Apple, Parallels, VMWare and Microsoft

[mark88]

Personally I think Apple have missed a trick here. On one hand they've done fantastic with Boot Camp and Paralells is awesome. But Apple's hardware range let's the whole side down.

I've heard from many Windows users who want to buy an Intel mac after recent events, but they take one look at the models available and just think 'forget about it'.

£450 for a 1.5ghz, 512MB, 60GB, combo drive, intergrated graphics machine just takes the p**s. As soon as you start speccing up a mini to reasonable levels the price becomes very unattractive. Especially with the Core Duo.

The iMacs are by far the best value computers in Apples range but these have limited appeal, especially to people who already have monitors.

If you're a wannabe switcher who simply wants to replace their Windows desktop machine with an Intel Mac then basically the choices just aren't that appealing IMO.

 

[Blackcat]

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.)
[/URL].)

MS makes and sells VPC for Windows too. They could bring out Universal VPC if they wanted but I think they are stalling. The VT technology is new, but if a small company like Parallelis can harness it so soon, MS has no excuse at all. Of all people, MS get Intel tech early.

 

[displaced]

I'm having a Performa flashback.

*grin*

Ah, yes... the days when Apple seemed to be taking product-range advice from the automotive industry...

Performa 9100 GLXi CD Sprint Turbo Diesel 4x4 (nitrous available as an optional extra).

Happy days...

 

[kirktalon]

MS makes and sells VPC for Windows too. They could bring out Universal VPC if they wanted but I think they are stalling. The VT technology is new, but if a small company like Parallelis can harness it so soon, MS has no excuse at all. Of all people, MS get Intel tech early.

Maybe MS found out from the get go that Apple planned to do Boot Camp and that Apple is working/got virtualization all locked up too.

If so, why bother? Knowing that, they can be deliberately vague to protect relations with Apple.

Apple has been working on OS X for Intel all this time. I wouldn't be surprised if they dusted off Boot Camp 2003 from the shelf and then when the time is right go back to that shelf and get the virtualized for Windows portion.

As we all know VIsta is problem enough for MS now.

 

[AidenShaw]

Apple's new computer - the "Mac"

$0599 - Mac mini [Core Solo / integrated graphics]
$0799 - Mac mini [Core Duo / integrated graphics / SuperDrive with iDVD]

$1099 - Mac mini Pro [single Core Duo mini-tower]
$1399 - Mac mini Pro [single Core Duo mini-tower]

I'd expect Apple to add a mini-tower - it could be called the "Mac". (Assuming that the PowerMac becomes the "Mac Pro".)

The "Mac" would use the Conroe chip - a single-socket dual-core 64-bit desktop chip.

It would be a small mini-tower - much smaller than a PowerMac. A real PCIe x16 graphics card slot, one or two more PCIe slots, room for at least one more disk (optical or HD).

The "Mac Pro" (PowerMac replacement) should get "Woodcrest" 64-bit chips - these are Xeon class multi-socket capable dual-core chips.

You won't see Yonah (Core Solo/Duo) chips in any of the new desktop Mac systems. The Yonah is 32-bit, and is a stop-gap measure for Apple. With Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest Apple will be able to field an all 64-bit lineup. (Also, none of the Core chips can run dual-socket - so they can't be used in a quad core system.)

The "Mac" mini-tower has a couple of big advantages for Apple

• It fills the huge gap between the mini and the PowerMac
• All the other Intel PC makers will have low-priced Conroe dual-core mini-towers
• It lets Apple raise the price of the Mac Pro considerably (Xeon-class chips have always been more expensive)
• It avoids the need for a crippled low end Mac Pro

 

[mark88]

I'd expect Apple to add a mini-tower - it could be called the "Mac". (Assuming that the PowerMac becomes the "Mac Pro".)

The "Mac" would use the Conroe chip - a single-socket dual-core desktop chip.

It would be a small mini-tower - much smaller than a PowerMac. A real PCIe x16 graphics card slot, one or two more PCIe slots, room for at least one more disk (optical or HD).

The "Mac Pro" (PowerMac replacement) should get "Woodcrest" chips - these are Xeon class multi-socket capable chips. (None of the Core chips can run dual-socket, neither can Conroe.)

The "Mac" mini-tower has a couple of big advantages for Apple

• It fills the huge gap between the mini and the PowerMac
• All the other Intel PC makers will have low-priced Conroe dual-core mini-towers
• It lets Apple raise the price of the Mac Pro considerably (Xeon-class chips have always been more expensive)
• It avoids the need for a crippled low end Mac Pro

I hope you're right, because I do agree that there is a huge hole in Apples range that's preventing many people making the switch.

 

[bit density]

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.

It would depend on what you mean by "non-standard." If you mean devices that have entirely different electrical connections that require deep changes to the system, yes. But these devices, outside of places where people have soldering irons, and really are doing stuff they generally should not be doing.

But it you mean, non-standard, but otherwise plugs into a USB port, no that should work just fine. Just because there isn't a mac driver doesn't mean that it won't work. Virtualization doesn't require that the mac side has to understand the device, it just has to understand the port.

 

[bit density]

Any reason Q --> http://www.kberg.ch/q/ wasn't on that list? Its open source free and was available before parallels. Does it suck?

Yes, first because it is not a virtualization product, it is an emulator, and second because it sucks, by several orders of magnitude.

 

[alywa]

The iMacs are by far the best value computers in Apples range but these have limited appeal, especially to people who already have monitors.

If you're a wannabe switcher who simply wants to replace their Windows desktop machine with an Intel Mac then basically the choices just aren't that appealing IMO.

I couldn't agree more. The mini just isn't enough for someone who wants to game, and the iMac is "too much" of a jump into the mac world, especially if folks already own a nice monitor.

I have to think a mid-level tower will come... the fabled "headless iMac". It would be the true switcher's machine. Imagine the high-end mini, but instead with full size hard-drive, upgradable video cards, and user-expandable RAM in a mid-size tower. It just makes sense.

 

[BillyShears]

MS makes and sells VPC for Windows too. They could bring out Universal VPC if they wanted but I think they are stalling. The VT technology is new, but if a small company like Parallelis can harness it so soon, MS has no excuse at all. Of all people, MS get Intel tech early.

Oh, I know MS makes VPC for Windows, but I thought we were talking about "buying" it, not licensing the technology. Anyway, AFAIK VPC doesn't use Intel's Virtualization Technology (VT), so I doubt Apple would want to license that. But you're right, I should have been more clear... sorry about that.

As for a small company getting it out before MS that doesn't really surprise me. From what I understand, MS is a management nightmare, and smaller companies are often quicker and more agile. That said, MS has had sufficient time to get it working, and they should have been working on VT anyway for their Windows version of VPC.

 

[Bosunsfate]

Will Christmas Come Early?

Well, the WWDC is certainly going to be full of interesting things...not just the new OS.

And the financial future is looking better and better for Apple.

Oh, what to write to Santa about.....:

 

[BillyShears]

I couldn't agree more. The mini just isn't enough for someone who wants to game, and the iMac is "too much" of a jump into the mac world, especially if folks already own a nice monitor.

I have to think a mid-level tower will come... the fabled "headless iMac". It would be the true switcher's machine. Imagine the high-end mini, but instead with full size hard-drive, upgradable video cards, and user-expandable RAM in a mid-size tower. It just makes sense.

I don't know if that is Apple's style or not. Do you remember how surprised everyone was when the Mac Mini came out? If Apple release a "headless iMac", sales the iMac would probably plummet. Almost everyone has a monitor already, the only reason they get an iMac is because it's the closest specs you can get to what you want.

Apple benefits from the iMac with mindshare. When you see an iMac you think "Oooh cool", and you know what an iMac looks like. And they look damn good. If people start using external monitors, it won't be so clear that it's a Mac, it won't grab people's attention.

The laptops obviously have similar appeal. The Mac mini gets attention because it looks like there's no computer.

The Power Mac is usually used by pros and put up on the desk anyway for display. Those are less used by home users, anyway, so mindshare for Power Macs doesn't apply, I don't think.

(Then again, I didn't think Boot Camp would happen, so maybe they are gearing towards gamers and would release a mini tower.)

 

[AidenShaw]

I see them on the floor

The Power Mac is usually used by pros and put up on the desk anyway for display.

The ones that I've seen have all been on the floor - to get the noise off the desk. (Same with almost all PC towers as well.)

Maybe it's because the people that I know buy computers to be tools, not status symbols?

 

[BillyShears]

The ones that I've seen have all been on the floor - to get the noise off the desk. (Same with almost all PC towers as well.)

Maybe it's because that the people that I know buy computers to be tools, not status symbols?

Yeah, to be honest I don't know anyone with a Power Mac, I have just heard on here that that is the case. Also I've seen pictures of "rigs" on the Internet, but I guess those are the kinds of people that want to display their new toy. In any case, I think mindshare is less relevant for "pros." Pros will know if someone's using a Mac or not.

 

[GregA]

Right now I can go from Windows to OS X's Desktop in 26 seconds, and back in 45 seconds.

I wonder how long it would take to hibernate Windows to the hard disk, and wake up Mac from the hard disk? And vice versa.

If Apple automated that you could switch OSes (saving the whole desktop) in < 30 seconds....?

 

[Thinkpad-UTMEM]

Virtual Machines

I'm not sure why they would but Virtual PC for Windows arrived as a virtualisation product before Microsoft bought Connectix and it was decent competition against VMWare.

In any case, it's nice to see polished alternatives arriving so quickly. While Microsoft may get a few more sales out of it, I believe that Apple will see a larger surge in sales.

I have been a longtime user of Virtual Machines on the Macintosh and on our Windows Machines.

I have uses SoftPC/SoftWindows/RealPC, VirtualPC for Windows and the Mac, The SoftMac Emulator, Basilisk II (Windows), and VM Ware.

I currently use VirtualPC and Basilisk II.

VPC runs slower than VM Ware on our Windows Systems. We mostly run a Windows 2000 environment as the Guest OS. It has much less overhead then WindowsXP and has been stable. We occasionally run MS DOS and a Windows 95 virtual machine to run specific legacy applications. The MSDOS virtual machine is easier to use than the command line in Windows XP.

Basilisk II is the best Macintosh Emulator we have used. It runs best with a Quadra ROM image and MacOS 8.1. We run legacy applications like MORE, print to a PDF and transfer that to the host for printing. It will bridge the internet connetion of the host. IT can read the host's hard disk for file transfer.

Basilisk II may be a very good way to implement Classic Support on the Intel Macs. There is a version for MaxOSX, but since it runs in Windows XP, it may be ironic that to run Classic Apps, one might have to run BootCamp and Windows XP.

I do not have experience with Sheepshaver, but it is probably another way to get MacOS 9 running in MacOSX on the Intel Macs. I do not have a copy of OS9 or one of the PowerPC ROM files that it requires. It does suggest that Apple could directly support MacClassic Apps if they wanted to.

VM Ware supports Windows and Linux. It does not support MSDOS. If you have a VirtualPC Vitual Machine, it will import it. One great option is their FREE VM Player that allows any user to run an existing virtual machine, either a VM Ware machine or a VirtualPC machine (at least VirtualPC for Windows).

With the speed of Parallel's Beta, the experimental nature of VMWare's product, the future of Software Virtualization is very Bright.

Apple only needs to introduce a right click button in the MacBooks and things will be very easy in the future. I will run the software and the OS I wiant without having to worry about which machine I have on my desk.

Next Need Project for the Virtualizion companies....

Virtual Playstation
Virtual XBox

(I know that the earlier project for a "Virtual Playstaion" was successfully techncally, but lost in the courtroom... It still is a good idea ...)

 

[dr_lha]

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.

Just to note that All Intel Macs will support virtualisation, special hardware is not needed, as software virtualisation (how everyone did it before Vanderpool) works fine.

I read somewhere about parallels suffering on non-dual-core machines, aka the core solo minis.

This is true, the Core Solo seems to be very slow. However this isn't an issue with the Core Solo I think. I used to run VMWare on a 600Mhz original Athlon running Linux, and the performance running Win98SE under VMWare far exceeded that of running Parallels on a 1.5Ghz Core Solo.

The fact is the 1.5Ghz Core Solo blows away a 600Mhz Athlon, so I think the issue is with tuning of Parallels not with some lack of CPU power in the Solo.

 

[ITR 81]

I think MS will make at least one more VPC if not two..for all those PPC folks.
And until they can make virtualization play games then I'm not that interested.

So far for the gamer the Boot Camp is the best bet.
Virtualization however would be the best solution if it could do gaming well.

 

[Krevnik]

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

Tsk, tsk... I would think you would know better than to take pot-shots like that one.

The difference here is that you have the MacBU doing the porting work, whom haven't worked with x86 very much, if at all... and Apple is using a brand-new Intel chipset. Even just consulting with the parts of MS who did the x86 virtualization consumes a lot of time to get up to speed on it. If they just kicked out the MacBU and put the Windows VPC guys, then THOSE guys would have to spend a lot of time getting up to speed on the Mac platform. Either way you are looking at a lot of retraining your employees.

 

[AidenShaw]

Is running on the mini slow, or just installation?

Just to note that All Intel Macs will support virtualisation, special hardware is not needed, as software virtualisation (how everyone did it before Vanderpool) works fine.

Yes, VT is more of a "hardware acceleration" for virtualization than a requirement. (At least as far as Parallels is concerned.)

This is true, the Core Solo seems to be very slow. However this isn't an issue with the Core Solo I think.

Are there any real benchmarks that show the speed?

One possibility that comes to mind is that the XP installation itself might be very slow, but after it is installed the speed is much better.

There's a good reason for this: when installing from the CD/ISO, only the XP drivers on the CD are used. After installation, the VMtools are installed, which have some higher performance drivers. So, the time for an installation can be a misleading "benchmark". (VMware has similar issues.)

If VT support helps in the "pre-driver" situation, then you might see a much larger difference in performance during an installation than during normal VM use.

 

[lazyrighteye]

OS X in Vista?

I obviously have little to no idea if this is plausible, and being the first to suggest such silliness, "ridiculous" must surely be the case.

That said, could it be that MS acquired VPC to somehow (via reverse engineering?) gain an understanding of how they could offer OS X booting in Vista?

I know, crazy talk. Move along.

 

[manu chao]

I wonder how long it would take to hibernate Windows to the hard disk, and wake up Mac from the hard disk? And vice versa.

If Apple automated that you could switch OSes (saving the whole desktop) in < 30 seconds....?

Hibernation on my Powerbook with 1.5 GB of RAM and a 2.5" 7200 rpm drive takes about 5-7 s each way.

So look for a grand total of 10-15 s for the switch.

If you really have a lot of RAM, maybe one could lock part of the RAM for Windows and part for OS X, than the switch could be as fast as 2-3 s.

 

[manu chao]

Have a look at these entries on macintouch:
http://www.macintouch.com/readerreports/virtualization/index.html#apr10

First entry explains that virtualisation is not yet that simple.

Further down, somebody mentions that running OS X as a virtual system might not be all that legal (PearPC might therefore be just tolerated by Apple).

 

[BillyShears]

I obviously have little to no idea if this is plausible, and being the first to suggest such silliness, "ridiculous" must surely be the case.

That said, could it be that MS acquired VPC to somehow (via reverse engineering?) gain an understanding of how they could offer OS X booting in Vista?

I know, crazy talk. Move along.

That's not silly. You can already run OS X on a generic PC, though I believe it is illegal (and I know it is not supported by Apple). So Microsoft wouldn't need to buy anything. If a bunch of hackers could figure it out, surely Microsoft could... copy their work.

Here is the website if you are interested:
http://www.osx86project.org/

 

[plinden]

I have a feeling Apple has something significant in store for Leopard. If I recall correctly, its release was rumored to be pushed back before the Boot Camp and BIOS firmware support announcements. I am still somewhat bewildered by the timing of it all, but I suppose it could be because Apple is busy integrating and consolidating everything into a more compact package within Leopard itself. Imagine a customizable startup in the System Preferences alongside Apple's own built-in virtualization capability. $40 for Parallels solution won't seem like such a steal then.

I hope that Leopard does have integrated virtualization support a la Parallels. But it's really unlikely that Leopard will be released before early 2007, so $40 seems like a steal to me for use for the next year, especially compared to VMWare's $250 per VM.

I've been playing about with Parallels Workstation and will buy it once it's released, since I don't play GPU intensive games. (Example benchmark - PCPitstop shows the CPU as equivalent to a 1.8 Pentium-M running XP). I have VMs running WinXP Home, Debian and Fedora Core 4. I'm going to dig out my old Win95 disks to see if I can install that (just for the hell of it).

Still, despite my respect and admiration for Parallels software, I hope Leopard has a better and faster solution, and I'll be using it from when it's released, if it's better.

However, I don't really know how it or any competitor could be better - 90% native CPU speed is way beyond what I had ever hoped for in virtualization. Graphics hardware acceleration isn't possible - although I hope I have the opportunity to eat my words on that.