PDA

View Full Version : A Mac virtualization plan that would ‘kill’ Windows, Dell?


MacBytes
Jun 4, 2007, 12:12 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Opinion/Interviews
Link: A Mac virtualization plan that would ‘kill’ Windows, Dell? (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20070604131235)
Description:: American Technology Research analyst Shaw Wu thinks that Mac OS X 10.5 (“Leopard”) may have virtualization features far beyond the “rebooting into Windows” capability of Boot Camp.

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

Lixivial
Jun 4, 2007, 12:30 PM
*sigh* I understand the romantic fascination with this fantasy, and I'm sure that it is possible Apple could be hiding it, but... Phil Schiller has gone on record stating that this will not happen. And it's not like he was subtle about it, either. Either dual boot, or plunk down the cash for a virtualization method.

From an article (http://www.macrumors.com/2006/07/09/no-virtualization-in-mac-os-x-10-5-leopard/) a year ago:

Absolutely not, the R&D would be prohibitive and we’re not going to do it. Our solution is dual boot.

elppa
Jun 4, 2007, 12:55 PM
I'd be surprised, very surprised.

Never say never, but I feel "TOP SECRET" will be something else unexpected.

Soba
Jun 4, 2007, 01:00 PM
*sigh* I understand the romantic fascination with this fantasy, and I'm sure that it is possible Apple could be hiding it, but... Phil Schiller has gone on record stating that this will not happen. And it's not like he was subtle about it, either. Either dual boot, or plunk down the cash for a virtualization method.

I agree. Unless Apple has some unbelievably amazing technology we don't know about, trying to integrate this into the operating system would be a disaster. Emulating a totally closed system on the level of complexity of Windows would be an engineering and support nightmare.

There are a handful of 3rd party solutions out there (Parallels, VMWare, etc.) that can accomplish this in various ways and Apple should leave it to them.

As things stand right now, Apple would do well to stay away from this. Windows can't even run properly when it's not being emulated!

Jessy
Jun 4, 2007, 01:09 PM
I recently asked a provider of music distribution/sales services why their software was only for PC, as no sane person creates music on a PC. The answer I got was that they were waiting to see exactly how well this particular feature of Leopard worked, as using it would be much cheaper than developing an OS X native app. What they said is that Windows executables would open in the OS itself, without a need for a virtual machine. I have no idea what their course is, but I found it intriguing, as I had not heard of this before.

elppa
Jun 4, 2007, 01:14 PM
I recently asked a provider of music distribution/sales services why their software was only for PC, as no sane person creates music on a PC. The answer I got was that they were waiting to see exactly how well this particular feature of Leopard worked, as using it would be much cheaper than developing an OS X native app. What they said is that Windows executables would open in the OS itself, without a need for a virtual machine. I have no idea what their course is, but I found it intriguing, as I had not heard of this before.

Providers of music distribution/sales services have no idea what Apple is doing for Leopard. I bet there are people at Apple who have no idea what is coming out a WWDC (as only those who need to know are told).

So they've either heard the same half-baked hunches/rumours that we have or are just plain making it up.

psychofreak
Jun 4, 2007, 01:15 PM
There are a handful of 3rd party solutions out there (Parallels, VMWare, etc.) that can accomplish this in various ways and Apple should leave it to them.

Backup apps looked pretty good before Time Machine came along...

Clive At Five
Jun 4, 2007, 01:15 PM
*sigh* I understand the romantic fascination with this fantasy, and I'm sure that it is possible Apple could be hiding it, but... Phil Schiller has gone on record stating that this will not happen. And it's not like he was subtle about it, either. Either dual boot, or plunk down the cash for a virtualization method.

From an article (http://www.macrumors.com/2006/07/09/no-virtualization-in-mac-os-x-10-5-leopard/) a year ago:

Agreed... to a point. Apple will likely not choose virtualization.

But what if they allow Windows application support... without windows. It would be a beast of a project indeed. The severe challenge would be blocking the operation of Windows spyware and virii on a ".exe-compatible" mac. If they could jimmy-rig an EXE to automatically fold all associated DLLs and whatnot into a self-contained single icon, a la OS X... WHILE blocking out windows security garbage... now THAT would be a Windows-killer.

One of the commentors on the actual article suggests that Apple isn't ready to start a war with Microsoft. If they succeeded at the aforementioned task, it wouldn't matter. MS Office for Windows WOULD BE MS Office for Mac. Microsoft wouldn't be able to withhold any technology from Apple.

Yeah, the malware is the only issue I see. It would also be mildly distracting to see gross, clunky Windows-styled windows next to candy-gem, Aqua-styled OS X windows. That would be another hurtle to leap.

-Clive

Jessy
Jun 4, 2007, 01:17 PM
Providers of music distribution/sales services have no idea what Apple is doing for Leopard. I bet there are people at Apple who have no idea what is coming out a WWDC (as only those who need to know are told).

So they've either heard the same half-baked hunches/rumours that we have or are just plain making it up.

Sounds reasonable. Still, Darwine works pretty well. I don't see why Apple couldn't do better.

BenRoethig
Jun 4, 2007, 01:17 PM
First I think that this is complete fantasy. I could see a in house equivalent to parallels handled in a way similar to classic. Being able to run windows Apps, not going to happen...ever. First, it would be very difficult to achieve. Second, would almost guarantee a stop to programing native Mac apps. Third if Apple were to fall behind on Application compatibility, it would be screwed.

Second, if Dell is going to fall it will be because they are doing a lot of things wrong and HP is doing a lot of things right. Apple is a niche brand for a small niche of users who are looking for something completely different than mainstream. The OS has something for the traditional PC maket, but the hardware lineup does not. Apple has no solutions for enterprise, no competitive value desktop or value 15"/17" notebook, no prosumer computer beyond laptop based all in ones, no PVR/Tuner solution, no card readers, and they are the only volume maker to not include a word processing suite as standard. The hard core mac crowd is fine with this because they value design over function, most everybody else is not.

Peace
Jun 4, 2007, 01:20 PM
I fail to see how this would kill off Windows.Even if virtualization was built in one would still need the Windows program thus making this a moot point.

herodian
Jun 4, 2007, 01:28 PM
I'd be surprised, very surprised.

Never say never, but I feel "TOP SECRET" will be something else unexpected.

something similar to the psp / ps3 relationship i hope.

edit: sorry, maybe i should expand. iphone / leopard / Apple Remote Desktop / Virtual iPhone.

iphone / leopard (poss tiger 10.4.10?) - like the psp / ps3 setup

iphone / Apple Remote Desktop... yeup, but i think it will have a GUI interface as opposed to a 'screen' feed.

Apple Remote Desktop / Virtual iphone - you know when Steve was demoing the phone, and he was touching the phone but it was being displayed as a, well, virtual phone... yeah, i reckon this too. access your iphone with this over the wifi to see how backgrounds would look on the phone, check email etc..

making grasping at some straws but.. VNC cross platform? access your PC over the local network, and maybe even your Mac from the internet?

Soba
Jun 4, 2007, 01:29 PM
Backup apps looked pretty good before Time Machine came along...

I agree with you, and I didn't mean t imply that Apple should not go after new things simply because someone else is already doing it.

But we're talking about emulating an entire closed-source operating system under the hood and this needs to run flawlessly. No one has been able to do this, and 100% success (or anything close) is impossible without access to the source code.

Unless Apple can pull a rabbit out of a hat somehow. :)

But they could always take another approach. Parallels cheats a bit with Coherence Mode by running Windows in its entirety and hiding everything except for the program windows. Perhaps Apple could go this route, but this approach opens up another problem: With Parallels, you need to buy Windows yourself. If Apple were to include Windows on every Mac, this would either cost the user a great deal more money or cut into Apple's profits on every machine.

I agree with Apple's stance thus far: It doesn't seem to make sense to tackle this at this time or to sell Windows with their Macs. It raises costs unbelievably and puts the onus of support directly on them.

Things can always change, though!

Silencio
Jun 4, 2007, 01:58 PM
I just don't see it happening like this article posits. Parallels Desktop is already a great solution (though adding a retail license for Windows XP Pro makes it a fairly spendy solution); Crossover -- while not needing a separate Windows license purchase and install -- is very, very limited in its compatibility. For Apple to make such a product and make it more broadly compatible like its customers expect would be money flushed down the toilet, and I do agree that it would retard development of native Mac apps. One big part of getting away from Windows is getting away from Windows apps, which for the most part are much lower quality than their Macintosh counterparts IMO.

Clive At Five
Jun 4, 2007, 01:59 PM
If Apple were to include Windows on every Mac, this would either cost the user a great deal more money or cut into Apple's profits on every machine.

Not to mention that it would give Microsoft the opportunity to say that Windows ships on 99% of all retail-purchased personal computers. Yay?

-Clive

bdj21ya
Jun 4, 2007, 02:20 PM
*sigh* I understand the romantic fascination with this fantasy, and I'm sure that it is possible Apple could be hiding it, but... Phil Schiller has gone on record stating that this will not happen. And it's not like he was subtle about it, either. Either dual boot, or plunk down the cash for a virtualization method.

From an article (http://www.macrumors.com/2006/07/09/no-virtualization-in-mac-os-x-10-5-leopard/) a year ago:

I may be wrong here, but I believe Phil was referring to the concept of running Windows programs in OS X (I believe that is Shaw's pipe dream as well). However, there is a 3rd option. Using the virtualization features of Intel's newest chipsets you could easily run OS X and Windows side by side, without the need to shut down and reboot. With a dual core system, you could assign a core to each OS and just swap between them.

I'm not saying I think this is Apple's plan, but it is certainly a lot more feasible than creating API based virtualization for Windows programs to run is OS X without Windows.

inkswamp
Jun 4, 2007, 02:32 PM
There are a handful of 3rd party solutions out there (Parallels, VMWare, etc.) that can accomplish this in various ways and Apple should leave it to them.

True, and I agree with that. Personally, I don't buy into the whole "Windows crutch" theory (that developers would stop producing OS X versions of apps because the Windows version runs just fine) but I sure wouldn't want to find out that I'm wrong about that the hard way. If Apple were to offer Windows emulation, the possibility of the Windows crutch couldn't be ignored and they would have to impement this feature in such a way as to make OS X native apps still an attractive option, and I'm not sure how they would do that.

Other people are mentioning that Apple wouldn't want to start a war with MS, but the same things were said about Apple releasing an office suite and Apple releasing their own browser. And then consider all the competitive moves Apple has made against Adobe. I doubt that keeping MS happy is one of Apple's primary concerns, but for something this big, it might be an issue.

BornAgainMac
Jun 4, 2007, 03:23 PM
Windows programs on a Mac would be compared to running Linux programs in Windows. Windows programs have a crappy look to them in comparision to the Mac. Windows users probably wouldn't want to have those crappy Linux programs running along with their fancy Microsoft programs.

People still want native apps. And Windows is like using Atari or Commodore 64.

PCMacUser
Jun 4, 2007, 03:47 PM
Windows programs on a Mac would be compared to running Linux programs in Windows. Windows programs have a crappy look to them in comparision to the Mac. Windows users probably wouldn't want to have those crappy Linux programs running along with their fancy Microsoft programs.

People still want native apps. And Windows is like using Atari or Commodore 64.

Hmm, I think you're being a little bit harsh on the Windows look.

clevin
Jun 4, 2007, 03:49 PM
haha, call it wineos X. LOL,

flopticalcube
Jun 4, 2007, 04:03 PM
I would hope that Apple would not embarrass itself with a half-hearted attempt that ends up impressing nobody and disappointing everyone. Best leave these sorts of things to the 3rd partiers.

Lixivial
Jun 4, 2007, 05:33 PM
Agreed... to a point. Apple will likely not choose virtualization.

Unless Apple wants to leech off WINE, or sign a deal with Microsoft, this would take an even heavier amount of R&D than virtualization.

Problem with WINE would be that it would give users the false impression that they could run any Windows app, when in reality it's not a guaranteed solution. And I don't believe Apple wants to lease Microsoft-based APIs or DLLs, either. Why be beholden to Microsoft, when their current strategy is paying off in spades?

Besides, each of these solutions has a distinct third party behind it, and they're established third parties, too.

I may be wrong here, but I believe Phil was referring to the concept of running Windows programs in OS X (I believe that is Shaw's pipe dream as well).

Yeah, the term "virtualization" was nebulous, but his statement "Our solution is dual boot," was not. Aside from Boot Camp, Xen support is the most likely candidate for what Apple would "support out of the box." But even that is something of a stretch. Is there any indication of xnu supporting Xen?

psychofreak
Jun 4, 2007, 05:36 PM
Besides, each of these solutions has a distinct third party behind it, and they're established third parties, too.Crossover could be wiped away in a second if Apple did their own version :)

arkmannj
Jun 5, 2007, 12:29 AM
I'm OK with Windows having its own little sand box (virtualized or separate partition) I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I really don't care about "natively" running windows apps in OS X.

If I remember correctly, wasn't one of the downfalls OS/2 (OS/2 warp) the fact that it could run dos & windows apps so developers never made any OS/2 specific apps.

Maybe a XCode feature to help windows devs transition their code to mac easier would be a better solution ? for example: translate Direct X specific code into Open GL & Core services code.
(I'm not a programmer, would something like this be possible ?)