Yonah Virtualization

[chicagdan]

Everyone keeps talking about the dual core aspect of Yonah, but perhaps the best feature is VT, Intel's Virtualization Technology. According to this article, VThttp://www.nordichardware.com/news,2670.html is basically VMWare on a chip -- meaning that the new Intel Mac's will be fully capable of running OS X, Windows, Linux, OS/2, whatever, simultaneously in a system much like fast user switching, all with hyperthreading and dual core capability.

So everyone who keeps asking "can I dual boot?" ... "will there be a Virtual PC" ... you have no idea. This is going to be so much better. And as for the naysayers who cry "how do we know Apple will allow this?" remember Brian Croll's comment that Apple will not create any hardware to block users from installing Windows.

Finally, as for the persistent, annoying “why would you need to run both” comments, please just shut up. I have a PowerBook for 99 percent of what I do on a computer, but I also like to play Full Tilt poker, I run an Action PC Football league and play in a Diamond Mind Baseball league. These three pieces of software have required me to keep a 1998 IBM Aptiva connected (along with my PowerBook) via a KVM switch (and yes, a 7 year old computer IS better than Virtual PC) and I’m so, so sick of that ugly black box. When Mac on Intel and parallel OS’s come out, I’m going to sledge hammer the IBM.

[davefan6435]

that sounds pretty sweet!!! Bring on yonah!

[ravenvii]

Why would you need to run both? :rolleyes:

;)

[zap2]

Dual Core iBooks (please) i don't care about running Windows(i know some do) and that it will be cool as an extra but in the logn end it does little for me

[Morn]

They'll never be dual core ibooks :D Dual core Powerbooks, ibooks will probably be out in june or something with single core yonah....
Anyway, what this VT technology does is enable x86 to function better with a VM. There are certain things about x86 that make it very different to run 2 OS's at the same time on.... x86 will only allow the primary OS to run anything in kernel mode, when the secondary OS runs code in kernel mode it has to emulated by the VM program. So a program like vmware actuallly has to emulate some x86 instructions even when running on an x86 CPU.

[pknz]

That sounds pretty sweet and increases the idea of a dual (or trual (triple)) OS's booting on MacTels.

[vniow]

Of course this one gets on the front page and my post about the same topic over a month ago only got a few replies... :rolleyes:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=161550

[Flying Llama]

simplicity is key...

[DMann]

Why would you need to run both? :rolleyes:

;)

Millions and millions of switchers will have a no-brainer,
painless way to switch over to Mac! This shall complete
the pieces to the winning combination!

[Object-X]

Why would you need to run both? :rolleyes:

;)

A possible solution we are looking at is running OS X as our main OS and Windows for a proprietary program. This way the Windows OS could be configured not to use the internet and thus isolate it, while OS X, could be used for all other business applications (email, word, excel, ect.). Security is a huge concern where I work and my company would switch to OS X if it could run our proprietary applications. This would allow us to work around that.

[Arcus]

I think this is going to be an interesting start to the new year. Something tells me that Steve has more up his sleeve then we know.

[nagromme]

I've always been much more interested in running Windows at the SAME time as OS X (if I have to run it)--like a new VPC or something similar, or possibly even Darwine.

I do NOT want the delay and hassle of rebooting back and forth! I DO want to be able to access ALL my apps at once--not "just the Mac ones" or "just the Windows ones."

So anything that helps run two OS's at once more easily is a good thing.

I also don't want to boot Windows for security reasons: I don't want to have to worry about Windows viruses affecting the hard disk. Something like VPC where the PC thinks a virtual hardfile IS the hard disk, removes that worry. Then Windows has no possible way to reformat the HD.

Now, THIS I don't get... sounds inefficient at first reading:

"Home users could create virtual “partitions” isolating multiple user environments such as dedicating resources to a PC game, productivity, and personal video recorder-type environments, as well as improve defenses against viruses or spy ware."

Does that mean running multiple instances of the same OS at the same time on the same CPU? I can see the virus benefit (as long as they used separate HD parititions too). But wouldn't that waste RAM and CPU cycles? How would this be better than running the OS ONE time, and letting background processes handle your PVR? Or using multiple user accounts for productivity vs. gaming?

[DMann]

Of course this one gets on the front page and my post about the same topic over a month ago only got a few replies... :rolleyes:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=161550


I do remember your post - and yes, it should have been
on the front page! Probably just needed confirmation:cool:

[EricNau]

Putting Windows on an Apple? :eek: No Thank you.

Wouldn't that bring all of the Problems of Windows to Apple? :confused: (ie: Viruses)

[dashiel]

Why would you need to run both? :rolleyes:

;)

anyone who develops anything cross platform.

i'd dig a "transparent" app that allows me to run windows at near full speed inside of OS X. as it stands VPC on a dual 2.0Ghz with 1.5 gigs of RAM is barely acceptable.

[jhero]

coolness factor...

[SilverLight]

Why would you need to run both? :rolleyes:

;)

cause users could run OSX for everything and Windows to run games...the only downside of making the switch

[Donm]

Let me add something that isn't being mentioned. Not all Yonah/Napa systems will support VT. Secondly, while VT does make it easier for the OEM to install and run multiple OSs it also allows them to PREVENT what a user does with the platform. VT could be used to prevent someone from installing an additional OS...SURPRISE!

[Les Kern]

anyone who develops anything cross platform.

i'd dig a "transparent" app that allows me to run windows at near full speed inside of OS X. as it stands VPC on a dual 2.0Ghz with 1.5 gigs of RAM is barely acceptable.

I agree... BARELY. I use VPC to check code builds on SW I develop. I DO NOT want to reboot to access WIN or Linux. That's just dumb. The news got my curiosity though... what IS the "master" plan? The possible exclusion of FW, the Forbes article saying that Apple will concentrate more on the iPod and the "Media Center Mini, the Intel switch itself, dual OS security patents. Somehow it all fits, but we don't work for Apple.

[sluthy]

Vt...Darwine...VT...Darwine...can't choose which is more promising. Darwine allowing Windows apps to run unmodified within OSX, or VT allowing multiple (Linux, Solaris, Windows, anything) OSs running simultaneously. Is VT similar to a hardware version of Xen for Linux?

[Platform]

Just keeps getting better......Fast OS switching :D :D :D

[strange days]

so we got :

#1 : Switchers Galore
- anyone in doubt is in the wagon, and others can follow and buy themselves a beautiful computer instead of crappy PC laptops ( and desktops )

#2 : Security
- never worry about viruses or spyware again, or at least contain them to the virtual PC environment, or the partitioned hardware

#3 : Developers Worldwide
- not only OSX or XP, but many other platforms developers swearing for the first universal machine to work with

#4 : MIGHTY GOOD for Apple market share
- Windows could be perceived as an app running under OSX, effectively accelerating its dominance position demise in the minds of users. From working environment, to just an option to access when needed.

#5 : FrontRow
- few models to start with, but a firm foot in the home entertaining market already; even more customers, whether for "cheap" ( but good looking ) simple DVR / VOD computers, or/and for power users at home who need not another anonymous box in the house when they have their Apple computer already.


WOAH, this could be some Jobs magic 101 and project his vision to reference worldwide in 2006 alone ( or to begin with ). In a few years the question won't be "are you running OSX or XP ?", but rather "are you still running Windows under OSX ?". If you got M$ shares, dump them now... :eek:

...so i hope at worst they let us do it, at best, good PC software emulation competition for those who need to run XP or Linux ( or other ) and don't want the hassle of double booting. :D

[Dr. Dastardly]

Finally!

One computer to rule them all!





OS's I mean

[crispoe]

Microsoft discontinues IE for Mac. Why? Because its going to run natively in windows mode, similar to how Apple runs X11. I mentioned this on Osnews a few days ago... It could be another partnership deal with Microsoft, or they could use more Transitive tech. Hell they could be using Xen 3.0. Don't be surprised if you see Native Office for mac go away too. :(

Though it may be weird to see on store.apple.com- you may be able to buy a "license" for windows xp with a new mac if you want to run it with OS X. MS doesn't care what hardware you run Windows on as long as you pay the bill. If its transparent like X11 and classic was, it would be simply amazing- with an option to switch to windows full-screen desktop mode.

The only thing I would be afraid of here, is some developers for mac may just ditch cocoa and program for windows since it will work on both platforms (bigger market- less work).

I would still love to see it happen though....
I am psyched to see what apple does with the yonah... the possibilites are endless! :)

Oh yeah one other thing... FINALLY WE WILL BE ABLE TO PLAY PC GAMES NO EMULATION ON OUR MACS!!

[trose]

Now this would be cool!
Basically, with a KvM switch, I already do the same thing. Toggle to PC for games, back to Mac for other stuff. It'd be awesome to have that capability on one machine.

I wasn't too thrilled about the idea of booting into another OS. Even though that's cool, it doesn't really fit how I use my computer.

[freeny]

I was going to get a ppc just before the intels came out to hold me over for a few years. If this is true I'm definately going to hold on the ppc and wait for the intel duel laptops. this sounds really really good.:)

[maya]

Will be used for Front Row, you can bet on that. ;)

What other application can utilize this perfectly other than what is described and what can be done at present, Front Row. :)

[nagromme]

People are wondering how this fits into Apple plans.

But it may not be in their plans at all. Just because a chip can do something doesn't mean it's something Apple is interested in.

I see running multiple OS's more as a side-benefit that some users may take advantage of with third-party products. Not something Apple will be promoting.

As for other uses beyond running multiple OS's... I still don't grasp the benefits. More info would be welcome :)

[maya]

People are wondering how this fits into Apple plans.

But it may not be in their plans at all. Just because a chip can do something doesn't mean it's something Apple is interested in.

I see running multiple OS's more as a side-benefit that some users may take advantage of with third-party products. Not something Apple will be promoting.

As for other uses beyond running multiple OS's... I still don't grasp the benefits. More info would be welcome :)

At present accessing HD content (if you can actually do so) via Front Row is a PITA. Having multiple apps running in in a Virtual Environment will give instant access to the other applications via switching. Pretty much all the Front Row applications will be buffed to be run instantly at startup. :)

[freeny]

I'm curious to see if the "tamper-resistant code patent" will work on cutting down on software piracy. perhaps this type of code could be applied to other software.

And if the posts on this topic are a sign of what is to come, it sounds like windows is on its way of becoming nothing but a game console.:p

[nagromme]

At present accessing HD content (if you can actually do so) via Front Row is a PITA. Having multiple apps running in in a Virtual Environment will give instant access to the other applications via switching. Pretty much all the Front Row applications will be buffed to be run instantly at startup. :)
How would Intel virtualization make switching between multiple apps faster than simply pre-loading them into RAM would do?

[DPazdanISU]

oh man, this means that we can see os 10.5 have not only fast user switching but fast os switching, i could just see jobs at a keynote clicking on the new button next to fast user switching and it flips over to windows or linux :eek: apple is so sweet, im buyin more stock. :D

[SiliconAddict]

Putting Windows on an Apple? :eek: No Thank you.

Wouldn't that bring all of the Problems of Windows to Apple? :confused: (ie: Viruses)


Norton AV. Problem solved. :rolleyes: And if its running in OS X then no.

[nagromme]

oh man, this means that we can see os 10.5 have not only fast user switching but fast os switching, i could just see jobs at a keynote clicking on the new button next to fast user switching and it flips over to windows or linux :eek: apple is so sweet, im buyin more stock. :D
No thanks, no OS flipping or switching for me :) I like my Mac and Windows apps to share ONE screen, for easily work across multiple apps--drag and drop included. (Like Virtual PC provides.) Work on a texture in Photoshop for Mac, use it in UnrealEd for Windows. Random example from my own intentions :)

[dongmin]

No thanks, no OS flipping or switching for me :) I like my Mac and Windows apps to share ONE screen, for easily work across multiple apps--drag and drop included. (Like Virtual PC provides.) Work on a texture in Photoshop for Mac, use it in UnrealEd for Windows. Random example from my own intentions :)
I agree. I have zero interests in Windows itself. I need it simply to run certain apps that these developers (AUTODESK!!!) refuse to port to OS X. So, in the best of worlds, Mac's marketshare will grow enough so that developers have no choice but to port their apps to Macs. The iPod was Step 1. The Media Mini will be Step 2. And yes, step 3 will be World Domination™, or at least 20% market share.

[age234]

while VT does make it easier for the OEM to install and run multiple OSs it also allows them to PREVENT what a user does with the platform. VT could be used to prevent someone from installing an additional OS...SURPRISE!

I find this a lot more plausible than Steve standing up there promoting how easy it is to use Windows on a Mac. This may be Apple's way of preventing just such a thing. Or maybe they'll use it to keep Mac OS on Macs. I have to belive that if they use it, it'll be an anti-piracy measure. But I could be wrong.

[odedia]

Why would you want to run both? For many people, the answer is simple:

GAMES, GAMES, AND MORE GAMES. Mac enviroment was never what it could have been in the gaming arena. Now, you can use Mac for everything you'd like, and occassionally start playing Far Cry in the background. All in a LAPTOP!

This is sweeeeeeet.

Oded S.

Edit: I personally think that in the traditional Apple style, running Windows applications will be completly transparent to the average user. Meaning, all he'll have to do is click an .exe file, and some sort of OpenGL transition (a hand opening the Mac Desktop in the form of a window? :) ) will start running that application under the windows platform. No hassles or anything of that sort. They'd also protect accessing the Mac area from the Windows area in a very strict manner, perhaps in the hardware itself (this will all be worthless if it'll allow malicious windows code to tamper with the Mac Os X).

[After G]

Finally, more meaningful benchmarks. Now we can put 2-3 OSes on the same hardware and see if Photoshop on OS X really beats the pants off Photoshop for Windows.

[CiBoys]

Let me add something that isn't being mentioned. Not all Yonah/Napa systems will support VT. Secondly, while VT does make it easier for the OEM to install and run multiple OSs it also allows them to PREVENT what a user does with the platform. VT could be used to prevent someone from installing an additional OS...SURPRISE!

If they make this processor for PC, i hope they make it so you can't install OSx. I hope VT can't do its job

[winmacguy]

Of course this one gets on the front page and my post about the same topic over a month ago only got a few replies... :rolleyes:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=161550
Ooohh is that the world's smallest violin I hear??;)
On a more serious note, I am looking forward to the new Intel chips and the potential they will bring as well as Intels ability to keep up with producing the numbers of chips that Apple will require when sales take off to get ride of the perennial problem of demand being greater than chip supply.

[winmacguy]

Finally, more meaningful benchmarks. Now we can put 2-3 OSes on the same hardware and see if Photoshop on OS X really beats the pants off Photoshop for Windows.
Adobe won't have to keep optimising the code in Photoshop for Windows @ the expense of Macintosh ;) :p

[dambro1978]

if i have 2 os on one computer can i interchange files between them?
for example: i have a pdf in osx can i drag and drop it into wiondows or vice-versa?

[Platform]

if i have 2 os on one computer can i interchange files between them?
for example: i have a pdf in osx can i drag and drop it into wiondows or vice-versa?

I think you have to wait and see ;)

[GregA]

Anyway, what this VT technology does is enable x86 to function better with a VM. There are certain things about x86 that make it very different to run 2 OS's at the same time on.... x86 will only allow the primary OS to run anything in kernel mode, when the secondary OS runs code in kernel mode it has to emulated by the VM program. So a program like vmware actuallly has to emulate some x86 instructions even when running on an x86 CPU.Yes, OSes expect to run at "level 0" on the chip (iirc). So if you have 2 OSes competing for level 0, they kill each other. So a virtual OS has to emulate level 0 while it actually runs at a less critical level.

Virtualisation adds another level -so all the OSes run at level 0 as they expect, but there is actually a 'core' level now.

I think it'll be great if we can load XP and OSX simultaneously (if XP can load on an Apple, what with EFI etc). It'll be interesting too when people load RedHat linux with their system... run any Linux app integrated with OSX via X11 (instead of 2 separate screens). Hopefully OSX's BSD underpinnings will do that anyway.

[jacobj]

My Powerbook is showing signs of wanting to be left to a peaceful rest. It's not that it's not loved any more (I remember perfectly well the excitement I fealt when that box arrived on my front doorstep), but it is old. I have upgraded the RAM a few times as well as the hard drive, but the 1GHz G4 is just too slow for what I need.

I am an avid amateur photographer and want Aperture and my little 17" is just not up to the job. I want to use iPhoto and for it not to take 15 seconds to finalise every minor edit. I want iPohot to load in under a minute.

But more than all that, I want to be able to run windows. Honestly! I hate the Windows OS with a passion not rivaled by many zelots, but none the less it is the core on which many great non-OSX apps run.

The truth is that whenever I tell an MS user that I want to run Windows they laugh as though I have made some confession about the superiority of the product. It has nothing to do with that. In the same way that people now rarely buy an MP3 player that is not an iPod because all the accessories are generally made for it, the same is true of Windows. Now there is an obvious difference here: the iPod is clearly the superior product. It doesn't have all the features of some iRivers or Creative MP3 players but what it does it does far better than any of them.

As long as Apple continue to produce the quality of product that they do now and have done for some time (with a glitch in the middle and the G4 should have been retired some time back), I will continue to buy their products. I am not going to buy another G4 Powerbook because it is not worth the money, nor is it a huge step up from my 3 year old day-of-launch 17".

Anyway, back to Windows! I am willing to sacrifice some of the many benefits that come with Windows because they do not come close to totalling those that come with the Apple. But Yonah represents the chance for me to not have to give up anything and because of that I find it hard not to be extremely excited.

[ebally]

cause users could run OSX for everything and Windows to run games...the only downside of making the switch

Half-Life 1 and Half-Life 2!

[generik]

Yes, OSes expect to run at "level 0" on the chip (iirc). So if you have 2 OSes competing for level 0, they kill each other. So a virtual OS has to emulate level 0 while it actually runs at a less critical level.

Virtualisation adds another level -so all the OSes run at level 0 as they expect, but there is actually a 'core' level now.

I think it'll be great if we can load XP and OSX simultaneously (if XP can load on an Apple, what with EFI etc). It'll be interesting too when people load RedHat linux with their system... run any Linux app integrated with OSX via X11 (instead of 2 separate screens). Hopefully OSX's BSD underpinnings will do that anyway.

Just curious, where will be the keyboard handler responsible for "switching" OS reside?

It can't possibly reside in the current OS since you can't trust the OS to such a privilledged instruction, nor will be it in the BIOS cause what will happen if the OS uses the same keystroke?

[GregA]

Just curious, where will be the keyboard handler responsible for "switching" OS reside?

It can't possibly reside in the current OS since you can't trust the OS to such a privilledged instruction, nor will be it in the BIOS cause what will happen if the OS uses the same keystroke?Not just the keyboard of course - the OS no longer has ultimate control of the graphics card, sound card, mouse, etc.

And remember it's not "switching" OS - as both run simultaneously. It's just a matter of which one you are interacting with.

Iirc Apple's patent was talking about a "primary" OS and "secondary" OS - so perhaps a primary OS takes greater control, and the secondary OS doesn't need to know about it?

Or perhaps the OS in the EFI can act as a primary OS in some way?

[GregA2]

I think having a mac with Osx and Windows would be cool. The only problem I see with that, though, is XP's boot process will stop and hang if it detects a mac-formatted disk. That's what happens on my PC anyway. I have MacDrive loaded on there because my external drive is mac formatted. If I boot the PC then plug in the drive, all works beautifully. But if the drive is plugged in during boot-up its a no-go....

[Felix_the_Mac]

Is VT similar to a hardware version of Xen for Linux?


VT is a new processor technology to enhance virtualisation systems such as VMWare and XEN.
It will allow XEN to run windows, whereas, up till now, only Linux could be used since minor modifications were required to allow Windows to run which could not be legally made.

[Platform]

I think having a mac with Osx and Windows would be cool. The only problem I see with that, though, is XP's boot process will stop and hang if it detects a mac-formatted disk. That's what happens on my PC anyway. I have MacDrive loaded on there because my external drive is mac formatted. If I boot the PC then plug in the drive, all works beautifully. But if the drive is plugged in during boot-up its a no-go....

Maybe windows is scared of Mac dominance :p

[ppnkg]

That sounds pretty sweet and increases the idea of a dual (or trual (triple)) OS's booting on MacTels.


Dual is good, but true-all would be better. Somehow, I'm getting tired of this endless stream of information and rumours about Apple's future plans.

[GregA]

The only problem I see with that, though, is XP's boot process will stop and hang if it detects a mac-formatted disk.Wow, similar online naming there huh? If your last name is Alexander that'd be really freaky.

I'd say the file systems won't be an issue. More problematic is whether XP supports the Apple hardware (including possible lack of BIOS).

[firestarter]

VT is a new processor technology to enhance virtualisation systems such as VMWare and XEN.
It will allow XEN to run windows, whereas, up till now, only Linux could be used since minor modifications were required to allow Windows to run which could not be legally made.

Felix is right here - and makes a great point.

Please people, stop assuming what this virtualisation technology does - 'cos it doesn't actually do that much!!

All that Intel are doing is patching a stupid mistake in their instruction set. On x86, if you run an application like virtual PC, the programs running under virtual PC can't have access to all of the processor instructions - as some of those instructions if executed would upset the host operating system on which virtual PC is running.

This leads to a load of complexity if you're running a second OS on top of the first (google for VMWare to see what sort of app currently does this on x86).

ALL THAT INTEL ARE DOING is patching this problem, so that VMWare/Virtual PC can cleanly host another operating system. To run two at once you'd still need to buy an app like VPC to manage the things - Intel's technology in no way makes your machine able to support two operating systems at once from the BIOS, or any of the other whacky scenarios that people have drempt up.

As a user, you're not going to see any difference from this tech - all the fuss that's being generated is Intel's marketing selling what is essentially a bug fix.

They have white papers on their web site that you can read (I've read them) if you want more insight on this.

[generik]

If you visit Xen's website it does say users will see tremendous speed improvements from it.

I for one am looking forward to virtualisation!

[Platform]

Dual is good, but true-all would be better. Somehow, I'm getting tired of this endless stream of information and rumours about Apple's future plans.

There is a plug somewhere, just pull it and your suffering will end

[GregA2]

Wow, similar online naming there huh? If your last name is Alexander that'd be really freaky.

That WOULD be freaky, wouldn't it? :eek:
But, no, it isn't.... My last name is Andonian. I was named after my dad, which is why I put the 2 on there.

Anyway, this whole dual-OS thing sounds really cool if it does work. I'm curious though... if a Windows system is a Wintel, and an Intel Mac is a Mactel, what do we call a dual-boot? Is that a MacWinTel? ;)

2005: The Year of HD
2006: The Year of...WINDOWS?! :eek:

[dernhelm]

Now this would be cool!
Basically, with a KvM switch, I already do the same thing. Toggle to PC for games, back to Mac for other stuff. It'd be awesome to have that capability on one machine.

I wasn't too thrilled about the idea of booting into another OS. Even though that's cool, it doesn't really fit how I use my computer.

This is a real boon to developers, who need to test their applications under multiple versions of the same OS, or under multiple OS's. I do that now using VirtualPC or the like. Especially on windows machines where you need to get current with the latest version of the .NET framework (or Avalon when it is ready), but you do not want to risk your entire machine doing it.

The ability to do that by switching between live instances of the OS running directly on a partitioned piece of your machine (CPU, memory, harddisk) is very compelling. This is the same tech that IBM has been using on their Power line for years now, but it is good to see it being brought down to the masses.

[Morky]

This type of virtualization is one of the new features that was touted when IBM's Power5 came out last year.

[BenRoethig]

Maybe windows is scared of Mac dominance :p

Not as long as Apple's the only show in town.

[Photorun]

This type of virtualization is one of the new features that was touted when IBM's Power5 came out last year.

I'm glad someone is paying attention and that I don't blindly post (like many do) but read all comments so I didn't repeat you.

This was an attribute of the Power5, sadly though this means nothing as Intel is the new boss, same as the old boss.

[kerpow]

Strange, my initial reaction is not good. Am I the only one to think that if you can run Windows on your Mac loads of software companies will think to themselves whats the point of rewriting our software for Mac OS if Mac users can run Windows.

I want to encourage software publishers to write more applications, more games etc. for OS X rather than giving them a reason to stop writing software for it.

I hate using Windows on my Mac, though I do every day through Citrix sessions. To hear the sound of annoying Windows jingles on a Mac just feels plain wrong. I bought a Mac to get away from Windows.

[boombashi]

Norton AV. Problem solved. :rolleyes: And if its running in OS X then no.

And if you are running both, it's not like the windows viruses are going to jump off your Windows partition and into your OS X partition...it's not the clap. Some people are so paranoid. Besides this is nothing new, people have been running Windows on Macs for a long time and that have been virus problems with those systems, every here of Virtual PC? Viruses are software based only, they are not getting into you hardware, and they are platform specific. People that will be running Windows on their Macs are using it for convinience not as a main operating system...what would be the point in that, other than to be a poser at the local starbucks.

[iris_failsafe]

I have 2 questions about Yonah:

Its a 64bit or 32 Bit chip?

If Virtualization can be controlled so it only accepts Leopard, how i would do it?

Thanks

[modernpixel]

Although disappointing, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to explain the nuts and bolts of the technology's uses. It's often posts like these that go unnoticed - mostly because the other stuff is more fun to believe.

Tell me, knowing what you know, can you see any benefits to the technology for OS X users - for instance, a leap in performance for Virtual PC users (possibly explaining why Microsoft purchased the program - probably with inside info about the x86 switch.)

Even if there is no benefit - thanks for the insight!!!



Felix is right here - and makes a great point.

Please people, stop assuming what this virtualisation technology does - 'cos it doesn't actually do that much!!

All that Intel are doing is patching a stupid mistake in their instruction set. On x86, if you run an application like virtual PC, the programs running under virtual PC can't have access to all of the processor instructions - as some of those instructions if executed would upset the host operating system on which virtual PC is running.

This leads to a load of complexity if you're running a second OS on top of the first (google for VMWare to see what sort of app currently does this on x86).

ALL THAT INTEL ARE DOING is patching this problem, so that VMWare/Virtual PC can cleanly host another operating system. To run two at once you'd still need to buy an app like VPC to manage the things - Intel's technology in no way makes your machine able to support two operating systems at once from the BIOS, or any of the other whacky scenarios that people have drempt up.

As a user, you're not going to see any difference from this tech - all the fuss that's being generated is Intel's marketing selling what is essentially a bug fix.

They have white papers on their web site that you can read (I've read them) if you want more insight on this.

[dernhelm]

Viruses are software based only, they are not getting into you hardware, and they are platform specific.

Unless, of course, you are this poor sucker (http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lakes/7156/hwvirus.htm).

:)

[Compufix]

my company would switch to OS X if it could run our proprietary applications. This would allow us to work around that.

What about Microsoft's RDC and/or Citrix? If you can host your app on a Windows server, just use Terminal services or Citrix to get to it.

[dernhelm]

Although disappointing, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to explain the nuts and bolts of the technology's uses. It's often posts like these that go unnoticed - mostly because the other stuff is more fun to believe.

Tell me, knowing what you know, can you see any benefits to the technology for OS X users - for instance, a leap in performance for Virtual PC users (possibly explaining why Microsoft purchased the program - probably with inside info about the x86 switch.)

Even if there is no benefit - thanks for the insight!!!

If you really want to learn about virtualization, I wouldn't listen to someone calling it a "bug fix". Here's (http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/general/2005/01/03/generalprimemedia_2005_01_03_eng-primemedia_eng-primemedia_153118_4014058325543415015.html) a Forbes article from the beginning of this year (2005) talking about IBMs plans to move virtualization technology down into the 970 series. At the time, there was no "Intel switch" planned, so the article references Apple as a big customer of this. The bottom line is that hardware virtualization has been around for years, but was reserved for big iron running some variation of Unix. It is a technology that more and more companies are looking towards to reduce costs and improve the flexibility of their offerings.

Up until now, consumers wouldn't even have access to the tech, but if IBM moves it down into their dual-core 970 line, and Intel puts it in theirs, that all will change. Short term it will be a niche thing, maybe even a bit of a novelty. Long term, it may mean that some PC you purchase (down the road) could double as a dedicated device of some type (e.g. real-time video capture) which would not interfere at all with the applications you are running in your primary hardware partition.

The possibility of convergence devices - a PC that doubles as another dedicated hardware device - are limitless, and this is actually a pretty cool development.

[Fabio_gsilva]

This is so cool! I hope we can feel much more horsepower on Mactels than now... Not that today they don't have enough, but macs just don't like to show off...

[hayesk]

At present accessing HD content (if you can actually do so) via Front Row is a PITA. Having multiple apps running in in a Virtual Environment will give instant access to the other applications via switching. Pretty much all the Front Row applications will be buffed to be run instantly at startup. :)

There seems to be a misconception that having virtualization means all environments run at full speed. This is not multiple cores, the CPU has to switch back and forth to run both just like it always did.

Front Row apps will not run instantly because of this, any more than if you preloaded them on today's iMac. MacOS X already has priority scheduling, and any apps such as PVRs can get more CPU time if they need it today.

Unless this virtualization has real-time scheduling features, it's not going to matter. And if it does have real-time scheduling features, the rest of your MacOS X apps are going to suffer for it.

The only advantage I see in this is to be able to run two OSes at the same time without a hardware abstraction layer such as vmware or VirtualPC. Aside from that, it's really a non-feature.

[odedia]

Felix is right here - and makes a great point.

Please people, stop assuming what this virtualisation technology does - 'cos it doesn't actually do that much!!

All that Intel are doing is patching a stupid mistake in their instruction set. On x86, if you run an application like virtual PC, the programs running under virtual PC can't have access to all of the processor instructions - as some of those instructions if executed would upset the host operating system on which virtual PC is running.

This leads to a load of complexity if you're running a second OS on top of the first (google for VMWare to see what sort of app currently does this on x86).

ALL THAT INTEL ARE DOING is patching this problem, so that VMWare/Virtual PC can cleanly host another operating system. To run two at once you'd still need to buy an app like VPC to manage the things - Intel's technology in no way makes your machine able to support two operating systems at once from the BIOS, or any of the other whacky scenarios that people have drempt up.

As a user, you're not going to see any difference from this tech - all the fuss that's being generated is Intel's marketing selling what is essentially a bug fix.

They have white papers on their web site that you can read (I've read them) if you want more insight on this.


I agree that INTEL's support is just patching the problem, but this does not mean that APPLE's BIOS won't be able to support this kind of feature at the hardwre level, or Mac OS X in the OS level. The idea is that now, you can run an "emulator" in actual true speed using all avaliable resources of the system (processor, GPU, motherboard, PCI-X cards, USB etc.). Apple could very easily implement this "emulator" right in the OS so you wouldn't even know you're running it as a emulator. Kinda like a cross between how they supported Mac OS 9 & Rossetta. Allowing full access to the proccesor's instruction set WILL improve performence to a great extent.

Plus, let us not forget that this is a DUAL-CORE CPU. in VT mode, the system can give EACH OS ITS OWN CORE TO WORK WITH.

[dernhelm]

There seems to be a misconception that having virtualization means all environments run at full speed. This is not multiple cores, the CPU has to switch back and forth to run both just like it always did.

Front Row apps will not run instantly because of this, any more than if you preloaded them on today's iMac. MacOS X already has priority scheduling, and any apps such as PVRs can get more CPU time if they need it today.

Unless this virtualization has real-time scheduling features, it's not going to matter. And if it does have real-time scheduling features, the rest of your MacOS X apps are going to suffer for it.

The only advantage I see in this is to be able to run two OSes at the same time without a hardware abstraction layer such as vmware or VirtualPC. Aside from that, it's really a non-feature.

You guys really don't get hardware virtualization. Both OSs run on the hardware directly. There is no emulation, context switching, any of that stuff. One CPU (or core) is used by one OS, the other is used by the other. You are partitioning your system. The trick is virtualizing your ethernet, firewire, etc. But that is all stuff that they figured out long ago on their "big iron" systems where this tech was pioneered.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Its just cool news in my view, why would anyone still want a ppc machine now is beyond me. PPC is going the way of the dinosaur in my view as far as Apple is concerned. I bet all Macs will be Intel by the end of next year. Man i would love to have the the Mac OS and still be able to run(yuk) windows when i want to game on the same Machine! long live the Mac, PPC get your@#$%^&* out of here!:)

[1macker1]

That's a good question. What happened to all the 64 bit chip hype?
I have 2 questions about Yonah:

Its a 64bit or 32 Bit chip?

If Virtualization can be controlled so it only accepts Leopard, how i would do it?

Thanks

[mcdermd]

I'd much rather have Darwine finished for x86. That would allow us to use Windows programs without loading the OS or switching OSes. Seems much simpler, no?

[GregA2]

PPC is going the way of the dinosaur in my view as far as Apple is concerned. I bet all Macs will be Intel by the end of next year.

There was a time not long ago when I never, EVER thought I'd see THAT sentence on THIS website... :eek: :D

I wish I could go back in time and place a nice wager on whether or not Apple would switch to Intel CPUs and allow Windows to be installed on Macs by mid-2006... :D

[M-theory]

Why would you need to run both? :rolleyes:

;)

...had to be done. :D

[maya]

...had to be done. :D

More along the lines of, Intel was running out of features to offer the general public, so why not offer some dual-core (maybe quad-core in the future) with the option to install all OSes of the end-users choice.

Its a win/win situation for Intel, as they would dominate the home PC market while the end-user can install whatever they want. :)

[Peace]

If Apple doesn't change the BIOS wouldn't this make it easier for Windows users to install OSX on their machines?

[2nyRiggz]

im guessing we will be mixing OSes...once it dont slow down my mac im good.

Bless

[EGT]

Why would you need to run both? :rolleyes:

;)

The computer would feel so ... dirty!!

A good thing until developers start moving to OS X. Then Windows can bugger off forever.

:D

[sehix]

Microsoft discontinues IE for Mac. Why? Because its going to run natively in windows mode, similar to how Apple runs X11. I mentioned this on Osnews a few days ago...

MS quit development of IE for Mac in 2003. The current noise is just MS notifying everyone that they're dropping support for what they quit writing two years ago.

Just like they dropped support for Window95, etc.

So much for a lovely theory...

[kalisphoenix]

This != news.

[sehix]

If Apple doesn't change the BIOS wouldn't this make it easier for Windows users to install OSX on their machines?

Who says they're going to use BIOS?

They use Open Firmware on the PPC machines, and not having any legacy Intel issues, it's likely they'll be using Intel's EFI, instead of BIOS, because it provides functionality closer to OF than does BIOS.

And they've specifically said that they will not be using OF on their Intel systems.

[gnasher729]

[QUOTE=dernhelm]One CPU (or core) is used by one OS, the other is used by the other. QUOTE]

Unlikely that it would work like that. That would mean that if one OS isn't doing much at the moment, the other OS would still only have one processor. What really happens is that each OS sees two processors, but from the point of view of one OS these two processors sometimes stop doing any work for a short time (that is when they do work for the other OS). So if you have Linux and MacOS X running, and Linux only uses 10% of one CPU at the moment, then MacOS X still has two CPUs running at almost full speed.

[crap freakboy]

Of course this one gets on the front page and my post about the same topic over a month ago only got a few replies... :rolleyes:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=161550


Some people are never happy :D

[aegisdesign]

if i have 2 os on one computer can i interchange files between them?
for example: i have a pdf in osx can i drag and drop it into wiondows or vice-versa?

You can already with VirtualPC.

And cut and paste between Windows and Mac works too.

There's special software as part of VirtualPC which you install into Windows to allow the sharing.

There would have to be something similar written to do that between VT partitions (that's partitions in the CPU not disk). I'm not even sure if Intel's VT allows that. You might find a partition is completely isolated from the others.

Personally, I find the features in VirtualPC to enable sharing are essential so if VT partitions don't allow that, I'll stick with VirtualPC.

[GregA]

One CPU (or core) is used by one OS, the other is used by the other. I haven't read anything regarding Intel doing it like this. This method was mentioned regarding PowerPC virtualisation though.

I guess it depends on how a company implements a technology.

[Donm]

Felix is right here - and makes a great point.

Please people, stop assuming what this virtualisation technology does - 'cos it doesn't actually do that much!!

All that Intel are doing is patching a stupid mistake in their instruction set. On x86, if you run an application like virtual PC, the programs running under virtual PC can't have access to all of the processor instructions - as some of those instructions if executed would upset the host operating system on which virtual PC is running.

This leads to a load of complexity if you're running a second OS on top of the first (google for VMWare to see what sort of app currently does this on x86).

ALL THAT INTEL ARE DOING is patching this problem, so that VMWare/Virtual PC can cleanly host another operating system. To run two at once you'd still need to buy an app like VPC to manage the things - Intel's technology in no way makes your machine able to support two operating systems at once from the BIOS, or any of the other whacky scenarios that people have drempt up.

As a user, you're not going to see any difference from this tech - all the fuss that's being generated is Intel's marketing selling what is essentially a bug fix.

They have white papers on their web site that you can read (I've read them) if you want more insight on this.

With all due respect, I don't think you grasped the full potential of VT. VT is more than a bug fix. While combining VT with AMT, you get some pretty valuable features from a security and managability standpoint. It might be invisible to the consumer, but they would benifit from it.

[aegisdesign]

You guys really don't get hardware virtualization. Both OSs run on the hardware directly. There is no emulation, context switching, any of that stuff. One CPU (or core) is used by one OS, the other is used by the other. You are partitioning your system. The trick is virtualizing your ethernet, firewire, etc. But that is all stuff that they figured out long ago on their "big iron" systems where this tech was pioneered.

Even with the hardware there to make virtualization a simpler task, you still need a hypervisor. I can't see Apple providing that, or Microsoft. You'll still need VMware or Xen or preferably an updated VirtualPC.

[granex]

I wonder if it would be possible for Apple to generate a execution subsystem that would allow specific Windows programs (such as games) to be run without needing the entire operating system to be loaded (and/or paid for). As another poster said, if you could just double click on a game and have it run, this would be tremendous for Apple. You don't also need to be able to drag and drop files in Windows.

[GregA2]

I wonder if it would be possible for Apple to generate a execution subsystem that would allow specific Windows programs (such as games) to be run without needing the entire operating system to be loaded (and/or paid for).

Wouldn't a lot of games need DirectX?

[SiliconAddict]

If Apple doesn't change the BIOS wouldn't this make it easier for Windows users to install OSX on their machines?


Nope. Its still going to be locked into the hardware.

[SiliconAddict]

Wouldn't a lot of games need DirectX?


Yes. without the API it would run as well as Carbon apps would run on Windows.

[Randall]

Forget DirectX, what I really want is the Havoc physics engine to find it's way onto the Mac. It's killing me how many great games we're missing out on because of Havoc. The most recent one being Age of Empires III (http://www.ageofempires3.com/), which is the most frusturating for me to miss out on anyway.

[Marx55]

Apple has now a historic oportunity to set new standards AND TO EXPAND MAC MARKET SHARE.

A computer that can natively boot as Mac OS X, Linux or Windows. Even better, boot whatever and then switch in real time to any other and even have two or the three of them on screen.

This alone will sell Macs by millions to many people, to Universities, corporations, etc. Our University has many computer rooms. All are PC-Windoze because they must run Windows and Linux. What a shame for Apple right now! But this new Mac will change things and all our new computer rooms will be built with such machines if they can run all three OSes and if they are competitively priced.

This triple-boot machine will have a tremendous impact: people will finally know the wonders of Mac OS X. Many of them will buy such Macs because they can still use Windows or Linux (many people do not buy Macs currently just because of that!) but then will be exposed to Mac OS X. Many will then switch for ever to Mac OS X.

Apple: go, go, go for it!

[kenaustus]

Some of us are stuck using Windows at times. For me it is the one app I have to demo for a service that is Windows based and one app for a piece of medical equipment. Both are small and run fine under VPC, but without VPC I wouldn't have been able to move to Macs.

What I am hoping for is a new VPC that will be significantly faster than the current one. I don't want a dual boot Mac, just the ability to open 2000 Pro for a few minutes now and then. (I don't have 2000 Pro connected to the internet so it's totally isolated, which is very nice.)

Somehow I think MS bought VPC without the knowledge that Apple was moving to Intel and now they are working like mad to bring both VPC and Office over to the Mactel environment. It's going to be a lot of work for both apps and old Billie G is probably a bit pissed about it.

We'll see in 19 days . . .

[riversky]

This will encourage more people to switch. Why?

Because you will be able to run some Windows only program (in-house programs etc) when needed for business users.

It will allow Linux adminstrators to use the Mac.

It will be able to run gamers collections (if they want) so they don't see a loss in moving from Windows.

And most important it is insurance against the day (and I believe it is coming) that Microsoft drops Office on the Mac.

[GregA]

Somehow I think MS bought VPC without the knowledge that Apple was moving to Intel and now they are working like mad to bring both VPC and Office over to the Mactel environment. It's going to be a lot of work for both apps and old Billie G is probably a bit pissed about it.I think MS bought VPC so they could run multiple Windows virtual machines on one system. Basically - MS does its best to make its latest OS can run stuff written for Windows 3.1, DOS, 95... and that backwards compatibility restricts it sometimes. If they could presume that history didn't matter, and then run the old stuff via VPC, they'd be more free to develop their stuff. (edit: And of course it allows multiple virtual machines for testing and development purposes)

And if that's the case, what does Intel's Virtualisation Technology do for MS? One poster said that VT still requires something like Virtual PC to work. Someone else said VT does the job of Virtual PC (thus VPC is unnecessary). I had assumed the VT was, in some ways, like the virtual 286 that Intel provided built into 386s and above... and wouldn't really need a VPC.

Anyone got some references/links that definitively answer that?

[dernhelm]

Unlikely that it would work like that. That would mean that if one OS isn't doing much at the moment, the other OS would still only have one processor. What really happens is that each OS sees two processors, but from the point of view of one OS these two processors sometimes stop doing any work for a short time (that is when they do work for the other OS). So if you have Linux and MacOS X running, and Linux only uses 10% of one CPU at the moment, then MacOS X still has two CPUs running at almost full speed.

Great idea. But that is not how hardware virtualization works. Look it up for Pete's sake! You don't have to believe me.

[dernhelm]

Even with the hardware there to make virtualization a simpler task, you still need a hypervisor. I can't see Apple providing that, or Microsoft. You'll still need VMware or Xen or preferably an updated VirtualPC.

Aha - someone who actually understands the technology :D . Yes, you do need a hypervisor (or something like that). IBM provides it with the Power5 stuff it has produced, Apple (or someone) would need to provide it with the Yonah chips in order to make use of it. And believe me, EMC has been chomping at the bit for a way to make VMWare more effective. They will put whatever resources they can into working directly with VT-enabled hardware.

I agree that Apple won't likely do that for such a niche market in the short term. But they probably will eventually - and if they make a mac-mini/dvr/home theater box they could have quite a coup on their hands if they did it using this type of technology to partition the hardware up. The box could perform any computing task you set to it, and still always be live for TV, etc.

Microsoft's home theater stuff may would also benefit from this if they implemented it in a way that they knew what they were doing.

[Sunrunner]

Think about it kind of like weening a druggie off of crack... youve gotta do it slowly. This way the Windoze users can have their windows even if they "switch". Though I garantee they will find themselves hardly touching it after a few weeks... :)

[Randall]

Hypervisors like VMware are good in theory, but there are many problems with them such as when using VMware in an environment where MAC addresses are used as unique identifiers (UID), it is required to manually configure the MAC address for each virtual machine to ensure each is actually unique. This is a pain in the a$$, and too low-level to be practical.

It's a nice thought, but VMware has a long way to go. Virtual PC is still the best solution. Once OS X86 hits the market, you can expect a new version of Virtual PC that is extremely optimized (since it's running on native architecture) and you can probably even expect a hack or two to be able to dual boot into Windows if you so desire, which is better then any emulator. :cool:

In other words, if you want a Hypervisor that will allow you to switch between different Operating Systems just as fast as you can switch users (with that cool cube effect) then look for Apple to write their own in-house. And obviously they won't bother with it unless they can be convinced that it will be profitable for them, for example, if it would make everyone twice as likely to switch etc. Furthermore, Apple couldn't sell Windows XP or have systems come preinstalled with both OSes unless they paid Microsoft royalties, and don't expect that to happen anytime before hell freezes over. :p

[Randall]

Think about it kind of like weening a druggie off of crack... youve gotta do it slowly. This way the Windoze users can have their windows even if they "switch". Though I garantee they will find themselves hardly touching it after a few weeks... :)This is a nice thought if you don't actually have to use Windows, such is the case for some. But there are those of us that utilize applications that are only available on Windows for our work or everyday lives, and therefor we can't simply just "switch" that easily. And Virtual PC is currently 100% a software emulator, which makes it slow and not very practicle for everyday use. Think of it as Reverse Rosetta but for the whole damn OS. And that's just ridiculous.

[amateurmacfreak]

Everyone keeps talking about the dual core aspect of Yonah, but perhaps the best feature is VT, Intel's Virtualization Technology. According to this article, VThttp://www.nordichardware.com/news,2670.html is basically VMWare on a chip -- meaning that the new Intel Mac's will be fully capable of running OS X, Windows, Linux, OS/2, whatever, simultaneously in a system much like fast user switching, all with hyperthreading and dual core capability.

So everyone who keeps asking "can I dual boot?" ... "will there be a Virtual PC" ... you have no idea. This is going to be so much better. And as for the naysayers who cry "how do we know Apple will allow this?" remember Brian Croll's comment that Apple will not create any hardware to block users from installing Windows.

Finally, as for the persistent, annoying “why would you need to run both” comments, please just shut up. I have a PowerBook for 99 percent of what I do on a computer, but I also like to play Full Tilt poker, I run an Action PC Football league and play in a Diamond Mind Baseball league. These three pieces of software have required me to keep a 1998 IBM Aptiva connected (along with my PowerBook) via a KVM switch (and yes, a 7 year old computer IS better than Virtual PC) and I’m so, so sick of that ugly black box. When Mac on Intel and parallel OS’s come out, I’m going to sledge hammer the IBM.

Agh!! Need such computer advice! A teenage friend of mine (15) builds awesome custom PC's (obviously, running on Windows XP), and I have been considering buying one perhaps alongside a new iBook, but now with this, I am totally lost where to go. Of course this is awesome, but I... agh. Why do such beautiful things as computers cause so much stress?:( :rolleyes:

[Randall]

Agh!! Need such computer advice! A teenage friend of mine (15) builds awesome custom PC's (obviously, running on Windows XP), and I have been considering buying one perhaps alongside a new iBook, but now with this, I am totally lost where to go. Of course this is awesome, but I... agh. Why do such beautiful things as computers cause so much stress?:( :rolleyes:I don't see how this should be causing you stress. If you wait another 6 months before making your purchase, then you will know just how practicle it is to have both OSes running on a Mac. Check back at this forum, then make your decision. No worries. ;)

[ravenvii]

Wow... sarcasm is truly a lost art on those forums. People keep quoting my post and "correcting" me, even though it's obvious the post is sarcastic because 1: there's a winky at the end, and 2: it's a direct copy and paste from the OP's post, with one word changed.

:rolleyes:

[firestarter]

With all due respect, I don't think you grasped the full potential of VT. VT is more than a bug fix. While combining VT with AMT, you get some pretty valuable features from a security and managability standpoint. It might be invisible to the consumer, but they would benifit from it.

I think you missed my point. While VT is definitely beneficial, I'm concerned at the number of postings which imagine schemes of multi booting, multi OSes running together just on the BIOS layer etc.

As you agree - for most consumers this will be invisible, and the benefits VT provides will be enjoyed mainly in improved VMWare / Virtual PC etc.

Intel is hyping this as a consumer breakthrough. For OS and hardware geeks it's nice tech, but for regular consumers (the people posting to this forum) there's not going to be anything particularly wild or revolutionary coming out of this.

The MacRumors readership is new to Intel's powerful marketing mojo - I think folk need to learn to take these things with a healthy dose of cynicism...

[yac_moda]

I think the rumor mills are missing the boat as to what will appear January.

I found out about the improved Intel virtualization support about a year ago and that the virtualization's software component was open source and that Intel had funded the startup that wrote the software.

The article that pointed me to this info claimed this virtualization made the OS obsolete but my take on the info was that it made the processor obsolete and actually greatly increased the importance of the OS.

This kind of self obsoleting behavior is typical of technology companies that are running behind the curve and loosing their perspective on the business side of their sector of the market.

So I wrote a suggestion to Apple that this could be used to make use of artificial intelligence in an OS in a fairly simple and straight forward way.

For every instance of OSs launch two instances of OSs of Mac OS X, one that the user uses and then a second that runs at the level just below the virtualization software and have it monitor and build statistics on the code level and what the user does and then based on these parameters the "Observing" OS could self-configure or self-optimize at the system and at compiler level -- a self-optimizing system.

I got really excited just because this setup would be great for installing debugger code that could just stay there all of the time in the observing system and still be quite transparent -- I am a tester so those things excite me !!!

Then Apple released Tiger and Jobs gave a mysterious reference to the next system, Jaguar, making it sound like it would be a real cool update.

And then Jobs announced the intended move to Intel, something I have been telling them to do for years.

And now on the eve of the Intel transition the rumor mills seem to think the Mac-mini is going to Intel and be a multi-media HDTV box without having any specialized integrations with new products from Apple.

I think Apple might ship something TOTALLY new and revolutionary this time !!!

I think the new Mac-mini is likely to support WiFi for video and stereo sound and instead of Apple shipping new iBooks the INTELigent iBooks and perhaps powerbook rumors are actually confused with thin-client monitors that will receive the WiFi video and be a very thin and light weight remote computing client, touch-screen monitor with a BT keyboard add-on, to the INTELigent Mac-mini which will be upgradable to high-end power.

It is the power efficiency of the new Intel processors and perhaps some of the new small WiFi cards that make this kind of remote computing screen good enough to be an Apple product. MS and others tried to implement this about two years ago but they all failed for some reason.

When the NeXT Mac OS ships it will support virtualization that will allow the thin-client Macs to run without interrupting the INTELigent Mac-minis streaming music to the Mac Stereo and video to an HDTV.

And at some point Mac OSs will become self optimizing using the virtualization scheme I described perhaps in conjunction with the code-morphing software that Apple has already said it will use to create INTELigent Mac code.

I would not be surprised if Apple did not announce its special use of virtualization initially since it is the sort of thing you would keep a trade secret for a while until your lead over your rivals gets LARGE !!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

[php]

Why would you need to run both?

In addition to doing my creative Mac stuff :cool: (Photoshop, Logic Pro), I'm a certified real estate appraiser, and appraisal software is unfortunately only available for Windows.

[yac_moda]

In addition to doing my creative Mac stuff :cool: (Photoshop, Logic Pro), I'm a certified real estate appraiser, and appraisal software is unfortunately only available for Windows.

http://www.realestateoffergenerator.com/pagefour.html
"The Real Estate Offer Generator is being offered at a price of only $19.95. Most other full featured Real Estate Investment software packages cost over $100.00.

You may purchase the Real Estate Offer Generator with confidence. If for any reason you are not satisfied with the product within 7 days of purchase, you are entitled to an unconditional money back guarantee.


Please specify the operating system you are running (Windows, Linux, Unix, or any other that supports Java.) As soon as payment is received, the Real Estate Offer Generator will be sent to you via Email using the Email address provided to PayPal.


Thank you very much for your purchase!


Real Estate Offer Generator $19.95"


http://www.powermatecorp.com/html/agent_business_builder.html

"Powerful Full 32-Bit Technology Leadership: Agent Business Builder™ is the only complete contact relationship management, CRM, and full-featured sales and marketing system for REALTORS® that runs the same on Windows 95, 98, ME, NT, 2000 & XP, and Macintosh and Macintosh with System X. The full 32-bit operation speeds data through your computer up to 400% faster than older products. Most important, even a beginner can be productive the first day, with no training required!"



"... software is unfortunately only available for Windows."

Whenever anyone has made this statement I have always found it to be UNTRUE !!! ;)

[prewwii]

You probably have seen the statement that quotes some higher level Apple executive as saying the Apple will do nothing to prevent Windows from being installed on a MacTel box.

If you were selling Mac's for a living and had a MacTel box to sell what could you say during a sales presentation? Could you say that all the custom software that they currently have that runs only on Windows is still available to them with a MacTel box and if that software is not interactive with the Internet it will be in an isolated and much safer environment than running on a solely WinTel box?

Would the new MacTel system be the most cross platform system available on the market? Runs OSX, Windows, Linux. One box with all the features needed for any of major desktop operating system. Considering the closed market approach Apple has taken in the past, since the return of Sir Steve. Considering what is happening today with the iPod in regards to opening the market via licensing. Considering the non response to Michael Dell's request to sell the OSX operating system on his boxes. If it turns out that this cross platform box is the iPod of desktop computing would you expect Apple to open the market via cross licensing?

Right now Windows and Linux are on the same hardware. Right now in the desktop world Linux is third in market penetration with Apple having less than 5% of the market. Windows is first in market penetration and first in virus susceptibility. The computer market has been in a slump for sometime now. Dell, Microsoft and Gateway are flat lined or worse. The economic factors in the nation are ramping up again, existing computers are getting long of tooth and the cost of viruses are in the news everyday.

When Apple brings out a system that remedies these problems and has legacy capabilities too do you think it will sell? Which portion of the personal computer market is growing the fastest? What system do you think Apple will bring out as MacTel first? Is it portable?

That's my thinking and I am sticking to it!

Jim

[GregA2]

You probably have seen the statement that quotes some higher level Apple executive as saying the Apple will do nothing to prevent Windows from being installed on a MacTel box.

If you were selling Mac's for a living and had a MacTel box to sell what could you say during a sales presentation? Could you say that all the custom software that they currently have that runs only on Windows is still available to them with a MacTel box and if that software is not interactive with the Internet it will be in an isolated and much safer environment than running on a solely WinTel box?

Would the new MacTel system be the most cross platform system available on the market? Runs OSX, Windows, Linux. One box with all the features needed for any of major desktop operating system. Considering the closed market approach Apple has taken in the past, since the return of Sir Steve. Considering what is happening today with the iPod in regards to opening the market via licensing. Considering the non response to Michael Dell's request to sell the OSX operating system on his boxes. If it turns out that this cross platform box is the iPod of desktop computing would you expect Apple to open the market via cross licensing?

Right now Windows and Linux are on the same hardware. Right now in the desktop world Linux is third in market penetration with Apple having less than 5% of the market. Windows is first in market penetration and first in virus susceptibility. The computer market has been in a slump for sometime now. Dell, Microsoft and Gateway are flat lined or worse. The economic factors in the nation are ramping up again, existing computers are getting long of tooth and the cost of viruses are in the news everyday.

When Apple brings out a system that remedies these problems and has legacy capabilities too do you think it will sell? Which portion of the personal computer market is growing the fastest? What system do you think Apple will bring out as MacTel first? Is it portable?

That's my thinking and I am sticking to it!

Jim

HUH? :confused:

[php]

http://www.realestateoffergenerator.com/pagefour.html
"The Real Estate Offer Generator is being offered at a price of only $19.95. Most other full featured Real Estate Investment software packages cost over $100.00.

You may purchase the Real Estate Offer Generator with confidence. If for any reason you are not satisfied with the product within 7 days of purchase, you are entitled to an unconditional money back guarantee.


Please specify the operating system you are running (Windows, Linux, Unix, or any other that supports Java.) As soon as payment is received, the Real Estate Offer Generator will be sent to you via Email using the Email address provided to PayPal.


Thank you very much for your purchase!


Real Estate Offer Generator $19.95"


http://www.powermatecorp.com/html/agent_business_builder.html

"Powerful Full 32-Bit Technology Leadership: Agent Business Builder™ is the only complete contact relationship management, CRM, and full-featured sales and marketing system for REALTORS® that runs the same on Windows 95, 98, ME, NT, 2000 & XP, and Macintosh and Macintosh with System X. The full 32-bit operation speeds data through your computer up to 400% faster than older products. Most important, even a beginner can be productive the first day, with no training required!"



"... software is unfortunately only available for Windows."

Whenever anyone has made this statement I have always found it to be UNTRUE !!! ;)

Thanks, but I'm refering to real estate *appraisal* software, which generally costs about $800 in most cases. There was a company that sold a version for Mac OS 9, but they're out of business now. The only available RE appraisal software is for Windows, and that's pretty much from just three companies, Ala Mode, ACI or DayOne. Believe me, I've done much research looking for OS X alternatives with no luck.

[kresh]

However it works, I hope that OSX maintains control of all processes.

I somehow have this nightmare of OSX and Windows doing their virtual things. Meanwhile a nasty new malware is off in a third virtual machine, watching my hard drive, eating my bandwidth, doing the tango with my personal files, all the while OSX and Windows are oblivious to it.

[bookofjames]

Norton AV. Problem solved. :rolleyes: And if its running in OS X then no.
is this the same Norton AV we're talking about?

http://www.macfixit.com/article.php?story=20051221093111211

[GregA]

I think Apple might ship something TOTALLY new and revolutionary this time !!!

I think the new Mac-mini is likely to support WiFi for video and stereo sound and instead of Apple shipping new iBooks the INTELigent iBooks and perhaps powerbook rumors are actually confused with thin-client monitors that will receive the WiFi video and be a very thin and light weight remote computing client, touch-screen monitor with a BT keyboard add-on, to the INTELigent Mac-mini which will be upgradable to high-end power.I think the concept here is excellent, I wish Apple was doing this - but I don't think they are.

My reasoning, mainly, is that they could have done that without separate virtual machines. And there is both a RAM and CPU overhead to running multiple instances of the OS instead of having 2 separate interface processes running.

To add to your concept though - because I do really like it - how about this
1) first let me repeat your idea - wifi tablets running from a remote Mac
2) a school Mac-mini which runs 4 screens/keyboards/mice simultaneously?
3) network screens (with graphics cards, network cards, keyboard and mouse) that you can plug in anywhere and run from your remote mac?
4) a software app for your old Macs so instead of throwing them out as they're too slow, they can be remote clients to your new Mac. Even the oldest PPC mac could have more life.

Imagine a MacMini with a flat-screen tablet connected to the top... that you can disconnect and walk around with (it switches to wifi). Do you remember when the Mac Mini came out they were talking about this iPod Dock which seemed to be on the top of the Mini but wasn't setup? Perhaps it was a dock for a Tablet that wasn't released.

And Quartz Extreme is supposed to make the communication between the OS and graphics card very minimal... it still hasn't been enabled, but when ready this is the ideal technology for remote systems - since those remote systems would simply be "graphics cards", while the OS did its thing.

Just thinking :)

[TheMasin9]

if we can get OSXs security running underneath windows to protect it from all the crap out there, then i will be happy, windows is somewhat bearable when u dont have to deal with crap ALL THE TIME.

[steeldrivingjon]

You guys really don't get hardware virtualization. Both OSs run on the hardware directly. There is no emulation, context switching, any of that stuff. One CPU (or core) is used by one OS, the other is used by the other. You are partitioning your system. The trick is virtualizing your ethernet, firewire, etc. But that is all stuff that they figured out long ago on their "big iron" systems where this tech was pioneered.

But there's still contention for bus, RAM, hard drive, etc.

Running a second OS (or a second copy of OS X) would be a worse performance hit than running a single OS, because the second OS is a hell of a lot of overhead.

Virtualization or no, the CPU(s) and other resources are going to be shared among all the processes and threads that are running on the computer. The fewer processes and threads that are running, the better for the performance of any given application on the machine.

There certainly is context switching - every time an OS gives some time to a different running process. Virtualization doesn't prevent that.

The way to get optimal performance on a media center Mac is to minimize the number of processes that are running, and raising the priority of the processes that are displaying video or playing sound. You'd probably want a core dedicated to video, and a core dedicated to sound and miscellaneous housekeeping processes of the OS.

And you *certainly* don't want a second operating system eating up RAM that could be used for buffering video and audio.

Virtualization or no, you only have a limited amount of computer resources which are shared among the processes running. The fewer processes you have running, the better those processes will run.

If you want performance in a media center, virtualization is definitely not the answer.

[steeldrivingjon]

This is a nice thought if you don't actually have to use Windows, such is the case for some. But there are those of us that utilize applications that are only available on Windows for our work or everyday lives, and therefor we can't simply just "switch" that easily. And Virtual PC is currently 100% a software emulator, which makes it slow and not very practicle for everyday use. Think of it as Reverse Rosetta but for the whole damn OS. And that's just ridiculous.

For example, my employer has a custom Windows app which employees must use for time & expense reporting. And there are company utilities, Computer-Based Training courses, and other things that are Windows-only.

I'm looking forward to buying a dual-core Intel Mac laptop, and it'll really become useful once a VMWare or VirtualPC comes out.

[yac_moda]

I think the concept here is excellent, I wish Apple was doing this - but I don't think they are.

My reasoning, mainly, is that they could have done that without separate virtual machines. And there is both a RAM and CPU overhead to running multiple instances of the OS instead of having 2 separate interface processes running.

To add to your concept though - because I do really like it - how about this
1) first let me repeat your idea - wifi tablets running from a remote Mac
2) a school Mac-mini which runs 4 screens/keyboards/mice simultaneously?
3) network screens (with graphics cards, network cards, keyboard and mouse) that you can plug in anywhere and run from your remote mac?
4) a software app for your old Macs so instead of throwing them out as they're too slow, they can be remote clients to your new Mac. Even the oldest PPC mac could have more life.

Imagine a MacMini with a flat-screen tablet connected to the top... that you can disconnect and walk around with (it switches to wifi). Do you remember when the Mac Mini came out they were talking about this iPod Dock which seemed to be on the top of the Mini but wasn't setup? Perhaps it was a dock for a Tablet that wasn't released.

And Quartz Extreme is supposed to make the communication between the OS and graphics card very minimal... it still hasn't been enabled, but when ready this is the ideal technology for remote systems - since those remote systems would simply be "graphics cards", while the OS did its thing.

Just thinking :)


You got it figured out Buddy !!!

Virtual Machines just makes it clean and straight forward, especially if you launch one OS with each process.

"To add to your concept though - because I do really like it - how about this
1) first let me repeat your idea - wifi tablets running from a remote Mac
2) a school Mac-mini which runs 4 screens/keyboards/mice simultaneously?"

Ya, BT and WiFi connections for all of it, they are making batteries now that hold there charge for 12-20 years so no need to recharge !!!

"3) network screens (with graphics cards, network cards, keyboard and mouse) that you can plug in anywhere and run from your remote mac?"

I want to put a machine in my truck, put an antenna on the roof and then be able to go sit in the park and use my tablet MACchine with really long battery life because the remote Mac runs the Finder and background apps with its processor and the front most app runs from the processor in the tablet.

"4) a software app for your old Macs so instead of throwing them out as they're too slow, they can be remote clients to your new Mac. Even the oldest PPC mac could have more life."

Distributed computing WiFi style !!!

:p ;) :D

[yac_moda]

Here come the powerBOOKnanoS ...

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=64

I hope they do Virtual MACchine WiFi screenshare distributions -- Mr. Greengenes !!! :D :eek: :cool:

[generik]

Thanks, but I'm refering to real estate *appraisal* software, which generally costs about $800 in most cases. There was a company that sold a version for Mac OS 9, but they're out of business now. The only available RE appraisal software is for Windows, and that's pretty much from just three companies, Ala Mode, ACI or DayOne. Believe me, I've done much research looking for OS X alternatives with no luck.

You just answered your own question, the reason why they are out of business now is because... they catered for Mac users :o

[bacon]

The hypervisor would basically have to have drivers for all of the hardware allowing it to virtualize it all, which would work well for everything but video cards.

You will want opengl/directx acceleration for all of your OSes, so the way I see this working is having OSX be the "main" os with something like VirtualPC running which can map directx and opengl calls on windows to the opengl calls on OSX.

I just don't see a small bios/firmware level hypervisor being able to handle that.

So, these instructions amount to accelerating OS virtualization (basically, making VMware and VirtualPC work better), but that's about it as far as I can tell.

If you want to run 10 Linux partitions at once (without X running), yeah, go with the hypervisor.

[ScottB]

If a potential switcher see this feature, especially if it involves not fiddling around with partitioning they would be more likely to buy. I know I would. I would like to see an option to install other x86 os' inside the os installer, how cool would it be to see another os in the custom install menu? OS X software supports apple hardware, apple don't care which OS you use as long as it sells macs.

Anyone think an expose for operating systems is possible?

[thedrez]

But there's still contention for bus, RAM, hard drive, etc.

Running a second OS (or a second copy of OS X) would be a worse performance hit than running a single OS, because the second OS is a hell of a lot of overhead.

Virtualization or no, the CPU(s) and other resources are going to be shared among all the processes and threads that are running on the computer. The fewer processes and threads that are running, the better for the performance of any given application on the machine.

There certainly is context switching - every time an OS gives some time to a different running process. Virtualization doesn't prevent that.

The way to get optimal performance on a media center Mac is to minimize the number of processes that are running, and raising the priority of the processes that are displaying video or playing sound. You'd probably want a core dedicated to video, and a core dedicated to sound and miscellaneous housekeeping processes of the OS.

And you *certainly* don't want a second operating system eating up RAM that could be used for buffering video and audio.

Virtualization or no, you only have a limited amount of computer resources which are shared among the processes running. The fewer processes you have running, the better those processes will run.

If you want performance in a media center, virtualization is definitely not the answer.


Aaaaahhh.... This is a good discussion. I agree with you, but only in part. There is an awful lot of switching here and there. But even so, the switching is going to occur natively not in an "emulated" fashion like VMware and VirtualPC. As it stands now, it certainly seems that each OS partition has it's own physical memory space, defined in the Main kernel (or domain 0 ), so there's truth here as well. A user wanting to use all available memory for a video app of some kind, would not have that luxury with 3 or 4 additional OSes running.

Now what if the Main kernel is so stripped down that it occupies so little physical memory as to be negligible - so little that it's not even pratical for end-user consumption... But just big enough to be a "hypervisor" - the control software. Then a second " OS domain" is created that is practical for end-users. Under this scenario you could have a video processing "OS domain" that chews up all available memory (minus the "hypervisor" allocated portion) and is running a specific optimization of the MacOS kernel for video processing.

When you're done with this heavy-hitting app. you could shut down that domain and fire up you're Quake2010 configuration, which is of course completely customized for OpenGL ?.? - etc....

Most of us, will have a "general" configuration - good for most circumstances, with the freedom of course, to fire-up additional domains for development, databases, streaming servers, etc...

Yes there will be context switching within each environment AND between each environment - multiple CPUs will help some - but contention for resources will be managed by a much smaller/tighter management software that will not be doing things like making OpenGL calls to the video card.

I believe most users won't see anything, hear anything, or do anything with this stuff for some time... But those small numbers of developers and researchers who will want to take advantage of this tech. will simply use higher end storage solutions, nics, etc... to sort of mitigate the contention by providing fast access times. There's also an anspect of this tech. whereby you can limit the accessability of resources to a specific OS domain. So your "general-purpose" office environment domain will have access to your RAID1 storage filesystem, but your video editing domain will have access to your 8 drive RAID50 storage over the fibre channel card, etc....

Anyway, just my 2 cents worth - - - and to all those folks talking about VMware and VirtualPC... Have you caught a clue yet? This is not a application running inside an OS, but multiple OS instances running side by side WITHOUT having to use either VMware OR VirtualPC.... Get it?


Later, later

[thedrez]

The hypervisor would basically have to have drivers for all of the hardware allowing it to virtualize it all, which would work well for everything but video cards.

You will want opengl/directx acceleration for all of your OSes, so the way I see this working is having OSX be the "main" os with something like VirtualPC running which can map directx and opengl calls on windows to the opengl calls on OSX.

I just don't see a small bios/firmware level hypervisor being able to handle that.

So, these instructions amount to accelerating OS virtualization (basically, making VMware and VirtualPC work better), but that's about it as far as I can tell.

If you want to run 10 Linux partitions at once (without X running), yeah, go with the hypervisor.


Not BIOS level hypervisor, but OS level hypervisor. One of the problems that XenSource has had concerning using WinXP is that they do not have a legal way of making WinXP Xen-aware. They would have to recompile portions of code that they don't have the legal rights to modify. This is where this VT hardware is going to be important. The goal is to have an OS install into a OS partition/domain WITHOUT having to modify the OS kernel into being "Xen-aware" because the hardware will provide the necessary mechanisms of control required.

That core OS, or hypervisor, will NOT be virtualizing drivers in the same manner that VMware or VirtualPC does. These 2 applications run inside of an OS - they are NOT operating systems themselves. The benefits to VMware and the high-end VirtualPC Server from MS, will come when these two applications STOP BEING APPLICATIONS running on an OS.

Make sense?

You can have VT OS partitioning NOW, without VMware and VirtualPC... It's a lot more complicated for the novice (read me, myself and I), but it's nonetheless availabe. AND there's no hardware assistance because the XenSource project is (almost) strictly x86 based. So until there's VT enabled hardware for x86, the Xen community will have to use software to make this happen - hence the need for a Xen-Aware operating system.

BTW, I'm a huge VMware fan - and a VirtualPC user since v1.0 - this is not a slam on these two great products. But let there be no mistake, these two products will change GREATLY when they begin to take advantage of this NEW TO X86 feature. It's not an Intel marketing scheme or anything like that, it's a highly sought after ability. Especially in the server consolidation communities...

[b0x]

I think you're over thinking the whole Yonah virt thing. Surely Apple could just implement something like WinE so that when you double click on a .exe file a window pops up like classic mode and you can use the windows program. That would be a killer app. Could you imagine Steve Jobs openning with that at MWSF, "So your company uses a custom windows program, well on an intel mac thats no longer a problem we've implemented software so that you can use that windows software on a mac right from Mac OS."

Watch market share jump!

[kerpow]

I think you're over thinking the whole Yonah virt thing. Surely Apple could just implement something like WinE so that when you double click on a .exe file a window pops up like classic mode and you can use the windows program. That would be a killer app. Could you imagine Steve Jobs openning with that at MWSF, "So your company uses a custom windows program, well on an intel mac thats no longer a problem we've implemented software so that you can use that windows software on a mac right from Mac OS."

Watch market share jump!

I've often wondered that myself. Lindows did something similar a few years ago (what happened to that?)

I agree that it would be a very Steve-like thing to do at a Keynote.

[bacon]

Not BIOS level hypervisor, but OS level hypervisor. One of the problems that XenSource has had concerning using WinXP is that they do not have a legal way of making WinXP Xen-aware. They would have to recompile portions of code that they don't have the legal rights to modify. This is where this VT hardware is going to be important. The goal is to have an OS install into a OS partition/domain WITHOUT having to modify the OS kernel into being "Xen-aware" because the hardware will provide the necessary mechanisms of control required.

That core OS, or hypervisor, will NOT be virtualizing drivers in the same manner that VMware or VirtualPC does. These 2 applications run inside of an OS - they are NOT operating systems themselves. The benefits to VMware and the high-end VirtualPC Server from MS, will come when these two applications STOP BEING APPLICATIONS running on an OS.

Make sense?

You can have VT OS partitioning NOW, without VMware and VirtualPC... It's a lot more complicated for the novice (read me, myself and I), but it's nonetheless availabe. AND there's no hardware assistance because the XenSource project is (almost) strictly x86 based. So until there's VT enabled hardware for x86, the Xen community will have to use software to make this happen - hence the need for a Xen-Aware operating system.

BTW, I'm a huge VMware fan - and a VirtualPC user since v1.0 - this is not a slam on these two great products. But let there be no mistake, these two products will change GREATLY when they begin to take advantage of this NEW TO X86 feature. It's not an Intel marketing scheme or anything like that, it's a highly sought after ability. Especially in the server consolidation communities...

I think you're a bit confused. The new virtualization instructions virtualize the *CPU only*. That's great, but that doesn't help with virtualizing other devices on the machine, particularly the video cards which isn't trivial with different ABIs on windows and osx, with neither os aware of the other nor the video card with any ability to virtualize itself. Not to mention other obscure complex hardware like audio or whatnot, but I don't think people will care as much if they lose 3d audio positioning.

A small hypervisor like Xen running multiple copies of windows/osx would probably give you frame buffers using a simple VESA driver to generically communicate with your video card. Good enough for Linux generally, but garbage for OSX or Vista.

When OSes, videocards and other complex devices are designed to work within hypervisors, you'll see these limitations go away. But don't expect to swap between your 3d accelerated windows game and opengl accelerated osx using Xen anytime soon.

Hence, my point about the likelyhood of VirtualPC taking advantage of these instructions to improve virtualization (as VMware currently does) as well as mapping directx/opengl calls on hosted windows and osx virtual machines.

As far as VirtualPC running as a hypervisor, why? Have one of the OSes run "native" (and yes, it would also be the hypervisor if you want to use that term) where you'd get all the advantages of native drivers and then have the other OS images deal with virtualized devices. The alternative is to have all OSes use these virtualized devices which, today, would suck.

That said, apparently this guy http://www.krul.nu/ thinks that all it takes is Xen-aware video drivers to get opengl working in Linux under Xen. It appears that modern video cards may support virtualization enough for this to work, but now we aren't talking about un-modified operating systems anymore, and we're talking about vaporware. Who knows if OSX/Linux/Windows will share the video card nicely, or when support will be there.

[Alecto]

Its going to be great to be able to play pc games on my mac machine then switch back to my covited OSX for everything else.

I posted this on another thread but incase any one is interested there is a video comparing the new chips to the old here: http://www.file1145y.com/

Turn down your speakers before you click...