PDA

View Full Version : Q Gives You Mac Virtualization for Free - And It Works


MacBytes
Sep 27, 2006, 01:27 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Reviews
Link: Q Gives You Mac Virtualization for Free - And It Works (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20060927142718)
Description:: none

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

storage
Sep 27, 2006, 02:33 PM
Isn't QEMU just emulation?

From their site:
"Q is based on the excellent open source CPU emulator QEMU from Fabrice Bellard. Pierre d'Herbemont from stegefin.free.fr ported QEMU to OS X and initiated a cocoa Version."

Sdashiki
Sep 27, 2006, 02:40 PM
and it still doesnt work as well as boot camp.

this guy is kind of all over the place, saying he doesnt like boot camp, or Parallel, but that he cant even run XP correctly with his fantastic find.

sigh.

admanimal
Sep 27, 2006, 03:09 PM
Worst. Article. Ever.

The guy doesn't like boot camp because it apparently doesn't do as much as he was hoping in order to allow Windows to be installed, yet he enjoys running Windows 98 "as fast as any PC I ran it on in the late ‘90s" with Q.

Sdashiki
Sep 27, 2006, 03:09 PM
Worst. Article. Ever.

/signed

Yvan256
Sep 27, 2006, 03:40 PM
Either a major upgrade just happened, or this guy likes slow computers. Running Win98SE on Q with my G4/1.42GHz, 1GB RAM (with 128MB to Win98SE) is like running Win98SE on a 286/20 with 32MB. :confused:

gerlitzappel
Sep 27, 2006, 06:25 PM
Either a major upgrade just happened, or this guy likes slow computers. Running Win98SE on Q with my G4/1.42GHz, 1GB RAM (with 128MB to Win98SE) is like running Win98SE on a 286/20 with 32MB. :confused:

doesn't emulation software run more efficiently when you have intel processors?

I ran VirtualPC on my Dual G5 and it ran like a 286

FelixGV
Sep 27, 2006, 09:09 PM
If you read the comments at the end of the article, you'll notice that the author ended up being able to install Parallels. He also benchmarked the 3 solutions and came to the following results:

Robo, you’ll be pleased to know I benchmarked XP (using a simple little prog called Prime Benchmark). The results were:
- Booted from hard disk: 886091
- Running in Parallels: 873880
- Running in Q: 247599

It seems to me Parallels is still the way to go, unless you're a hardcore gamer, and it is said even graphically intensive games will eventually be properly "virtualized".

mkrishnan
Sep 27, 2006, 09:11 PM
It seems to me Parallels is still the way to go, unless you're a hardcore gamer, and it is said even graphically intensive games will eventually be properly "virtualized".

I think the demand for Aero support will be enough to keep nudging Parallels towards this....

admanimal
Sep 28, 2006, 01:27 AM
doesn't emulation software run more efficiently when you have intel processors?


The benefit of having Intel processors is that emulation is no longer needed. Virtual PC and Q are both emulators. Their job is to act like an Intel CPU so that Intel apps can run, usually on NON-Intel CPUs. This was the only choice for VirtualPC, since it was meant for PowerPC-based (i.e. without Intel) Macs. Using Q to emulate an Intel CPU so that you can run Windows when you already have a physical Intel CPU is basically the least efficient way possible of doing it.

Parallels on the other hand is virtualization software. Its job is not to emulate any CPU, but to create several "virtual" machines on one physical system that lets you run many OS'es at once. This can be done much more efficiently than emulation.

peharri
Sep 28, 2006, 08:03 AM
The benefit of having Intel processors is that emulation is no longer needed. Virtual PC and Q are both emulators.

The funny thing is that the author of QEMU (not Q, which is derived from QEMU) has a (proprietary) plug-in that provides virtualization (http://www.qemu.org/qemu-accel.html).

Unfortunately, it's not available to Q (being proprietary), so the one thing that would have made the review relevent is actually not available for the Mac. Yay.

mkrishnan
Sep 28, 2006, 06:56 PM
Unfortunately, it's not available to Q (being proprietary), so the one thing that would have made the review relevent is actually not available for the Mac. Yay.

I suppose it is a matter of time before one of the many open source projects along the lines of QEMU develops and open source virtualizing tool. Certainly, until then, Parallels offers a lot of meat for a relatively low price and appears to have dedication to improving its product.

I guess at some point I lost the core point of this argument... why should anyone be *so* averse to occasionally paying for good software? I support the principles of open source software, but not in exclusion of commercial software....