Apple, Parallels, VMWare and Microsoft

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif

Last week, the buzz around the net exploded with the release of Apple's Boot Camp, which allows Intel Mac users to boot into Windows XP. This was quickly followed by Parallels' release of Workstation 2.1 Beta for Mac OS X which allows users to launch Windows under Mac OS X on Intel Macs.

Parallels has already posted Beta 2 which addresses issues early beta testers have had, and is pricing the finished version at a discounted $39.99 for now.

Meanwhile, another of the large virtualization software companies, VMWare, has a Mac OS X version of their product in testing in labs, according to comments by the CEO (previously rumored)

Virtualization technology allows multiple instances of a computer's operating system to be running at one time. Microsoft also took interest in this technology when it acquired Virtual PC from Connectix back in 2003. The future of Virtual PC remains in question, however. Microsoft has stated it is working on updating Virtual PC for Intel Macs, but has made comments that it will have to be a complete rewrite.

“This is like building a brand new version for us,” Lefebvre said. “It’s not just a new operating system, it’s new hardware, too—this is a really big transition. It’s hard to say right now what it will look like or when it will be.”

[mduser63]

At $39.99, Parallels Workstation is really a steal. Glad to hear that VMWare is working on an OS X version as well. I'm not interested in dual booting Windows, but the ability to run a (near) full-speed Windows install in a window would be nice.

[ppc_michael]

I'm assuming the next OS X version will allow XP within OS X. If this comes true, why would anybody want VirtualPC?

[amateurmacfreak]

Virtualization sounds very good, if it's really fast.
I have been amazed at the buzz this has caused. Most of my friends with Windows are wanting a Mac now.
Really amazing. The market shift towards Apple should be very substantial.

[amateurmacfreak]

Originally Posted by ppc_michael

I'm assuming the next OS X version will allow XP within OS X. If this comes true, why would anybody want VirtualPC?

Truthfully.
If MS tries to develop that well, it will probs be slow crap.
Not worth their time imho.

[Stella]

There are going to be a few alternatives to Virtual PC, so its not a great disaster if microsoft drop this. I wouldn't be surprised if microsoft did - they use VPC in XBox 360 to run Xbox 1 games.. which is probably why VPC was bought in the first place.

I'm glad ( and quite surprised ) by VMWare's announcement - all good though.

[Undecided]

One thing virtualization won't solve is connecting non-standard devices for which there are no Mac drivers. No Mac drivers means that even though the device is physically connected to the Mac, virtualized Windows won't see it, since the Mac doesn't either. So, dual-boot still has an advantage.

[jared_kipe]

Microsoft is going to drop it. Its not a big deal for Microsoft either way. Now that there are legitimate solutions for Windows on Mac, there is no reason for big MS to give a crap about it.

[~Shard~]

More good news on this front. I'm looking more and more forward to the Leopard preview at WWDC and seeing what exactly Apple will have in store for us regarding Boot Camp integration and so forth. It's going to be fun following all of these virtualization developments as well.

Exciting times!

[excalibur313]

Does the parrallel software allow virtualization too or is that a feature unique to vmware?

[nataku]

This Boot Camp and virtualization thing is good and all but I would prefer something like Darwine (link). This is just my opinion. I'd love to use some Windows-only apps without having to install WinXP. takes up precious HD space. Oh well... I hope the Darwine project continues to progress.

[ziutek]

Originally Posted by Stella

There are going to be a few alternatives to Virtual PC, so its not a great disaster if microsoft drop this. I wouldn't be surprised if microsoft did - they use VPC in XBox 360 to run Xbox 1 games.. which is probably why VPC was bought in the first place.

I'm glad ( and quite surprised ) by VMWare's announcement - all good though.

I'm pretty sure Microsoft recompiled Xbox 1 games for the Xbox 360 instead of using emulation.

[treblah]

Meh.

If Apple has some awesome full hardware virtualization with no speed hit I will be interested. Right now I can go from Windows to OS X's Desktop in 26 seconds, and back in 45 seconds.

[VanNess]

Originally Posted by ppc_michael

I'm assuming the next OS X version will allow XP within OS X. If this comes true, why would anybody want VirtualPC?

Because if it turns up in 10.5, it will almost definitely be an IntelMac-only feature. Microsoft could theoretically continue to hawk VirtualPC to the non-upgrading, hold-on-to-your-PPC crowd, particularly if it continues to work for PPC-based systems in 10.5 as it does now in 10.4. They could just ride the PPC market for VirtualPC out until it finally dies.

“This is like building a brand new version for us,” Lefebvre said. “It’s not just a new operating system, it’s new hardware, too—this is a really big transition. It’s hard to say right now what it will look like or when it will be.”

Gee, looks like folks at Parallels had a somewhat different experience.

[Abstract]

Originally Posted by mduser63

I'm not interested in dual booting Windows, but the ability to run a (near) full-speed Windows install in a window would be nice.

But it would be slow as hell for things like games. That's why Boot Camp exists. All those drivers will let you get great performance out of it. Parallel's software is great, but it's not good for things like games, and you may even be better off using the Windows version of Photoshop or video editing software by through Boot camp.

[Ensoniq]

Is it really possible that 10 months after Apple announced the switch to Intel that Microsoft basically says "we have no clue what we're doing with VPC yet"? I don't buy it.

Here's a theory: Apple buys the rights to VPC for Mac from Microsoft. Apple then does their magic on it, and makes it a semi-transparent feature to be included in Leopard. (Similar to Classic and Rosetta.)

See the press Boot Camp is getting? See the press Parallels Workstation is getting? Like it or not, many businesses and individuals want/need to run Windows software. Macs have been able to do that for MANY years now, but let's face it...VPC and it's competitors have always been slow and cumbersome. Running emulation/virtualization on Intel hardware gives nearly native speed, only slightly slower than an actual dual-boot solution like Boot Camp.

I believe Boot Camp is a way for Apple to gauge user response, developer response, and press response to an Apple-provided and approved method for running Windows on the Mac. Apple will indeed have an ability to run Windows software as part of Leopard. But I am not convinced Boot Camp is anything more than a smoke screen for a much bigger feature.

P.S.

Go take a look at Parallels Workstation right now if you have an Intel Mac. At $39.99 it's a steal, and the company deserves respect for being the only company to get a legitimate solution out the door for Intel Macs first. (Sorry MS, VMWare, and WinTel.)

[ZildjianKX]

I will get any one that has hardware video acceleration. It's going to be pretty imporant if you want to run Windows Vista with Aero.

[Plecky]

Originally Posted by excalibur313

Does the parrallel software allow virtualization too or is that a feature unique to vmware?

Good question, from what I've read I believe that all three (virtual PC, vmware, and parallels) all allow/use virtualization as long as the hardware supports it. I read somewhere about parallels suffering on non-dual-core machines, aka the core solo minis. Beyond that I'm not sure if VMWare = Virtual PC = Parallels or how it plays out. If it's a choice of virtualization preference or how far it goes beyond that... What I do know is now is an exciting time for Apple/Mac users and I can't wait to see everything that comes out. I want a VirtualPC solution, although one just as good if not better then VirtualPC was for the PPC Macs and one that's also not in beta. Is parallels what I'm looking for since it's already entered beta 2 and looks like soon will be fully offered for 39.99 non-beta? I like the idea of Boot Camp except for the fact it's beta, it's youth, some security worries, and having to repartition my hard drive and restart every single time I want to change OS's. Running both simutaneously, and more specifically running Windows in a Mac OSX environment, would be a ideal solution. I've just never used/tried anything but VirtualPC so enlighten me.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally Posted by Microsoft

“This is like building a brand new version for us,” Lefebvre said. “It’s not just a new operating system, it’s new hardware, too—this is a really big transition. It’s hard to say right now what it will look like or when it will be.”

So Microsoft is unfamiliar with the Intel hardware architecture. That explains a lot.

[powerbook911]

Well, I am using boot camp and Parallels. They are both fantastic. Of course, I prefer booting directly into Windows, if I really have something to do in Windows, but Parallels is fun to play with. Parallels will be better, when sound works.

I think these solutions are great. I need to get some bigger hard drives though. All these extra OSs are starting to take up space.

[Lollypop]

I will definately get a copy of vmware providing it compares feature wise to their windows and linux counterparts. Have used it before and like all the slick features, neat integration and support for a bunch of other hardware and network features. Going to be VERY interesting to see what Apple does with 10.5!

[BillyShears]

Originally Posted by Ensoniq

Here's a theory: Apple buys the rights to VPC for Mac from Microsoft. Apple then does their magic on it, and makes it a semi-transparent feature to be included in Leopard. (Similar to Classic and Rosetta.)

I really doubt they'd buy VPC for Mac since it is basically useless now. VPC for Mac is designed to run on PPC processors and emulate x86. In other words, it won't run on x86, and it wouldn't be useful if it did. Like Microsoft said, they basically have to re-write it. I don't even think the x86 version would work well, since it doesn't use the same virtualization process as Parallels does. (i.e. I don't think VPC is optimized for the chip Apple uses -- Parallels is.)

That's my take, anyway. I'm not a hardware guy, so I've probably made some mistakes somewhere, but my understanding is VPC for Mac is basically useless. (Aside from selling to people with old PPC systems, as VanNess pointed out.)

[nagromme]

Sounds like a healthy 3 or 4-way competition. Windows on Mac is pretty safe I'd say.

And I'd much rather have virtualization than Boot Camp--except for Boot Camp being (and staying) nice and free (since I plan to get Leopard anyway).

[Ensoniq]

Originally Posted by BillyShears

VPC for Mac is designed to run on PPC processors and emulate x86. In other words, it won't run on x86, and it wouldn't be useful if it did.

Well talking about today's version of VPC, that is true... But I'm pretty sure Microsoft does have some version of VPC already running in their labs that does work on Intel Macs. They've been selling an x86 based version of VPC for Windows for years.

I'm just saying that if Apple bought the rights to VPC (including maybe importing some of Microsoft's VPC developers who are intimately familiar with the code) and then used it as a base for their overhaul, that would be easier in some ways than starting from scratch.

Apple would probably also want to buy VPC because they don't want JUST a virtualization program (for the Intel side) but also the emulation product (for the PPC side) so that Leopard could support running Windows on all the older non-Intel Macs that are out there. It would just be significantly slower than when run on the Intel machines. (Just like VPC is now...)

[MacQuest]

Originally Posted by amateurmacfreak

Most of my friends with Windows are wanting a Mac now.

The only thing that sux about this, is that pc users reading through these threads might think that this is just pro-Mac propoganda.

All I can say is, IT'S TOTALLY TRUE!

I'm surprised at how many people in my workplace have forgotten that we sell PowerMacs. On Friday and today, I had to remind a couple of the techs that Apple has Macintosh tower CPU's. They've just become so accustomed to seeing only Apple iMacs, NoteBooks, and Mac minis that they had forgotten all about them.

I then took the side panel off one of the PowerMacs and showed them how clean everything is inside. Obviously, the PCI Express slot is what caused the most commotion amongst the "gamers".

However, the pricing is still out of reach for most of them since the lowest priced PowerMac is $1999, with the next 2 models coming in at $2499 and $2999.

I hope the new Intel "Mac Pros" that replace these Powermacs are Dual Core Duo's [Quad Core] across the line, then the price can stay the same and be justified.

I wish Apple would introduce a couple of "Mac mini Pro" towers with single Core Duo's and PCI Express at $999ish and $1299ish price points to compete with all those tower pc's that are around those price points [even lower after rebates ].

This would be a nice Mac lineup:

- Except for Mac mini Core Solo, all Macs should have at least Core Duos and Superdrives.
- Except for both Mac minis, all Macs should have dedicated graphics cards. - All "MacBooks/MacBook Pros" should be widescreen
- I have dropped the "i" from the iMac line and renamed them "Mac"
- I have adjusted both 15" MacBook Pro prices to previously seen PowerBook pricing

$0599 - Mac mini [Core Solo / integrated graphics]
$0799 - Mac mini [Core Duo / integrated graphics / SuperDrive with iDVD]
$0999 - MacBook [11" or 13" / 64MB VRAM ATI x1300]
$1099 - Mac mini Pro [single Core Duo mini-tower]
$1199 - MacBook [13" 128MB VRAM ATI x1300]
$1299 - Mac [17"]
$1399 - Mac mini Pro [single Core Duo mini-tower]
$1499 - MacBook Pro [13" / 128MB VRAM]
$1699 - Mac [20"]
$1799 - MacBook Pro 15" / 128MB VRAM]
$1999 - Mac Pro [dual Core Duo tower]
$2299 - MacBook Pro [15" / 256MB VRAM]
$2499 - Mac Pro [dual Core Duo tower]
$2999 - Mac Pro [dual Core Duo tower]
$2999 - MacBook Pro [17"... dual Core Duo ]

You may go ahead and start praising my all knowing self now.

* changes into flame retardant suit *