VMWare On Mac OSX Coming?

[MacRumors]

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

With the recent release of the final version of Parallels Desktop for Mac OS X (Intel), some are wondering where market-leader VMWare is in developing a virtualization solution for OS X, if at all. While previous comments by VMWare CEO Diane Greene had stated that their product was running on Macs in their labs, little has been indicated about a release timetable, or if the company was going to release the solution at all.

Virtualization.info recently interviewed Raghu Raghuram, Vice President of Platform Products at VMware. While not offering a ton of new information, he did indicate that announcements were forthcoming.

With Apple switching to x86-based processors, robust and proven virtualization capabilities for Apple users is an interesting opportunity. We have stated that we do have VMware running on Mac OS X in our labs - stay tuned for future announcements in this area.

[Arcus]

This would be ultra sweet.

[Core Trio]

Now I dont have an intel mac, and ive never even seen parallels in action, but the general concensus seems to be that it is a great piece of software. Aside from a lack of high end graphics support, is there anything that VMware could possibly improve on what parallels has already done? Or are we just going to have many versions of the same software from Parallels, VMware, and Microsoft (VirtualPC)

[jephrey]

I say, the more options the better. If VPC makes software too, that'd be great. I don't know if there are any limitations or small quirks when using parallels software, and if there will be any with VMWare or VPC, but it's quite possible that each will offer something slightly different. Plus, the competition can only do good things. Right now, my only real option is VPC, and although I'm happy with it, it'd sure be nice if a bunch of other softwares were around to push the importance of perfecting it.

Anyhow, my opinion is that apple should either buy one of these companies, or work on their own virtualization software. It's debateable for sure, but my hunch says that boot camp and a piece of virtualization software could really help the push to get people to switch.

Jephrey

[kainjow]

A little late in the game, I'd say. The only thing VMware can do is offer a cheaper alternative to Parallels, and the ability to use existing VMware machines from Linux/Windows on your Mac without having to recreate them (which wouldn't be that many users).

[bigandy]

Originally Posted by kainjow

A little late in the game, I'd say. The only thing VMware can do is offer a cheaper alternative to Parallels, and the ability to use existing VMware machines from Linux/Windows on your Mac without having to recreate them (which wouldn't be that many users).

hahaha. cheaper than parallels??

[ebow]

Originally Posted by kainjow

A little late in the game, I'd say. The only thing VMware can do is offer a cheaper alternative to Parallels, and the ability to use existing VMware machines from Linux/Windows on your Mac without having to recreate them (which wouldn't be that many users).

The could be innovative and find a way to use the Windows partition from Bootcamp as the hard drive within VMWare, as an option. That would allow those who want it to have only one Windows setup, accessible through both a virtualization product (within OS X) and standalone with full access to hardware. There are probably way more potential snags or roadblocks to this than I can imagine, but there may be room for differentiation.

[g4pismo]

One of the benefits of VMware, if they port to OSX, is they will have all the major OS's covered. I use a Mac,Windows and Linux systems at work. I find that I often move my VM's around quite a bit. I can share Virt.PC VM's with my Windows box and Mac, but I can’t share them with my Linux box. Same problem with VMWare today, I can share between my Linux box and Windows, but not with the Mac. This would allow me to use one platform.

[kainjow beat me to it]

[IscariotJ]

It's doubtful if VMware's offering will be a cheaper alternative to Parallels, considering that VM Workstation is currently about $180, I think ( I'm discounting VMware Player, as it doesn't allow the creation of VM's, and Parallels don't have an equivalent product to the free VMware Server ).

Feature-wise, there isn't much between them ( VMware supports ACPI, for example ). As has been pointed out, the main benefit to VMware, is the ability to move the VM's between machines/OS's. I haven't tried, but I don't think it's possible to move a VM from OSX to Win32/Linux with Parallels.

I'd be happy to see VMware come out with a Mac offering ( and soon ). The more options, the better off we are. I can see the only loser here being Microsoft. VMware already have a reputation for credible VM software, and Parallels have the distinction of being the first to market. The lack of info on VPC for Intel Macs ( apart from a mention saying they were talking with Apple to see if it is feasible, see here, http://www.microsoft.com/mac/default...pid=macIntelQA ) makes me wonder if MS are wondering if it's worth the bother.

Be interesting to see if Apple make a move on Parallels, in the long run. I think that VMware will be a little too large for Apple to swallow.

[dicklacara]

This is good news.

Also, there is at least one other solution on the horizon: Q at

http://www.kberg.ch/q/

Q is not as refined as Parallels (alpha), but it is pretty good and has some nice features:

1) you can run the Vista Beta 2 on Q

2) Q will run on PPC or intel Macs

3) Q can import VPC virtual machines

4) Q has multiple, pre-installed OSes available for download

I have run many windows emulators over the years (SoftWindows, Virtual PC, etc.) and the current offerings (especially on a MacTel) are great.

I have never owned a PC, and never will... but there are some Win apps that I must run.

I try to support them all (purchase or donation) because you can never have too many options...

My current favorite is running Parallels with a Win real-time Stock Market app while running a TV Market show streamed from the family room with CyTV (OS X only). With virtue Desktop I immediately switch between full-screen Stock Info & full-screen TV... really neat

Dick

[aristobrat]

Originally Posted by Core Trio

Aside from a lack of high end graphics support, is there anything that VMware could possibly improve on what parallels has already done?

We use VMWare at work for a bunch of servers. It would be cool to be able to move a copy of the Virtual Machine from a server to my MacBook if I want to dink around with it.

[AidenShaw]

Originally Posted by Core Trio

is there anything that VMware could possibly improve on what parallels has already done? Or are we just going to have many versions of the same software from Parallels, VMware, and Microsoft (VirtualPC)

VMware supports multi-CPU virtual machines, so that your VM can use both of the CPUs in your dual-core system.

VMware also supports running 64-bit VM operating systems (Windows XP 64-bit, Linux 64-bit, ...) even if it's running on a 32-bit host. (The host must be an x64-capable CPU - so that doesn't help Apple users until next week when Woodies show up.)

[jayducharme]

BTW, has anyone heard of MS viruses corrupting the new Intel Macs if Windows is booted into? It would be a real problem if a virus prevented re-booting the machine. I've heard that virtualization software contains any viruses to the data file (which can easily be deleted), so any threat is greatly reduced.

[gkhaldi]

Originally Posted by jayducharme

BTW, has anyone heard of MS viruses corrupting the new Intel Macs if Windows is booted into? It would be a real problem if a virus prevented re-booting the machine. I've heard that virtualization software contains any viruses to the data file (which can easily be deleted), so any threat is greatly reduced.

With virtualization everything is contained in one large image. A virus comes in the virtualized environment, it'll stay there (unless you open a socket to yr base system which would make it vulnerable / prone for infection).

[ChrisA]

Originally Posted by Macrumors

.....he did indicate that announcements were forthcoming.

I think I know when the forthcoming announcement will happen: VMware will be included in the next version of Mac OS. We will learn this in August.

I use VMware daily. It's great. If you have enough RAM and a strong enough CPU you can keep multiple virtual machines running full time. Each runs as fast as a "real" PC. I keep multiple versions of Linux and Solaris inside virual machines. I need this for testing to see that my software runs on these platforms. It is very fast on my duel Xeon box. I expect it would be fast on a Woodcrest powered Power Mac (mac pro?) and run acceptably fast on a Core Dual Mini. if you load in 2GB RAM.

[Boony]

Originally Posted by Macrumors

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

With the recent release of the final version of Parallels Desktop for Mac OS X (Intel), some are wondering where market-leader VMWare is in developing a virtualization solution for OS X, if at all. While previous comments by VMWare CEO Diane Greene had stated that their product was running on Macs in their labs, little has been indicated about a release timetable, or if the company was going to release the solution at all.

Virtualization.info recently interviewed Raghu Raghuram, Vice President of Platform Products at VMware. While not offering a ton of new information, he did indicate that announcements were forthcoming.

This is very good, but why ?

Once in a time, some years ago, I did some beta-testing for Connectix Virtual PC. It was born on a Mac platform and did some cool stuff like learning another Processor-architecture. Yes, bringing the same product out on an Intel-Based Platform. So the people behind connectix had the same capabilities what Apple Corp. can do with it's operating system. Boxing the mac-os out on different Microprocessor Architectures. What I see, there's no company more that can port an Operating System over on a different Microprocessor Architecture anymore. Just Apple. OK, Parallels make's the product available for another OS, but the same Intel Architecture. The same with VMWare, now they're porting cause OS X runs on an Intel Architecture.

In fact, it's poor manufacturing. I thought Microsoft did it once, porting Windows (server) over on another Processor Architecture. But they've dropped the product. And, what are the goals (a time ago) by buying over Connectix ? To get some foot in the door of Apple, or promote M$ Virtual Machine instead of porting Word over to OS X native (on PPC), you can buy a Windows License ? To Shake Apple Corp. with the words: And what if you users get no Word anymore ?

But see the facts, M$ is loosing grip on everything they've porting to another processor architecture and OS. Like a BIG Elephant that moves slowly, little mice makes better products. In fact Apple Corp. is at the moment a BIG winner, as a little mice in the BIG and slowly M$, IBM blues and Sun micro systems industry. (I think you will remember Project Looking Glass - And look at Apple's OS X Dashboard, Frontrow ....)

In the last run, the better OS (like OS X) will virtualize the simple standards like Windosez etc .... I think VM Ware knows that, and step by step it's doing its plans: Server virtualizations on (L)unix user friendly systems like MAC OS X.

Microsoft Windows is dead, it's an OLD architecture ... It's a wheel re-invented with wistle and bells ... But it rolls anymore

Peter

[Gasu E.]

VMWare is the gold standard in this space, it is industrial-strength, it has a dominant market share, and it has a huge IT player behind it (EMC). It's not aimed at game-players. But for those who think Apple should be making a play for the Enterprise space (and BTW, I'm not one of them), this would be a significant win.

[croasmun]

http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.ph...umer_desktops/

Anybody read this? Looks like transparent support of Windows apps through a VM implimentation presented through a "unified desktop interface." Sounds to me like double click an .exe file and away you go.

Presumably you'd still have to pay for/install Windows for the VM to have an OS to host, but, wow, this patent seems to describe a computer on which [literally] everything JUST WORKS. (.exe, .app, etc.)

[AidenShaw]

Originally Posted by Boony

What I see, there's no company more that can port an Operating System over on a different Microprocessor Architecture anymore. Just Apple.

Don't check any facts, because you'll find out that Microsoft Windows (the NT-based version) has been released, sold and supported on:

• MIPS R-series RISC processors
• Digital's Alpha Processors
• Motorola/IBM PowerPC processors
• Intel IA64 processors (Itanium)
• Intel/AMD 32-bit x86 processors (386/486/...)
• Intel/AMD x64 processors (EM64T/AMD64)

Only Apple? What about Digital/Compaq/HP's OpenVMS system? (VAX, Alpha, Itanium). HP/UX? SunOS/Solaris?

Also, don't forget that OSX is based on NextStep and one of the BSD variants - both of which ran on x86 since before Next bought Apple. Apple's "genius" was in simply not breaking the existing multi-architecture port - they didn't suddenly do something fantastic last summer.

It's not magic, and it doesn't indicate that Apple is the brightest bulb in the pack - Apple's following in the footsteps of everyone else...

Originally Posted by Boony

Microsoft Windows is dead, it's an OLD architecture...

Yes it's old (NT was first released 12 years ago), but UNIX might very well be older than your parents.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi.../3/32/Unix.png

[Evangelion]

Originally Posted by Boony

What I see, there's no company more that can port an Operating System over on a different Microprocessor Architecture anymore.

Um, Linux? Not only does it run on about zillion architectures, the latest version of the kernel added support for Sun's Niagara-processors. So it's still being ported to different architectures as we speak. It's just that there has been no major new releases of CPU-architectures. But when there is, Linux is usually the first OS to support the new arch. Linux was first to support x86-64 for example. Solaris ran first on Niagara (naturally), but Linux was the second OS to run on it (IIRC).

NetBSD is also very good at this porting-stuff, but it seems that Linux is overtaking it.

[Stella]

Buying VPC also allowed microsoft to build the emulator to allow Xbox 360 to run XBox 1 - which is PPC 970... This functionality would be / *is* far more profitable than for purely selling VPC to Apple users.

Windows NT used to run on multiple architectures, but slowly, microsoft axed them. The Alpha was the last to go.

Windows is far from dead.

Originally Posted by Boony

This is very good, but why ?

Once in a time, some years ago, I did some beta-testing for Connectix Virtual PC. It was born on a Mac platform and did some cool stuff like learning another Processor-architecture. Yes, bringing the same product out on an Intel-Based Platform. So the people behind connectix had the same capabilities what Apple Corp. can do with it's operating system. Boxing the mac-os out on different Microprocessor Architectures. What I see, there's no company more that can port an Operating System over on a different Microprocessor Architecture anymore. Just Apple. OK, Parallels make's the product available for another OS, but the same Intel Architecture. The same with VMWare, now they're porting cause OS X runs on an Intel Architecture.

In fact, it's poor manufacturing. I thought Microsoft did it once, porting Windows (server) over on another Processor Architecture. But they've dropped the product. And, what are the goals (a time ago) by buying over Connectix ? To get some foot in the door of Apple, or promote M$ Virtual Machine instead of porting Word over to OS X native (on PPC), you can buy a Windows License ? To Shake Apple Corp. with the words: And what if you users get no Word anymore ?

But see the facts, M$ is loosing grip on everything they've porting to another processor architecture and OS. Like a BIG Elephant that moves slowly, little mice makes better products. In fact Apple Corp. is at the moment a BIG winner, as a little mice in the BIG and slowly M$, IBM blues and Sun micro systems industry. (I think you will remember Project Looking Glass - And look at Apple's OS X Dashboard, Frontrow ....)

In the last run, the better OS (like OS X) will virtualize the simple standards like Windosez etc .... I think VM Ware knows that, and step by step it's doing its plans: Server virtualizations on (L)unix user friendly systems like MAC OS X.

Microsoft Windows is dead, it's an OLD architecture ... It's a wheel re-invented with wistle and bells ... But it rolls anymore

Peter

[mguthart]

It'll be interesting to see what develops from this. While it is encouraging, I wouldn't be surprised if they came up with a reliable way to first get the intel-MacOSX to run under VMWare on the PC. (Nothing against the fine efforts going on at the OSx86 project by the way).

Don't get me wrong - I love the Mac as much as anyone else out there.

But realistically their development time/cost efforts would be much less going this route first, especially as they could leverage the various VMWare versions they already have built. It could also buy them some time for getting a native Mac version polished up and released.

Just a thought.

[jayducharme]

You're all mentioning many of the virtual PC products out there except one: has anyone tried GuestPC? (It's at > http://www.lismoresystems.com <)

I've been using it for a while and I'm really impressed. I mainly wanted to run Rollercoaster Tycoon without having to keep a separate PC in the house. I tried iEmulator, and it was terrible. So I was hesitant to plunk down $40 for GuestPC, but I'm glad I did. On my dual 1.8 PowerMac G5 with 3.5gb RAM, Rollercoaster Tycoon runs as well as it did on my PC. On my iMac G5 with 1gb RAM, it runs okay but is a bit sluggish with larger parks. Still, pretty impressive for a virtual PC.

The company keeps actively working on the software; I get update notices every couple of months, and the speed keeps improving. I also like the fact that I can install any version of Windows that I want (I prefer 98). My only gripe is that so far the virtual video card is pretty crappy, with only 64k color support. But I can live with that, since most of the games I want to play had pretty crappy graphics.

[Palad1]

pretty please with sugar on top?

[ro2nie]

I've been using VMware on windows, and I can say it's a great piece of software.

I guess it will run much better on Mac OS X.
VMware for windows supports lots of USB and Firewire peripherals. It supports my external hard drive, external flash drive, my digital camera and my printer.

The only thing it doesn't support is my webcam.