No Virtualization in Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard)?

[MacRumors]

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

Macworld reports on comments by Needham and Company analyst Charles Wolf on Apple's Windows-compatiblilty plans for upcoming versions of Mac OS X.

Specifically, Wolf asked Phil Schiller about Apple's plans for incorporating "virtualization" software in the next version of Mac OS X (Leopard):

[Phil Schiller] said ‘absolutely not, the R&D would be prohibitive and we’re not going to do it. Our solution is dual boot.’

Virtualization allows users to launch a copy of Windows under Mac OS X to run applications side-by-side, while "Dual Boot" requires users to reboot to switch between Windows and Mac OS X.

There had been some speculation that Apple was going to adopt Parallel's virtualization solution since it is now promoted on their Get a Mac campaign, but was conclusion was entirely speculative. Also, early Leopard rumors claimed that it would incoporate Virtualization from Apple, but this appears to be inaccurate.

Meanwhile, Codeweavers is taking this virtualization a step further by attempting to run specific Windows applications under Mac OS X without requiring Windows to be loaded at all.

[MacsRgr8]

Good news for Parallels....

[Asar]

dual boot is fine with me. how else you gonna play 3d games?

[SuperSnake2012]

Oh no...

[MacsRgr8]

Originally Posted by Asar

dual boot is fine with me. how else you gonna play 3d games?

There were rumors about Codeweavers being DirectX compatible, and that Half Life 2 would be able to run.
I seriously doubt that all (newest) games would run well though...

Dual Booting will always be the easiest option for 3D gaming. And as most new 3D games need all the CPU power you have available, I don't really see it as a bother to have to shutdown Mac OS X, and reboot into Windows.

[ifjake]

I think this is something that third party companies will be best suited for. Virtualization is cool, but I don't want Apple having to support windows stuffs to take away from the ability to make the Mac side of it all the more compelling and exciting.

[JoeMacDaddy]

Apple needs to treat Windows just like they did Classic. They need to minimize Windows into an emulation mode. For security purposes, a vitrual sandbox for the Windows environment and the files created in that environment (e.g. Java sandboxing and GreenBox technologies).

This is the only way to give Windows switchers the peace of mind to have a seamless environment and feel secure in their purchase.

just my $.02.

[QCassidy352]

bah, dual boot is crap. Running windows in a little box while still within OS X is appealing; actually running windows is most certainly not. Who wants to restart all the time?

[eude]

I guess this saves them from a lot of troubles and accusations. They would have to deal with getting all the windows apps to work inside OSX. Like when windows apps crash inside OSX. Then people might think it is OSX's fault.
responsibilities would get very messy and not easy to explain to end users.

It also encourages developers to keep developing natively for OSX.

a tactical choice.

[reyesmac]

If these new intel chips allow you to run more than one OS at a time why cant you boot Windows and Mac on the same machine at the same time? The one that is not being used would be in low power mode and when you "switch" it will power up and run full screen. I am sure they can do this without spending so much in R&D.
There is also the instant on type of boot where your OS is stored in ram and then instantly comes on after you boot up. Even if you can't run two OS at the same time they can reduce the boot time to almost zero.

[Electric Boris]

I gotta say that I'm getting pretty tired of hearing about virtualization and accomodating Windows on a Mac. I mean, talk about lowering the bar. Less Apple employees working on this means more working on something that actually matters. Yes, I know it's all about sales, but the focus lately seems to be Windows on a Mac ("Hello, I'm a PC" campaign) Windows vs. a Mac or whatever. How about just let the machine and program speak for themselves and let the Windows users just suffer in ignorance.

[Collin973]

Oh well...no biggy. Rebooting takes what 30 seconds? I didnt really care either way...if it did...cool...if it didnt...alright. Still buying the first rev b mbp...

[dashiel]

oh please. phil schiller claimed that apple wouldn't accomodate windows on intel boxes since the announcement. iirc i think he made a statement the day to that effect the day before boot camp was released.

i'm not saying virtualization will appear in 10.5, but taking phil schiller's comments — to an analyst no less — at face value is just silly.

[MacsRgr8]

Originally Posted by QCassidy352

bah, dual boot is crap. Running windows in a little box while still within OS X is appealing; actually running windows is most certainly not. Who wants to restart all the time?

It all depends on what you are using Windows for.

I only use it for playing the newest games which are not availabe on the Mac.

And playing a heavy-duty 3D game like BattleField 2 orso, you don't want to have any other apps or resources using any kind of CPU time. So, like I said before, for Windows gaming rebooting into Windows is your best option anyway.

But if you use apps that you would like to use next to Mac OS X, then virtualization is the best bay.
And we have Parallels anyway.

Originally Posted by dashiel

oh please. phil schiller claimed that apple wouldn't accomodate windows on intel boxes since the announcement. iirc i think he made a statement the day to that effect the day before boot camp was released.

i'm not saying virtualization will appear in 10.5, but taking phil schiller's comments — to an analyst no less — at face value is just silly.

He said that Apple won't do anything to stop Windows running on an Intel Mac.
He kept his word alright.

[Some_Big_Spoon]

If they (apple) don't do it, someone else (codeweavers, VMWare, parallels) will. They get to stay out of the malay, and reap all of the benefits. Granted, the solution won't be as elegant, but it will work regardless.

[chicagdan]

Originally Posted by MacsRgr8

It all depends on what you are using Windows for.

I only use it for playing the newest games which are not availabe on the Mac.

And playing a heavy-duty 3D game like BattleField 2 orso, you don't want to have any other apps or resources using any kind of CPU time. So, like I said before, for Windows gaming rebooting into Windows is your best option anyway.

But if you use apps that you would like to use next to Mac OS X, then virtualization is the best bay.
And we have Parallels anyway.

Guys, we're only six months into this ... the number of options to run Windows inside of Mac is going to expand significantly whether Apple does it themselves or not.

1) Parallels -- and they're working on adding Direct X.

2) Codeweavers and other wine-based solutions

3) VMWare

4) Virtual PC

I think it makes complete sense for Apple to stay out of this market because others are willing to spend the R&D dollars. Let Apple innovate for the Mac, let others worry about getting Windows to run in a window.

[DavidLeblond]

Dual booting would kill my uptime! I'm going to wait and see what Codeweavers does... I'd much rather buy their solution then have to pay for a Windows license!

[supremedesigner]

Originally Posted by DavidLeblond

Dual booting would kill my uptime! I'm going to wait and see what Codeweavers does... I'd much rather buy their solution then have to pay for a Windows license!

I second that! I'd rather use any PC softwares/games rathter than buying pricey bloated XP.

[MacsRgr8]

Originally Posted by chicagdan

1) Parallels -- and they're working on adding Direct X.

That's nice.
But I would still prefer to reboot the Mac into Windows, for getting max CPU time and free RAM (well... for the bigger games that is, ofcourse).

But, as Steve once said, is good to have options.

[Kirkmedia]

I'm sure there are many situations that will make Running Windows and OSX
at the same time very convenient. But if rebooting into one OS or the other
makes the computer more stable, then that's what I want to do.

Also, Macrumors keeps refering to me as a "Newbie" but I've been posting here for awhile. When will I
be a "regular"?

[DavidLeblond]

Originally Posted by Kirkmedia

But if rebooting into one OS or the other
makes the computer more stable, then that's what I want to do.

The best way to make the computer more stable is to get it as far away from Windows as possible .

[Kirkmedia]

Let's say, you are booted up in Windows, and you get infected by a virus
or malware. Will this affect how OSX will function when rebooted?

Is anyone interested in discussing this?

[Lancetx]

IMO, Parallels is a more than acceptable solution for me already, considering I only need Windows on a very limited basis these days. Whether virtualization is included in Leopard or not doesn't really make much difference to me. Oh well, I guess we'll all find out for certain next month at WWDC, it's all just speculation until then anyway.

[wmmk]

Originally Posted by DavidLeblond

Dual booting would kill my uptime! I'm going to wait and see what Codeweavers does... I'd much rather buy their solution then have to pay for a Windows license!

why is your uptime so very important?
with bootcamp, you can boot into linux and use WINE, which is free. if you need ease of use, get paralells. believe it or not, companies other than apple do make good products.

on a different topic, less than 25% of mac users are on intel. if leopard's updates are intel-centric, ppc users (the ones running office, aka students and studio 8 and CS2, aka creative people, both of which make up a huge part of the mac market) will be ticked off, and stay with tiger, which would actually be good for apple.

[Kingsly]

[Phil Schiller] said ‘absolutely not, the R&D would be prohibitive and we’re not going to do it. Our solution is dual boot.’

Where have I heard that before... oh yeah, Steve Jobs discussing a video capable iPod.