Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Blackcat said:
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.

Good point in bringing up the other emulation software MS got with the purchase of Connectix. MS probably didn't buy Connectix because of VPC for Mac. It was for all the other emulation software. Legacy Windows and Windows CE with all the ARM, MIPS, SH, and x86 processors that can be emulated in your development environment on WinXP. This really speeds up development.
 
Steve.s said:
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?
Hmm ... I played about with it but didn't get into it much, and was looking forward to seeing a good fast verison of Q (they were making a lot of progress).

But, as far as I can tell you need to create a special disk image, which you can't currently do for Windows on Intel iMacs. You could import a VPC image though.

I installed a couple of the prebuilt Linux images from http://free.oszoo.org/download.html and they ran fine, but they were much slower than native speeds.

There's no knowing how much more progress they'll make on this, but I expect Boot Camp and Parallels Workstation has taken the wind out of their sails, for a while anyway.

It might be good to have a free opensource version, but $40-$50 is the cost of one game, and with Parallels, you get to run pretty much any OS you want.

AidenShaw said:
Nonsense.

VMware Workstation is $189 (http://www.vmware.com/vmwarestore/newstore/),
Ok, I was misinformed - I should have looked it up myself. It's still 4x the price. I doubt they'll sell the Mac version for less, since that means they would have to lower their Windows and Linux prices. Of course, it remains to be seen how Parallels future stability and support compares to VMWare.

Even if VMWare hadn't been considering releasing a Mac OS version, I'm sure the news over the past week would have made them reconsider.
 
Clowns

“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.”

It took a few days for a small company (parallel) to create one.. and still is too big for Microsoft.
 
AidenShaw said:
Are there any real benchmarks that show the speed?
Not that I know of. My evidence is entirely anecdotal, but my recollection is that Win 98 used to run near Native on VMware, but under Parallels on a Core Solo seemed extremely sluggish compared even to my native installation on an old Athlon. There may be an issue here than Win 98 may just be too old to run well on a Core Solo I guess.
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.
V. possible. I'm using Win98 and the initial scandisk takes about 30 minutes. Under VMware this takes about 2 minutes using a similar size disk.
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.)
No doubt that the VMware drivers perk things up. However my issues seem to be mainly related to the speed accessing the HD, rather than the graphics.
 
jeriqo said:
“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.”

It took a few days for a small company (parallel) to create one.. and still is too big for Microsoft.
They already had a product running on Linux and Windows however. Plus where do you get this "few days" figure from? For all we know Parallels have been working on the Mac port since July last year when the developer Intel Macs were released.
 
plinden said:
Graphics hardware acceleration isn't possible - although I hope I have the opportunity to eat my words on that.
Isn't Vista's GUI supposed to be hardware-accelerated? I wonder if this will be a major sticking point in the future, even for non-gaming tasks.

I hope that Apple has a virtualization solution that addresses the graphics hardware issue, but then maybe they don't want to provide such a solution, to ensure performance superiority of OS X over Vista.
 
AidenShaw said:
Are there any real benchmarks that show the speed?.
I ran the tools on www.pcpitstop.com ... I'm not sure how valid they are, but before installing VMTools, my WinXP Home VM scored 5100 on their CPU test, and 5600 after installing the VMTools.

This is meaningless without a comparison, but thankfully PCPitstop compared it to a 1.8GHz Pentium-M, which scored just over 5600.

Edit: I've done the tests again, and this is a screen dump comparing CPU, RAM and disk - the disk score is low because I have only 15GB virtual drive.
 

Attachments

  • Picture 3.png
    Picture 3.png
    140.1 KB · Views: 200
'Few Days'? Silly Rabbit

jeriqo said:
It took a few days for a small company (parallel) to create one.. and still is too big for Microsoft.

Maybe you knew about it for a few days, but I'd suggest it took Parallels more than that to go live. ;)
 
Sarcasm aside, though....

I assume part of the reason MS is delaying/stalling on a VPC update is internal conflict as to what directon they want to go with the whole thing.

Like others here, I can't see them totally discontinuing the product, because it's still going to be pretty much the only way a PPC Mac owner can run Windows -- and hey, it just means that many more Windows licenses they get to sell people if they keep it alive.

But there are other considerations. For starters, VPC could really use an update/rewrite even if they didn't do a thing to improve support on Intel Macs. (The big problem I've seen with it is the weird integer math it does. Sometimes, for example, you download a file in IE and instead of 95% done, you get 94.99999936% or something wacko like that. This also screws with some financial software developers who can't use VPC to test their Windows-based apps because of the small math errors it creates. From what I read, this was done on purpose for performance reasons. It was much faster to approximate some calculations with small margins of error than to do the math correctly, when convertiing from x86 to PPC code.) I sure would at least liked to have seen them include a "toggle" to do "true math" or not.

But also, MS probably has to figure out exactly how Apple plans on implementing Windows support in OS X Leopard before making a move on VPC. Depending on how it's done, VPC might still have a place on an Intel-based Mac. (EG. VPC allows running other OS's like Linux or BSD or even IBM's OS/2, as well as Windows. OS X probably won't do any of that natively.)


IJ Reilly said:
So Microsoft is unfamiliar with the Intel hardware architecture. That explains a lot.
 
alywa said:
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.

Apple have done something with the mac mini price and that indicates a couple of possibilities:

either ,they think the mac mini is still the switchers' choice of new Mac, but put the price up $100 because they knew the boot camp option and Parallels were coming soon, ie real value was going to be added to the original mac mini concept.

or the mac mini isnt the switch machine they hoped it would be, so they put a few extra bucks on to maximise what sales they are getting, meanwhile they have a possible mini tower (with video potential aplenty for gamers) plus Boot Camp/Parallels - at a decent price to bring people across from PCs in their droves.?

Whatever the outcome, you have to say, Steve Jobs has loads of moves up his sleeve to build the Apple brand. No single option apart from the iPod has been a run away success, but cumulatively, Apple product ranges are getting ever more compelling for growing numbers of people.
 
Parallels VMX working on Core Solo Mini

I just got VT-x (or VMX whatever, Vanderpool) working with Parallels on the Mac mini Core Solo. Basically making the machine go to sleep, then waking up seems to enable the VT-x extensions, and Parallels runs much faster as a result.

Cool, and obviously the VT-x being disabled in the Mac Mini is a bug.
 
MacQuest said:
$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]


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

I'm actually thinking it'll be called a "Mac Pro mini" as opposed to my earlier "Mac mini Pro", or your "Mac" naming suggestions. It makes sense to me as this would be a smaller form factor Mac Pro and a mini tower... BAM! Mac Pro mini. I hope they just drop the "i" from iMac and call that the "Mac".

AidenShaw said:
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).

Exacltly what I meant. I like those specs and form factor. :)

AidenShaw said:
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

Yup. As I initially stated, the high end Mac mini is $799 and the lowest end PowerMac/Mac Pro is $1999. There is a nice $1200 price gap right there that I think this Mac Pro mini would fill nicely.

However, I don't think that Apple will be looking to raise the price of the Mac Pro considerably. I think Apple will use dual Core Duo 64-bit Conroe's across the line when initially introduced [WWDC in August], and then upgrade the highest end model to a dual Core Quad 64-bit Kentsfield in Q1 of '07. This would be in line with their current line-up which has single G5 dual core's in the two lower end PowerMacs, and dual G5 dual core's in the highest end PowerMac.

I think pricing will be set at $1999, $2499, and $2999 initially, with the high end dual Quad Core Kentsfield coming in at $3299 - $3499 after it's introduction in Q1 of '07.

Regardless, I just want a couple of "Mac Pro mini's" to be priced in that $1000 - $1500 price range. ;)

Although I was hoping to see these mini towers fairly soon [at NAB within the next 2-3 weeks], I now realize that if they are in fact named Mac Pro's in anyway, shape, or form, then we won't see them until WWDC in August alongside the introduction of the "Mac Pro" line.

That will make for a truly nice WWDC though. ;)
 
BillyShears said:
If Apple release a "headless iMac", sales the iMac would probably plummet. Almost everyone has a monitor already...

I would have to somewhat disagree. Yeah, almost everyone has a monitor... CRT that is.

LCD display sales are rising steadily, but still have a long way to go. The iMac is a great solution for those people who don't have LCD's yet, and there's a lot of them. A Mac Pro mini [mini tower / headless iMac :rolleyes:] would fly out of stores and not hurt iMac sales one bit IMO.



BillyShears said:
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.

Agreed.

BillyShears said:
If people start using external monitors, it won't be so clear that it's a Mac, it won't grab people's attention

Apple's got plenty of attention grabbing products and I believe this proposed "Mac Pro mini" will be one of them as well, just not to the same extent. This unit will prioritize critically needed function [upgradeability in a low cost, mini tower Mac] over form [unique designs in other product lines will offset this].

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

The only places I've seen Power Macs up on desks [as opposed to on the floor or below the desk in a dedicated desk space] is at the stores that are trying to sell them, and therefore are showcasing them and have the room/airspace to do so which dissipates the heat and noise nicely. In smaller real work/home environments, workspace [especially on the desktop] is usually a concern.

BillyShears said:
Those are less used by home users, anyway, so mindshare for Power Macs doesn't apply, I don't think.

Exactly. Which is why a Mac Pro mini tower at half the cost of the current PowerMacs, with a decreased footprint and profile, makes sense for home users who are intimidated by the PowerMac's size and price.

People still buy lots of desktop peecees for work and/or home in the $800 - $1300 price range, to connect to their existing monitors, keyboards and mice. Apple's $200 premium for a superior machine is easily justified and puts the Mac Pro mini in the $1000 - $1500 range.

I would be first in line for a lower end $1099 upgradeable Mac Pro mini tower and finally buy a 20" Apple Cinema Display @ $799 too. That would be a pretty sweet $2000ish system. Actually, I would probably choose the 23" ACD so that I could have HD resolution.

I'm hoping that we'll see some Apple Cinema Display price drops at NAB: 20" @ $599 [-$200] / 23" @ $999 [-$300] / 30" @ $2099 or $1999 :eek: [- $400 / $500]

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

So after all your reasoning as to why we wont see Mac Pro min towers, you think there is a possibility that this may happen?!!!

Way to "play it safe", BillyShears. :rolleyes: ;) :D
 
MacQuest said:
I would have to somewhat disagree. Yeah, almost everyone has a monitor... CRT that is.

LCD display sales are rising steadily, but still have a long way to go. The iMac is a great solution for those people who don't have LCD's yet, and there's a lot of them. A Mac Pro mini [mini tower / headless iMac :rolleyes:] would fly out of stores and not hurt iMac sales one bit IMO.

Yeah, but the average person goes into an Apple store and looks at this tower. "And I don't need to buy a monitor? Well, I guess I'll just use mine since it seems to work fine." Maybe they'd be talked into buying an LCD, but since they already dropping $1000+, they might not.


MacQuest said:
Exactly. Which is why a Mac Pro mini tower at half the cost of the current PowerMacs, with a decreased footprint and profile, makes sense for home users who are intimidated by the PowerMac's size and price.

Oh, it would make sense for home users and it would sell well. I don't think it would make sense for Apple. They lose mindshare and their upselling. Right now if you want more than a mini you need to get an iMac (which costs more than a mini tower), or a Power Mac (which costs more than an iMac).


MacQuest said:
So after all this, you think this might happen?!

Way to "play it safe" BillyShears. :rolleyes: ;) :D

I don't really think I can claim to make a good guess right now with Apple. A couple years ago, people could guess pretty well since they had a pretty stable policy. Now nobody knows what Apple's thinking, for the most part.

Also I'm not one to say "won't happen ever" except in the most obvious of cases.
 
BillyShears said:
Yeah, but the average person goes into an Apple store and looks at this tower. "And I don't need to buy a monitor? Well, I guess I'll just use mine since it seems to work fine." Maybe they'd be talked into buying an LCD, but since they already dropping $1000+, they might not.

Apple can't be held entirely responsible for people with poor sales abilities who can't "qualify" a customer properly in order to find out what they may or may not be willing to purchase. It is those salespeople's jobs to sell a solution and then upsell, or downsell, when appropriate.

That's why the Apple Shops at CompUSA and the Apple Stores were so necessary and have been so well received. Now customers have a place to go where they can focus on Apple products and talk to people who have been trained on Apple products by Apple themselves.

Not releasing a new, very distinct [much more upgradeable than a Mac mini or iMac, much lower price than a PowerMac] and much needed [$1200 price gap between "similar" products, the $799 Mac mini & $1999 PowerMac... the iMac is not a similar product] Mac product line for "fear" of driving sales away from another existing product line is a very weak business model.

Fill all the product line gaps and thoroughly train the sales people on each product line, as well as how to qualify a customer to find out which product line best suits them is what needs to be done in any sales environment.

If no one released any new products for fear of "taking" sales away from an existing product that is "remotely" similar [yes, the Mac mini would be very different from the Mac Pro mini, and both of those are/would be very different from the iMac], then we would all have one product o choose from.

Doesn't make good business sense, does it?

BillyShears said:
Oh, it would make sense for home users and it would sell well. I don't think it would make sense for Apple. They lose mindshare and their upselling. Right now if you want more than a mini you need to get an iMac (which costs more than a mini tower), or a Power Mac (which costs more than an iMac).

This makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever.

You say "it would sell", but you "don't think it would make sense for Apple" because they "lose mindshare" and the potential to "upsell"?

WHAT?!!!:eek: :confused: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Okay, here goes:

If it sells, then it makes sense for Apple, because regardless of which Mac product is purchased, Apple's "mindshare" will increase with any Mac product sold, and the potential to "upsell" is dictated by the customers willingness and/or ability to pay, whether it's an all inclusive unit like the iMac at that moment because they want it all know and have either set a solid mental budget or have an actual physical budget, or a planned purchase over time like a Mac Pro mini tower now with the intent to buy a display in [whatever amount of time] because they like the upgradeability option of the mini tower which the iMac does not accomodate.

Whew.

It is the sales person's responsibility to qualify the customer taking all of the above parameters [and any others that I may have missed] into account, and sell the appropriate solution which is a lot easier to do when there is not huge gaps in the product line and pricing matrix, made painfully obvious by the fact that every other competitor has a product filling that same gap in both those categories.

Apple went Intel [besides the fact that IBM & Motorola blew it] to level the hardware playing field. Apple released Boot Camp to invite direct competition from a weaker opponent on it's own, now leveled hardware playing field. the truth cannow be experienced by the users themselves, side by side and hands-on.

Apple is only one product line [Mac Pro mini tower] away from giving every peecee hardware manufacturer a swift kick in the (insert sensitive and very painful when kicked anatomical part here.)
 
MacQuest said:
I think Apple will use dual Core Duo 64-bit Conroe's across the line when initially introduced [WWDC in August.
No.

The Core Duo cannot be used in a dual-socket configuration. Neither will the Conroe.

The Core Solo/Duo are replacing the Pentium M in the Intel lineup - mobile and power-sensitive use (blades, AIO, SFF).

The Conroe will replace the Pentium. Strictly single socket, single or dual-core - but only one chip. This is the "desktop" market chip.

Woodcrest will replace the Xeon. Dual socket capable for a dual dual-core. (Some models quad socket capable.) Usually larger cache (Woodcrest expected to be 4 MiB L2.) These are workstation/server chips


MacQuest said:
However, I don't think that Apple will be looking to raise the price of the Mac Pro considerably.
...
This would be in line with their current line-up which has single G5 dual core's in the two lower end PowerMacs, and dual G5 dual core's in the highest end PowerMac.
I disagree for two reasons....

1. The "Mac" (or "Mac Pro mini-tower") will eliminate the need for the crippled entry-level PowerMac. A higher end mini-tower would seriously overlap the low-end PowerMac - so make the "Mac Pro" line dual-socket only.

2. Intel's traditionally charged a premium for Xeon CPUs and the associated chipsets. Woodcrest will start at $850 per 3 GHz CPU, vs $530 for the top Conroe and $423 for the top Core Duo (after the price cut).

This doesn't include the chipset - and as an indicator for that you can buy an Intel mobo for a dual-core Pentium D for $105 at Newegg.com - but a dual-socket Xeon SE7525RP2 - Entry Level Server Board is $296 according to Froogle.
______________________

So, I'd predict the Mac Pro (PowerMac) to increase in price simply because the entry model is axed - but to also have a real price increase because the "Xeon" CPUs and chipsets are much more expensive than the rumoured price of the G5s.

It Apple sticks with a single socket entry-level "Mac Pro", it would need to have significant expansion capability beyond today's G5. Two hard drives and one optical in a case the size of the G5 is absurd. A single socket "Mac Pro" that held 4 to 6 HD and two optical would make sense, though. ("Sense" because while it would overlap the mini-tower in CPU performance, it could have I/O options that gave it added usefulness.)

One other thing to consider is that Apple could use different CPU models and motherboards within the "Mac Pro" lineup. I've been making the case that a single-socket Xeon wouldn't make sense - but Apple could use the mini-tower motherboard in the single-socket Mac Pro systems, and a Woodcrest dual-socket mobo in the quad core configs.
 
MacQuest said:
I think Apple will use dual Core Duo 64-bit Conroe's across the line when initially introduced [WWDC in August]

What the hell is a "dual Core Duo Conroe"??? :confused: Sorry, but you can't just go merging chips like that. Either you're referring to Core Duo or Conroe, which is it? Regardless, Core Duos cannot be used in a dual setup and I don't believe Conroe can be either, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Maybe instead fo going for a "dual Core Duo Conroe" you should wait for the "quad dual Duo quad core Kentsfield Meroms", I hear they're going to be a smoking processor... :p :cool:
 
AidenShaw said:
It Apple sticks with a single socket entry-level "Mac Pro", it would need to have significant expansion capability beyond today's G5. Two hard drives and one optical in a case the size of the G5 is absurd. A single socket "Mac Pro" that held 4 to 6 HD and two optical would make sense, though. ("Sense" because while it would overlap the mini-tower in CPU performance, it could have I/O options that gave it added usefulness.)
Why pray-tell would an "entry level" Mac Pro need room for 4-6 hard drives? 2 optical drives I can just about understand (although I think is really unnecessary).

BTW - Mid-level Apple Mac Tower - never going to happen folks.
 
dr_lha said:
Why pray-tell would an "entry level" Mac Pro need room for 4-6 hard drives? 2 optical drives I can just about understand (although I think is really unnecessary).
Choice.

Some people don't need a fire-breathing quad, but they do need expansion for disks (think small office server).

Dell recognizes this, and puts the same mobo in a choice of configs:

gx_4_chassis_180x110.jpg



dr_lha said:
BTW - Mid-level Apple Mac Tower - never going to happen folks.
I'll bookmark this note so that you can eat crow when Apple announces the Conroe mini-tower.
 
Bro said:
Good point in bringing up the other emulation software MS got with the purchase of Connectix. MS probably didn't buy Connectix because of VPC for Mac. It was for all the other emulation software. Legacy Windows and Windows CE with all the ARM, MIPS, SH, and x86 processors that can be emulated in your development environment on WinXP. This really speeds up development.

Microsoft has always been interested in any technology that allowed one to run their OS.

In the days after the founding of Microsoft to provide a Basic for the first Personal Computers, and before MSDOS and PCDOS the engine that drove Microsoft was the Microsoft SoftCard. It was a plug in card with a Z80 for the Apple II and Apples //e that allowed the Apple computer to boot and run CP/M (provided by Microsoft) and Wordstar. It was very successful.

If Bootcamp allows Macs to rune Windows XP, it will be no different than the market 29 years ago...
 
Thinkpad-UTMEM said:
Microsoft has always been interested in any technology that allowed one to run their OS.

In the days after the founding of Microsoft to provide a Basic for the first Personal Computers, and before MSDOS and PCDOS the engine that drove Microsoft was the Microsoft SoftCard. It was a plug in card with a Z80 for the Apple II and Apples //e that allowed the Apple computer to boot and run CP/M (provided by Microsoft) and Wordstar. It was very successful.

If Bootcamp allows Macs to rune Windows XP, it will be no different than the market 29 years ago...

No different? How could that be? Microsoft didn't do anything but include Digital Research's CP/M with the card. Besides, it was a very stable operating system for the time.
 
AidenShaw said:
Choice.

Some people don't need a fire-breathing quad, but they do need expansion for disks (think small office server).

Dell recognizes this, and puts the same mobo in a choice of configs:

gx_4_chassis_180x110.jpg
We're not talking about servers now are we? Apple only makes rack mount servers. So what do you want the low end Mac Tower to be, a server computer, a desktop computer or a workstation? Pick one.

Most people here I think are after something like a iMac, with some expandability and no screen. 4-6 hard drives doesn't fit into that market.


I'll bookmark this note so that you can eat crow when Apple announces the Conroe mini-tower.
Looking forward to it.
 
Ensoniq said:
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.)

Why bother doing that? Chances are apple would be able to start from scratch and do something themselves faster, cheaper, and better than buying old code from MS
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.