (pun intended) that keeps crashing while the Mac stays up'n'running for very long periods.

But I can appreciate Apple not letting Windows software play at all.

The best way to make the computer more stable is to get it as far away from Windows as possible ;).

Bingo :) That's what I intend to keep doing, virtualization or not...

Evangelion
Jul 10, 2006, 06:27 AM
Kinda, but not Windows itself.

I really fail to see why you think that supporting virtualization means that they are "supporting Windows". They are not. Windows is Microsofts headache. Apple is not liable for Windows that runs through Boot Camp, and they would NOT be liable for Windows that runs through virtualization.

I don't think Apple should stop developing their software just so they don't upset 3rd parties who are building off of that software.

I'm not actually advocating anything of the like. hell, I have been advocating for virtualization in Leopard, even though Parallels (among others) already provide such a feature!

Again, this is just business. I don't always like it, but I understand how it works. If you think Apple is any different, you're going to be disappointed.

I don't think Apple is different.

JFreak
Jul 10, 2006, 06:32 AM
Why do people find it so difficult to have to restart a computer to run another operating system?

Because it requires shutting down all apps currently open on the current operating system. I myself keep several apps open at all times, have projects open because a creative moment might come whenver and then I don't want to wait opening apps and files. All that would be lost should I have to reboot for accessing an app on another operating system.

Why do people find it so difficult to understand people having computer up and running at all times? I want to reboot once in two months. Sometimes not even that often.

helmsc
Jul 10, 2006, 07:37 AM
Dual booting would kill my uptime! I'm going to wait and see what Codeweavers does... I'd much rather buy their solution then have to pay for a Windows license!


Try using windows ... now that WILL kill your uptime.

Core Trio
Jul 10, 2006, 08:10 AM
Others do manage to get it right, why can't Apple, even though they have a lot more resources at their disposal?

And that's different from Boot Camp.... How, exactly?

You still need software to make it happen. If Leopard does not support virtualization, you need something like Parallels to make it happen. The CPU has hardware-support for it, but that support alone does NOT enable virtualization.

Apple could ship Leopard with no virtualization. In which case you could still get virtualization through third-party apps (like Parallels). But the thing is that many other OS'es would be shipping with virtualization out of the box.

Its different from boot camp because Apple does not support it through their customer service. If someone boots their iMac into XP and messes something up, calling Apple will not get them anywhere. I dont expect this policy to change and I think its a smart move for Apple, if people need windows let them use it at their own risk and let them install it themselves, dont put it in with the OS and force Leopard uses to suffer possible security threats.

And btw...what OS is going to be sporting a virtualization feature when leopard is out...Vista supports no such thing, and even if it was supposed to, the rate they drop features wouldnt really boad well for its inclusion. And honestly, linux isnt significant enough of an example, a linux with or without virutalization is no threat to windows or OS X at this point in time.

just my two cents :) (seems to be a recurring phrase in this thread, more so than usual)

Evangelion
Jul 10, 2006, 08:34 AM
Its different from boot camp because Apple does not support it through their customer service.

Again: I really don't see this. If Apple does not support Boot Camp through their customer service, why should they support virtualization? Because it would be a part of OS X? Well, Boot Camp will ALSO be part of OS X! Just because Apple would ship with virtualization, does NOT mean that they would somehow be obliged to support any OS that their customers decide to run under virtualization! They would just support OS X, period. Windows, Linux, BeOS etc. would be on their own.

If someone boots their iMac into XP and messes something up, calling Apple will not get them anywhere.

And if they mess XP up in virtualized environment, what makes you think that they would be getting "somewhere"?

And btw...what OS is going to be sporting a virtualization feature when leopard is out

Linux for starters. It already supports it.

And honestly, linux isnt significant enough of an example, a linux with or without virutalization is no threat to windows or OS X at this point in time.

Well, OS X and Linux have more or less equal market-share, so what makes you think that OS X is relevant, whereas Linux is not?

Another area where virtualization would make lots of sense is servers. And over there Linux is A LOT bigger than OS X. And by not having this feature in OS X, Apple isn't really going to win any market-share. In server, Linux is VERY MUCH relevant.

JGowan
Jul 10, 2006, 09:32 AM
What developer will want to develop for OS X if they know the likely result is "apple will watch us, see how our product goes over, and if it works well, they'll do it themselves, throw it into the OS and put us out of business."I think you are way off on this. Apple's been working with the intel chip and their OS since the beginning of OS X. You don't think they've had a leg up on getting Windows working "like Parallels" for at least a couple of years? In fact, Parallels announced their product EARLY -- it was only after Apple had announced Boot Camp did Parallels decided they better move so they would still have an advantage. They knew that most likely Apple would have this same type of thing available in Leopard and wanted at least 4-6 months of sales.

I still think Phil is pulling our chain. Zigging instead of Zagging. And I STILL expect we'll see something we will see a more intergrated Windows solution FROM APPLE when Steve Jobs walks on stage at WWDC in August.

macnews
Jul 10, 2006, 10:08 AM
Because the feature is important, and it's dumb to not offer native support for it? And because having to rely on third-parties means spending even more money?

Agreed, we all don't want to spend more money than we have to.

MS has stated that Linux can run virtualized on top of Windows. Apple has stated and advertised on national TV that Windows can run virtualized on top of OSX - via Parallels. I'm not sure if this is the same with Windows but I don't recall hearing XP supporting virtualization but I certainly could be wrong as I don't stay up on XP stuff.


The Linux-kernel is lined up for having native support for virtualization. And there are several distros already shipping with virtualization built in(SUSE for example). I wasn't aware of this. And much like you pointed out in another post, Linux does have a similar market share to OSX, and even more so on the server side of things.


I don't really understand the issue of "how this would work?".
My question here was do you expect them to include a version of the OS as well. You mentioned in your example your wife being able to run Linux within OSX, and I certainly agree getting more exposure to OSX to Win and Linux users would be a much better answer for Apple than a dual boot scenario. But, in order to run Lunx she would need a Linux distro - I'm assuming you would expect Apple to just leave that out and allow the user to select/pay for what ever OS they want to run. I can understand this but think other users/switchers would expect to get a copy of windows.

I guess we just have to disagree on this as I don't see why this is so important to include as a part of the OS. I will grant you very well may be far ahead of the curve and in a year or two could be agreeing with you. Right now, I think a third party solution is fine for those who need it.


B) Are we, the users, being screwed over because of Apple's corporate-interests? Users would love this feature. True, not everyone would use it, but some would. And those who don't want it, would not be forced to use it. But those that do need it would love Apple for offering this feature. Are they being screwed over because of point A?

This wouldn't be the first time either. Take syncing for example. Apple offers a very nice method of syncing data between different computers. But the user needs to have a .Mac-account for it. Isn't that quite retarded if the user has (for example) just a laptop and a desktop that are sitting swide by side in his study? Why couldn't he sync locally over his own LAN, why does he need to send that data to .mac-servers, where they are then re-send back to the other machine? Why couldn't that be handled locally through Bonjour for example?

Well I agree with you about the whole .mac syncing thing. It is rediculous for me to need something like .mac to keep two computers synced up in terms of a calendar and file system. Again, I wouldn't mind a third party coming up with a one time solution (vs Apple's $99/year solution) to allow these kind of features. It would be nice to see in the OS itself but so long as Apple doesn't prevent a third party from developing that feature I have no issue with it. Only when even a third party can't do it because Apple prohibits it and I am forced to go with Apple does it really piss me off.

BTW - good discussion :)

BrianMojo
Jul 10, 2006, 10:11 AM
Personally I wonder that Apple won't integrate something more along the lines of current quick user switching feature -- this would likely appease those who are against dual booting because it requires you to log out and quit all apps. I imagine this stasis would be possible within the windows environment as well using the sleep feature.

JGowan
Jul 10, 2006, 10:16 AM
I gotta say that I'm getting pretty tired of hearing about virtualization and accomodating Windows on a Mac. I mean, talk about lowering the bar. Less Apple employees working on this means more working on something that actually matters. Yes, I know it's all about sales, but the focus lately seems to be Windows on a Mac ("Hello, I'm a PC" campaign) Windows vs. a Mac or whatever. How about just let the machine and program speak for themselves and let the Windows users just suffer in ignorance.

Well put. I couldn't agree with you more.

I couldn't agree with you less.

You say "I know it's all about sales" and you leave it at that, like that's a bad thing. If you haven't noticed, Apple is a business. They are in the business of selling. They sell to those who KNOW that Apple hardware/software is superior and they want to sell to those who need to be convinced. They've tried for years to bring the masses over from the PC side and have been virtually unsuccessful. I'm sure this is a last-resort-type-of-thing but it's important because the majority of users will NOT buy two computers. They will buy the one that fits their needs the most, even if it means not buying the Mac they'd really want. Now, Apple is accomodating them so they have no excuse not to buy a Mac.

As far as your idea of taking away Apple employees from one project to work on another, perhaps you haven't considered that they've hired Window software experts who were hired specifically for the purpose of the Boot Camp/Windows Intergration project at hand. That's actually a whole lot more likely.

brianus
Jul 10, 2006, 10:18 AM
Try using windows ... now that WILL kill your uptime.

I realize this is an "unpopular" opinion on a Mac forum, but somebody has to say it -- someone has to point out that this nonsense about Windows being a crash-machine is just that; nonsense. It's ashame even Apple parrots this ignorant belief while trying to appeal to would-be switchers in their ad campaign, as it only makes them look like they haven't used a PC in 5 years and have no idea what they're talking about.

Sure, back in the Windows 98 days crashes were fairly commonplace (then again, this can also be said of OS 8 -- remember that little bomb popup that used to come up all the time?), but I have found -- as have most users of each OS -- that both XP and OS X have been pretty damned stable and neither crashes more than once in a blue moon. If anything, actually, I've found Tiger to be just slightly *less* stable than XP SP2. But only just.

Criticize the security issues, the lame user interface, the lack of innovation for half a decade -- sure. Those are legitimate criticisms. But at least know what it is you're criticizing.

peharri
Jul 10, 2006, 10:28 AM
I really don't know what to think. I'm surprised people are describing virtualization as something new and revolutionary, many of my collegues have been using VMWare and similar tools for the last few years to run Windows under GNU/Linux and vice-versa. Then there's VM86, built-in to Linux in the mid-nineties and capable of running Windows 3.1 (with the right patches.) Not ideal, because it relied upon the 80386's 8086 virtualization mode, but it worked. One of the major changes between the 68000 and 68010 was to do with the handling of supervisor flags, making it easier for a program to "fool" another into thinking it was running in supervisor mode. That was back in 1982.

Anyway, virtualization is not a panacea by a long shot. Of the three options:

- dual boot guarantees compatibility, but means losing your environment between sessions. It's ugly.
- virtualization runs a subset of Windows applications in practice.
- native API support is hard to do, but when done correctly provides strong compatibility without the need to reboot.

If Apple is working on any of the three, I'd prefer dual boot and native API support. Virtualization is horrible. Native API support has a bad name, but that's largely because the main proponent is WINE, and WINE has a number of issues, notably the fact it has to run under a variety of different GNU/Linux systems, built very differently, with very little desire by either the authors of Linux or the distro maintainers to modify their systems to make WINE run a little better. By comparison, Apple can do whatever they want to make such a system run well under OS X, because OS X is entirely under their control.

But I think there's a fourth option, and that's to go the other way. Make it easy to run (albeit, if necessary, specially compiled) OS X applications under Windows and GNU/Linux.

Yellow Box isn't a myth or legend (unlike Red box.) Carbon also already exists for Windows (it actually originated there, it was the original compatibility layer for Quicktime, and supposedly many critical Carbon headers exist in the QT for Windows SDK.) Bring back Windows as a target for universal binaries. Support Java, and bring back full support for Cocoa under Java and make that available for Windows and GNU/Linux too. Hell, port over Mono and put the Cocoa and Carbon APIs on that too, together with Windows and GNU stubs. And make a genuinely kick-ass gaming development API, seeing as the lack of games are of the biggest reasons many Mac users feel obliged to run Windows.

Tackle the fears many Mac users have about developers concentrating on Windows apps exclusively if Apples can run Windows head on, and make developers want to develop cross platform tools and applications that look good and run well regardless of which platform they're running on. It's time Jobs, not Balmer, screamed "Developers, Developers, Developers!"

brianus
Jul 10, 2006, 10:54 AM
I really don't know what to think. I'm surprised people are describing virtualization as something new and revolutionary, many of my collegues have been using VMWare and similar tools for the last few years to run Windows under GNU/Linux and vice-versa. Then there's VM86, built-in to Linux in the mid-nineties and capable of running Windows 3.1 (with the right patches.) Not ideal, because it relied upon the 80386's 8086 virtualization mode, but it worked. One of the major changes between the 68000 and 68010 was to do with the handling of supervisor flags, making it easier for a program to "fool" another into thinking it was running in supervisor mode. That was back in 1982.

Uh.. you just answered your own question. How many Mac folk would have had any clue about any of the above? When you're pretty much the only OS of any significance running on your particular architecture, virtualization is a foreign concept..


- dual boot guarantees compatibility, but means losing your environment between sessions. It's ugly.
- virtualization runs a subset of Windows applications in practice.
- native API support is hard to do, but when done correctly provides strong compatibility without the need to reboot.

If Apple is working on any of the three, I'd prefer dual boot and native API support. Virtualization is horrible. Native API support has a bad name, but... <snip>

Hold up, hold up. You totally glossed over your dismissal of virtualization. Why is it "horrible" and why does it only run a "subset" of apps in practice? And how does this last point make it any different from native API support? I should think it can be pretty much guaranteed that there are some programs which simply *will not* run under anything other than Windows, sometimes a particular version thereof, regardless of how extensively another OS has managed to port the Windows API.

Peace
Jul 10, 2006, 11:30 AM
Visualize...

When Steve Jobs starts to show off Leopard it's going to be a full screen Microsoft software product..People will be saying WHA?..Jobs will look at the big screen and say "Oh crap I forgot" and switch back to the Leopard desktop.
He will then say "remember when Microsoft and Apple had that settlement in 1997 ?.Well we've not only been running OS X on Intel since 10.0 but we've also been running the Win32 API on it too.Yup..Mac's really do do Windows.Natively.On your desktop.OS X Leopard now has a new Kernel that includes the Win32 API built in..It's called the Universal File system or UFS.You can see it over in the labs after this presentation.It allows you to not only native OS X apps but it also allows you to seemlessly port your OS X app to the UFS using XCode 3.0 and Intels compiler.So if your customer base is PPC they have their apps.If your customer base is Intel they have their apps.Not only that but customers that want to use say...MS Office XP all they need to do is install it.Period.Now if customers want to install the latest software from Microsoft like Office 2007 we have Boot Camp for those people..When Vista comes out next March it will have the efi in it's boot loader just for this purpose.."

Jobs goes on to show off all the new nifty stuff in OS 10.5 etc..

"And..Leopard will be loaded on every new Mac starting Nov.21st."

peharri
Jul 10, 2006, 11:36 AM
Uh.. you just answered your own question. How many Mac folk would have had any clue about any of the above? When you're pretty much the only OS of any significance running on your particular architecture, virtualization is a foreign concept..

That doesn't really answer my question. Yes, many Mac users have never heard of it, but to argue that Mac users suddenly hearing about it means that it's an amazing new phenominem is taking things a little far. It's widely used, already, in personal computing. Just not on the Mac.

Hold up, hold up. You totally glossed over your dismissal of virtualization. Why is it "horrible" and why does it only run a "subset" of apps in practice?

Have you tried it? Do I seriously need to make a list of the types of program virtualization does badly with (including multimedia and games primarily, with other types, such as many types of network based software, generally requiring convoluted and very un-Mac like setting up.)

Like I said, it's not a panacea. If you're arguing it is a panacea, then I'd like you to justify that claim. If you're just after lists of the types of app that fare badly under virtualization, I'm not sure why you're asking because they're pretty widely known. And if you're arguing my complaint that it's horrible and runs a subset of applications in practice amounts to a complete, irrational, total, dismissal, then that's simply not what was said.

And how does this last point make it any different from native API support? I should think it can be pretty much guaranteed that there are some programs which simply *will not* run under anything other than Windows, sometimes a particular version thereof, regardless of how extensively another OS has managed to port the Windows API.
I already answered that in the comment you're responding to.

Native API support has a bad name, but that's largely because the main proponent is WINE, and WINE has a number of issues, notably the fact it has to run under a variety of different GNU/Linux systems, built very differently, with very little desire by either the authors of Linux or the distro maintainers to modify their systems to make WINE run a little better. By comparison, Apple can do whatever they want to make such a system run well under OS X, because OS X is entirely under their control.

Most of the multimedia stuff (and games) that run under GNU/Linux end up using either native binaries compiled for GNU or Wine-based native Windows API support, to get going. THE problem with Wine isn't that it's hard to do, it's that the Wine people don't have the cooperation of the distro maintainers or kernel developers. Apple wouldn't have that problem.

brianus
Jul 10, 2006, 12:07 PM
That doesn't really answer my question. Yes, many Mac users have never heard of it, but to argue that Mac users suddenly hearing about it means that it's an amazing new phenominem is taking things a little far. It's widely used, already, in personal computing. Just not on the Mac.

Which is precisely why it is an amazing new phenomenon - on the Mac. This is a Mac forum, dude. What do you expect? Having to cite obscure examples from 1982 *does* answer your own question. As for "widely used" -- maybe if you're a Linux guy. The vast majority of even Windows users are unaware of and have no use for it. And it's suddenly become appealing because it's now possible to use it with the other major consumer-centric OS on the market. Most people only know that there are Macs, and there are PCs, and now for the first time it's possible to run both systems natively on the same machine in a standard, supported way.

Outside of the Mac world, there is also the fact that part of the renewed interest in virtualization comes from the fact that it's now been given hardware support by Intel (and AMD has a solution, too, right? correct me if I'm wrong).

Have you tried it? Do I seriously need to make a list of the types of program virtualization does badly with (including multimedia and games primarily, with other types, such as many types of network based software, generally requiring convoluted and very un-Mac like setting up.)

The question wasn't why is the performance not always great (you have yet to justify your "horrible" comment, as if multimedia and games were the most important things in the universe), but how you can state that it only works with a subset of apps when that's just of true of native API support. As in literally, program-will-not-run, not program-is-sluggish. And as for the performance, Parallels has been out for a few months, and who knows if Apple has *really* decided not to implement its own virtualization solution or not, so we'll see if these issues don't improve a little.

And if you're arguing my complaint that it's horrible and runs a subset of applications in practice amounts to a complete, irrational, total, dismissal, then that's simply not what was said.

No, it just amounted to a comment that was not backed up with any other statements. "Horrible" is pretty harsh just because you can't play some 3D game. Plenty of people find Parallels perfectly usable. Not being a "panacea" does not make it horrible anymore than having to reboot to play said game makes Boot Camp horrible.

I already answered that in the comment you're responding to.

No, droning on about WINE, which has nothing to do with any possible future Apple implementation, does not answer the comment that even the best implementation will, literally, "only support a subset" of Windows programs. I'm sure anything Apple comes up with in this area will be superior to the efforts of these linux people you describe; that doesn't mean it will run everything.

Evangelion
Jul 10, 2006, 12:41 PM
Apple has stated and advertised on national TV that Windows can run virtualized on top of OSX - via Parallels. I'm not sure if this is the same with Windows but I don't recall hearing XP supporting virtualization but I certainly could be wrong as I don't stay up on XP stuff.

XP has no native support for virtualization, but you could use something like VMWare with it. Post-XP Windows will support Virtualization (I'm not 100% sure about desktops though).

My question here was do you expect them to include a version of the OS as well.

Do I expect Apple to include a version of Windows or Linux? Absolutely not. They would only support and ship OS X. They would provided the needed tools to run virtualized OS'es. Hell, the user could run other OS X's on top of OS X!

You mentioned in your example your wife being able to run Linux within OSX, and I certainly agree getting more exposure to OSX to Win and Linux users would be a much better answer for Apple than a dual boot scenario. But, in order to run Lunx she would need a Linux distro - I'm assuming you would expect Apple to just leave that out and allow the user to select/pay for what ever OS they want to run. I can understand this but think other users/switchers would expect to get a copy of windows.

I don't think that anyone would expect Apple to ship copy of non-Apple OS. If the user wants to run some other OS, they would have to provide their own copy of the OS.

I guess we just have to disagree on this as I don't see why this is so important to include as a part of the OS.

On servers this is becoming an absolutely essential feature. It's going to be HUGE on servers. I can't really over-emphasize it's importance here. And it it becoming very important on desktops as well.

Evangelion
Jul 10, 2006, 12:46 PM
Virtualization is horrible.

I think that you are quite mistaken. Not only is the software-stack (VMWare, Xen etc.) maturing, but we are now getting built-in support for virtualization in the CPU's. True, 3D-acceleration has been tricky to implement, but it's coming up. And besides desktops, you need to think about servers as well. Take a look at Xen one day, their tech is VERY impressive. You could basically move servers from one hardware to another in a fraction of a second, thanks to virtualization.

schatten
Jul 10, 2006, 12:47 PM
Including virtualization in Mac OS X would be a huge mistake.

Let's keep Mac Software developers in business & NOT include Windows compatibility in the core OS.

Besides, Mac OS X is bloated enough without lumping all that virtualization junk in there.

Evangelion
Jul 10, 2006, 01:11 PM
Besides, Mac OS X is bloated enough without lumping all that virtualization junk in there.

Well, it would only increase "bloat" if it were running all the time. Which it's not. It would not make the system slower on anything, unless the user specificly starts virtualization. Only "bloat" it would add is hard-drive space, and that's irrelevant.

CommodityFetish
Jul 10, 2006, 01:43 PM
But I think there's a fourth option, and that's to go the other way. Make it easy to run (albeit, if necessary, specially compiled) OS X applications under Windows and GNU/Linux.

Yellow Box isn't a myth or legend (unlike Red box.) Carbon also already exists for Windows (it actually originated there, it was the original compatibility layer for Quicktime, and supposedly many critical Carbon headers exist in the QT for Windows SDK.) Bring back Windows as a target for universal binaries. Support Java, and bring back full support for Cocoa under Java and make that available for Windows and GNU/Linux too. Hell, port over Mono and put the Cocoa and Carbon APIs on that too, together with Windows and GNU stubs. And make a genuinely kick-ass gaming development API, seeing as the lack of games are of the biggest reasons many Mac users feel obliged to run Windows.

Tackle the fears many Mac users have about developers concentrating on Windows apps exclusively if Apples can run Windows head on, and make developers want to develop cross platform tools and applications that look good and run well regardless of which platform they're running on. It's time Jobs, not Balmer, screamed "Developers, Developers, Developers!"

Well said! Strategically for the long haul Apple needs an Xcode that will compile for windows / linux before it makes using windows apps on the mac any easier.

I bet we wouldn't even have Bootcamp beta before 10.5 - except for the contest that hacked a way to dual-boot. Funny how Bootcamp came out right after that. :rolleyes: Apple was saving it for 10.5, letting developers make their universal binaries in peace, giving them time to make the intel transition. They decided to release it only to avoid all the user headaches of the hacked open-source solution and its missing drivers.

Once bootcamp is out of course they're going to promote it. But when was the last beta product that was advertised by apple? :rolleyes: I'm sure it wasn't in the original gameplan to release it before 10.5

So I wouldn't be surprised if we simply get bootcamp with 10.5 -- and a new version of Xcode that compiles truly universal binaries that run on Windows and maybe Linux. If you want virtualization, there's Parallels...

hyperpasta
Jul 10, 2006, 02:23 PM
Seems Apple is shooting themselves in the foot. Why not?

Bern
Jul 10, 2006, 03:04 PM
Dual boot for me is far more useful than virtualisation software that is ram dependent and doesn't totally support all the native hardware. I'm relieved to hear Apple are sticking with dual boot .

freeny
Jul 10, 2006, 03:14 PM
That quote only solidifies the fact that Apple IS working virtualization into leopard.;)

APPLENEWBIE
Jul 10, 2006, 05:50 PM
Dual boot allows apple to say you can run windows and windows programs. An excellent marketing point.

Dual boot allows apple to avoid having to support windows and all the mayhem it and it's programs will cause if run within osx. A major advantage because supporting windows problems may (will!) be a big pain in the butt if the operating systems are commingled.

Dual boot allows others to develop AND SUPPORT the mayhem that windows and it's programs will cause. Keeping apple from looking like a spoiler if it came out with virtualization or whatever others can come up with.

Dual boot encourages outside development of ways of programing different features of various sorts that apple does not have to support. Expanding the influence of OSX and keeping some excitement amoung techie types (of which I am not one.)

Dual boot prevents a lot of bad feelings/press if the osx / windows combination turns out to be a mess. Imagine the howling!

Dual boot allows apple to make it easier to use both with rapid switching, without the comingling nastiness.
:rolleyes:

bankshot
Jul 10, 2006, 06:55 PM
When you dual-boot, you're providing a nice, clean "sandbox" for Windows to play in. There's really no concern about OS-OS interaction.

What? You've got it exactly backwards.

With dual-boot, Windows has direct access to the hardware. Which means that malware could easily destroy or corrupt your OS X partition. It doesn't need to know how to read the HFS+ filesystem, it just needs to write random data to that partition, or simply delete it altogether. Poof! All your data is gone.

Parallels is the solution that provides the clean sandbox. Within Parallels, Windows can't see any of your actual hardware. All it sees is the virtual hard disk file you created for it. Malware can trash your virtual machine to its heart's content, and that will not affect OS X at all.

Would you trust your data to Windows with access to bare hardware? I don't. Virtualization is the only "safe" way to do Windows. ;)

bankshot
Jul 10, 2006, 07:03 PM
As far as the actual story goes, I have to wonder what was actually said in this purported conversation. Did the guy really ask about general virtualization, or was he asking about running Windows apps on OS X? Lately it seems that many people think of virtualization as synonymous with running Windows stuff, when in fact it is quite different. If either party misinterpreted the meaning of the question, that could change things quite a bit.

I agree with someone earlier on this thread who suggested that virtualizing OS X Server would be a fantastic feature. That would be something that's very much worthwhile to support, while it needn't have anything to do with Windows at all. Of course, this would require many changes at the base level of the OS, and I can't imagine some of that not trickling into OS X Client. Generally, Server is different from Client only in that it includes extra software on top of the same base system. Adding virtualization to Server and not Client would seem to break that paradigm.

So who knows?

Personally, I'm quite happy with Parallels. Runs great. Don't care about games. :rolleyes: ;)

gh0sted
Jul 10, 2006, 07:44 PM
It's amazing that with a working solution already out there that so many people want Apple to recreate that solution. The argument that forking out extra cash for the ability to virtualize Windows is a bit absurd. First I'd rather see a Mac developer make some extra cash. Second if you're going to fork over 199.99 for XP SP2 to Microsoft of all people, you should be taxed :p

I think Apple's biggest potential for growth is in the gamer's market. Gamer's would also fork out for their yet to be announced Mac Pro. The best solution for gamers would be dual boot integration.

Personally, either way I am not paying 199.99 for security threats and paranoia :D

exabytes18
Jul 10, 2006, 10:22 PM
I'm pretty confident in my PC running Windows XP. There is absolutely no reason why Windows should crash while using it. The only people that this happens to are morons who don't know what they are doing and their computers are loaded with viruses and spyware.

Running two OSs simultaneously would be excellent. I wouldn't mind having Windows get full priviledges. Have it like dashboard, but instead of dashboard, it is a Windows desktop. :eek:

Evangelion
Jul 10, 2006, 11:47 PM
Dual boot for me is far more useful than virtualisation software that is ram dependent and doesn't totally support all the native hardware. I'm relieved to hear Apple are sticking with dual boot .

I fail to see how having virtualization means that you can't have dual-boot. While the two do overlap, one is not 1:1 alternative to the other. You want the absolute best performance from the "other" OS and don't care for disrupting your workflow? Then dual-boot. You want a quick and convenient access to the other OS, with small performance-hit(*? Virtualization is for you.

* = The performance-hit doesn't have to be that big. Xen runs virtualized OS'es close to native speeds. I believe the speed is about 98% of the native speed.

glassbathroom
Jul 11, 2006, 04:54 AM
This probably clutching at straws a bit. Is there a way that they can improve Boot Camp so that it is nearer to Fast User Switching? I know that parallels can do this with virtualisation. Is there a way that Boot Camp can do it that Phil Schiller would not describe as "virtualisation"?

If this is possible then I think that this might be the way Apple are heading. Keep windows and OSX completely separate, but increase the speed that we can swap between them.

Ideally the two OS's would need to work as if they were connected on a network. I am not sure that this is possible as only one OS would be running at a time.

I am guessing that Apple are planning on improving Boot Camp in some ways when it is out of Beta and incorporated into Leopard. In what other ways, can it be improved?

XForge
Jul 11, 2006, 08:22 AM
attempting to run specific Windows applications under Mac OS X without requiring Windows to be loaded at all

Woop!!!! Outlook first, please.

No seriously. PLEASE.

guzhogi
Jul 11, 2006, 09:45 AM
Doom 3 requires (according to www.doom3.com) Windows 2000/XP and DirectX - neither of which run on OSX natively. I tried to find what "photography" software MaximumPC wrote on but since you said it is common to both OSes I am guessing Photoshop. In that case, Photoshop also has to run under rosetta, thus doesn't run at full steam on an Intel chip. As a result, they are not comparing Apples-to-Windows correctly. So NOT weird at all, and it has nothing to do with a change in 10.5. It will have everything to do with comparing one piece of software running natively on both systems.

I'm looking at the magazine now, and they had 4 tests: Windows XP vs. Mac OS X universal apps, winxp vs. rosetta, os x universal vs. rosetta and winxp vs. winxp under parallels on an Intel iMac.

For the WinXP vs. Universal binaries, they had Doom 3, Bibble Pro 4.7, and Noise Ninja beta. For WinXP vs. rosetta, they had Photoshop CS2. Under universal binary vs. rosetta, they had bibble pro 4.7 and Doom 3 while the native WinXP vs. WinXP under parallels had Photoshop.

In the article, Windows XP beat Mac OS X in each case. However, they said We updated OS X to the latest version (10.4.5) At www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/ the requirements of bootcamp are 10.4.6. :confused: Check out the magazine at your local public library if they have it. It's the July, 2006 issue of MaximumPC

Evangelion
Jul 11, 2006, 09:50 AM
This probably clutching at straws a bit. Is there a way that they can improve Boot Camp so that it is nearer to Fast User Switching? I know that parallels can do this with virtualisation. Is there a way that Boot Camp can do it that Phil Schiller would not describe as "virtualisation"?

Only thing they could do is to add a "Reboot in to Windows"-thingy, that will the shut down OS X, and reboot in to Windows.

Ideally the two OS's would need to work as if they were connected on a network. I am not sure that this is possible as only one OS would be running at a time.

You need virtualization for that.

I am guessing that Apple are planning on improving Boot Camp in some ways when it is out of Beta and incorporated into Leopard. In what other ways, can it be improved?

See my first comment in this message :). But that's about it. Boot Camp is just dual-booting. It runs one OS at a time, and there's not much room for improvement there.

Mac Rules
Jul 17, 2006, 03:22 AM
So, will the codeweavers technology discussed earlier, allow basic windows programs to be used in OSX? Cause all I'm really interested in is Live Messenger and a few chemical modeling programs, but I think these are available on mac anyways...

EDIT: I personally feel that a dual-boot isd the best way forwards, considering the requirements of something like Vista, if your mac has gotta keep vista and OSX loaded, you might turn grey before anything actually happens!

Cheers

cloud 9
Jul 17, 2006, 06:39 PM
i like the way apple doesn't support virtualization, you can do everything with a mac you can do with a pc. if you want to run windows for a video game, just restart, if you have time to play one, you have time to restart.

i would only consider windows on my mac if the computer is not connected to the internet, and even then it would probably mess with something.

frigginjoe
Jul 24, 2006, 12:52 PM
Well, at least I feel better about buying Parallels, and I hope those guys do real good with it. Excellent product and the once-and-for-all riddance of a real PC box. My iMac is now an amazing productivity powerhouse.
Apple supporting dual-booting is good enough for me, IMO. I don't want Xp getting THAT close to OSX, where Apple themselves strive to make it stronger.

JackSYi
Jul 24, 2006, 01:33 PM
I'll be happy as long as Boot Camp is around.

drtyrell
Jul 25, 2006, 02:02 AM
I remember the big YellowBox pitch back in 2001 about how this virtualization was intended from the very beginning. The dual-boot will leave Apple behind the competition in terms of tsunami level migration from Windows based users. I know at least half a dozen friends who are going to go ahead with their DELL purchases the second Steve confirms this isn't going to happen in Leopard. :-(

dernhelm
Jul 25, 2006, 05:33 AM
I remember the big YellowBox pitch back in 2001 about how this virtualization was intended from the very beginning. The dual-boot will leave Apple behind the competition in terms of tsunami level migration from Windows based users. I know at least half a dozen friends who are going to go ahead with their DELL purchases the second Steve confirms this isn't going to happen in Leopard. :-(

Even if it doesn't happen in the OS, it doesn't mean that Parallels or (the impending) VMware solutions that do (or will) run on OS/X will somehow be inferior. Quite the contrary - and Parallels is only ~$50US. So it is hardly a deal-breaker.

Windows does not have built in virtualization tech now, but most of the people who develop code on it that I know use it extensively. Third party can fill the gap here quite well and reasonably cost efficiently.

Willis
Jul 25, 2006, 07:01 AM
Also, Macrumors keeps refering to me as a "Newbie" but I've been posting here for awhile. When will I
be a "regular"?

when you post 20-30 posts, you become a member... over 100 you're a regular (i think, i cant remember)

glassbathroom
Jul 26, 2006, 07:48 AM
Even if it doesn't happen in the OS, it doesn't mean that Parallels or (the impending) VMware solutions that do (or will) run on OS/X will somehow be inferior. Quite the contrary - and Parallels is only ~$50US. So it is hardly a deal-breaker.

Windows does not have built in virtualization tech now, but most of the people who develop code on it that I know use it extensively. Third party can fill the gap here quite well and reasonably cost efficiently.

I agree that third party applications are sometimes better because there is complete focus on that specialisation. For this reason I am quite taken with Parallels and what they say and do. The products so far look great.

I guess I would also like to see a virtualisation option which is more integrated into the OS, so you can run Windows apps without loading up Windows everytime. Something like Rosetta but for Windows. I know this is what Wine is trying to do, but not there yet. It's all a bit of a pipe dream I think. I can completely understand that Apple may not want to go down this route. Transitive were making great claims that they would be able to do these kind of things. I know that they were some of the brains behind Rosetta. What are they up to now, I wonder? Do you think they are still working with Apple on this sort of thing?

willybNL
Jul 26, 2006, 02:10 PM
I'll be happy as long as Boot Camp is around.

If they are going to support it yeah... because failures with partitioning in bootcamp (probably) have distroyed some mac's (not only the os) already... (see other item about kernel panic on the forum). And no-one there to help you is a real hard job getting you mac to say hello again then.