Apple, Parallels, VMWare and Microsoft

[dongmin]

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:

It's not exactly what you're talking about but people've been asking for a 'MacHome' for ages now. Take the Mini mobo, add a couple PCI-e slots, and replace the notebook HDD with a 3.5-incher. Put it in a case that you could stand up or lay horizontally in a stereo-component-type setup. Offer it with a boatload of entertainment-oriented BTO options like 512MB graphic card or DVR card. The cost of manufacturing the basic box wouldn't be much more than the Mini; Apple could probably get away with just a $100 premium. AND Apple could make a KILLING on the BTO options.

 

[AidenShaw]

We're not talking about servers now are we? Apple only makes rack mount servers.

Actually, Apple makes all kinds of servers:

http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/specs.html

Mac OSX Server Requirements

• Xserve G5
• Xserve (G4)
• Power Mac G5
• Power Mac G4
• Macintosh Server G4
• Power Macintosh G3 (Blue & White)
• Macintosh Server G3 (Blue & White)
• iMac G5
• iMac (G4)
• eMac (G4)
• Mac mini (G4) computer

It looks like Apple will call just about anything without a battery a "server".

So what do you want the low end Mac Tower to be, a server computer, a desktop computer or a workstation? Pick one.

The point is that the user should be able to choose which one of these three options a system will perform.

My main contention is that there will be a Conroe (64-bit dual core, single socket) mini-tower sitting between the MiniMacIntel and the current large PowerMac G5.

That price gap is too large to sustain, and Intel's pricing tiers for single-socket vs. multi-socket chips will force Apple to raise the price of the multi-socket PowerMac replacement.

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.

Completely agree. These people would want the mini-tower, with room for one extra disk (optical or HD), a PCIe graphics slot, a couple of empty RAM slots.

Please go back and reread my comment.

I'm sorry if it wasn't clear, but I was trying to say "since the mini-tower would overlap a low-end big tower in performance - the only reason to keep a low-end big tower in the lineup is if it had much more expansion than the mini-tower, say 4-6 disks".

 

[dr_lha]

It's not exactly what you're talking about but people've been asking for a 'MacHome' for ages now. Take the Mini mobo, add a couple PCI-e slots, and replace the notebook HDD with a 3.5-incher. Put it in a case that you could stand up or lay horizontally in a stereo-component-type setup. Offer it with a boatload of entertainment-oriented BTO options like 512MB graphic card or DVR card. The cost of manufacturing the basic box wouldn't be much more than the Mini; Apple could probably get away with just a $100 premium. AND Apple could make a KILLING on the BTO options.

Although I'd like to see this, I think Apple likes to have clear space between their lines. A system like this for only $100 more than a Mini doesn't make sense to me, knowing how Apple like to do business.

The comparisons with Dell are the issue here, Dell is the anti-Apple in terms of its product line. They allow you to go from A-Z with every single permuation along the way. Apple definitely prefer simplicity:

Mac Mini
iMac
Power/Pro Mac

with about $500 gap between the models (i.e. Core duo mini, $799, low in iMac, $1299. High end iMac $1699, Low end Mac Pro $2099(?)).

I think the best we'll see in terms of a mid-range Apple tower is if they produce a lower-end PowerMac type computer, but then that overlaps with the iMac too much.

 

[dr_lha]

Mac OSX Server Requirements

• Xserve G5
• Xserve (G4)
• Power Mac G5
• Power Mac G4
• Macintosh Server G4
• Power Macintosh G3 (Blue & White)
• Macintosh Server G3 (Blue & White)
• iMac G5
• iMac (G4)
• eMac (G4)
• Mac mini (G4) computer

It looks like Apple will call just about anything without a battery a "server".

Yes, yes. However "server hardware" is usually characterised by something that can take a lot of HDs, the 4-6 you mentioned.

My main contention is that there will be a Conroe (64-bit dual core, single socket) mini-tower sitting between the MiniMacIntel and the current large PowerMac G5.

My contention is that you'll be dissappointed. I think the cheapest Apple tower will remain at 2 grand. We'll see what CPU it takes. I highly doubt that Apple will be introducing a "4th box" as it were, to go along side the mini, iMac and whatever replaces the PowerMac.

That price gap is too large to sustain, and Intel's pricing tiers for single-socket vs. multi-socket chips will force Apple to raise the price of the multi-socket PowerMac replacement.

I think what we'll see here is Apple high end machines will be stonkingly expensive, in line with the Intel prices of >$500 per chip.

I'm sorry if it wasn't clear, but I was trying to say "since the mini-tower would overlap a low-end big tower in performance - the only reason to keep a low-end big tower in the lineup is if it had much more expansion than the mini-tower, say 4-6 disks".

OK, I'm not really convinced of your logic here, but I'll let it slide.

 

[AidenShaw]

It's not exactly what you're talking about but people've been asking for a 'MacHome' for ages now. Take the Mini mobo, add a couple PCI-e slots, and replace the notebook HDD with a 3.5-incher. Put it in a case that you could stand up or lay horizontally in a stereo-component-type setup. Offer it with a boatload of entertainment-oriented BTO options like 512MB graphic card or DVR card. The cost of manufacturing the basic box wouldn't be much more than the Mini; Apple could probably get away with just a $100 premium. AND Apple could make a KILLING on the BTO options.

Oh, something that looks like this:

 

[dr_lha]

Oh, something that looks like this:

Those things haven't exactly been selling like hot cakes though have they?

PS:

 

[ManchesterTrix]

We're not talking about servers now are we? Apple only makes rack mount servers.

Last I looked they offer Server software as an installed option on the G5 Tower.

 

[dr_lha]

Last I looked they offer Server software as an installed option on the G5 Tower.

You can install server software on anything, hell I've run a server off an old Pentium 1 laptop. What I meant was server hardware. I.e. something that can take 4-6 HDs internally.

 

[AidenShaw]

What I meant was server hardware. I.e. something that can take 4-6 HDs internally.

XServe G5 only holds 3 drives, not a server in your opinion?

Other Intel workstations that are the size of the PowerMac G5 typically hold more than two 3.5" HDs and one optical drive...

• HP xw8200 - five 3.5" bays and three 5.25" optical bays
• Dell PW670 - three 3.5" bays, three 5.25" bays

Why is it that so many people on these boards dismiss as stupid anything that they themselves don't need?

Why can't they believe that someone would want to put several disks in an office tower, and want to run it as a server?

 

[ManchesterTrix]

You can install server software on anything, hell I've run a server off an old Pentium 1 laptop. What I meant was server hardware. I.e. something that can take 4-6 HDs internally.

I'm not talking a out installing server software on anything. If Apple is selling G5 towers preloaded with Server software, then it would reason that they intend "server" as a very real potential use for the tower.

 

[dongmin]

Oh, something that looks like this:

Actually, no, nothing like that. I said it could go on top of AV components, but it shouldn't look or function anything like that. It should be a Mac through and through. It should borrow the Mini's aesthetics but allow you to stand it up vertically or horizontally, like you can with the playstation/xbox.

The idea is that, at its most basic level, it's just a 'stretched' Mini. The PCI-e slots and the extra HDD space allows people to configure it however they want. Apple can offer different preconfigured models:

1. Gaming machine - badass graphics card; basic HDD; maybe surround-sound card

2. Entertainment Center - DVR card with hardware encoding/decoding; two bigass HDDs; HDMI

3. Xserve Mini - ???

 

[dr_lha]

XServe G5 only holds 3 drives, not a server in your opinion?

When exactly did I say that? I simply pointed out that a computer that held 4-6 HDs would be a server machine, I didn't say a machine had to hold 4-6 HDs to be a server.

This is a ****ing pointless argument if ever there was one!

For the record I don't think of G5 hardware as "server hardware" however. I think of it as a workstation running server software because that is what it is.

 

[AidenShaw]

You need to review your Latin skills...

When exactly did I say that? I simply pointed out that a computer that held 4-6 HDs would be a server machine, I didn't say a machine had to hold 4-6 HDs to be a server.

What you said was:

What I meant was server hardware. I.e. something that can take 4-6 HDs internally.

You said "id est", not "exempli gratia". "Id est" is commonly translated as "that is", which in this case means that you clearly state that a system needs to support at least 4 disks to be considered a server.

Don't use foreign language phrases if you don't know what they mean.

For the record I don't think of G5 hardware as "server hardware" however. I think of it as a workstation running server software because that is what it is.

In the case of the PowerMac G5 running as a server, I agree. The PowerMac doesn't have ECC memory, which to me is not acceptable for server hardware.

However, a "server" is in the eye of the beholder. If a small office needs a file server, running OSX Server on a MiniMac with a 1394 drive might be what they need. Then it's a server.

 

[octubre29]

octubre29

Get ready for the most unreliable mac ever. Smart people know that a computer is just a computer without the software. The problem with PC's is not the hardware, god knows if Alienware made a computer running OSX it would be a screamer. What is really wrong is the Windows OS and god save your souls if you can stomach the usual crashes brought on by Windows on your mac.

 

[Billy Boo Bob]

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.

But the people working on VPC for Mac are a handful of folks in the Mac Business Unit. Mac programmers tucked away in their own little shack working on Mac programs. (I guess, there has to be *some* sharing of knowledge between the MBU and the Windows Office group in order to keep file fomats in sync).

I think one reason for the delay is that you'll find if/when VPC does come back out, it'll be the nicest of the bunch. You'll find a lot tighter integration between the Mac and any of the VMs (and across VMs, too, probably). Drag and drop a Mac folder on the sharing icon on the bottom and you have a new lettered drive on the PC. Drag from the Mac desktop onto the Windows desktop and you copy the file/folder (and the other way). Better networking and USB options, too, I'm sure. The MBU would have to work with some of the guys/gals in the OS group, too, to make sure they understand some of the insides of XP and Vista to make the extended features work.

I haven't used Parallels yet, and they might have some of this, but I doubt that they've gone far beyond making XP run at a nice clip and providing the basics for networking and USB support. I would think that the MBU is doing a ground up rewrite of the Mac version which require much different coding to mix and match OS X to Windows, as opposed to mixing one Windows with another, as in the Windows version of VPC.

I dunno. Can you drag and drop an iso image file from the Mac and turn it into a lettered drive in Parallels? Make virtual floppies (images) (not that they'll be necessary much any more) that will boot the PC if "inserted" (loaded)? Can you expand and shrink "fixed size" PC drive image files in Parallels?

I'm not asking sarcastically as if I think I know they don't... These are honest questions from someone who's still struggling with a tired old dog (eMac 800) and won't be able to get an Intel Mac for a while to learn it myself. I'm just curious about it (and admittadly a bit lazy to go looking around at their site to find out).

 

[systimax]

No Parallels cant do that..but Vmware can. And much better then VPC from MS

But the people working on VPC for Mac are a handful of folks in the Mac Business Unit. Mac programmers tucked away in their own little shack working on Mac programs. (I guess, there has to be *some* sharing of knowledge between the MBU and the Windows Office group in order to keep file fomats in sync).

I think one reason for the delay is that you'll find if/when VPC does come back out, it'll be the nicest of the bunch. You'll find a lot tighter integration between the Mac and any of the VMs (and across VMs, too, probably). Drag and drop a Mac folder on the sharing icon on the bottom and you have a new lettered drive on the PC. Drag from the Mac desktop onto the Windows desktop and you copy the file/folder (and the other way). Better networking and USB options, too, I'm sure. The MBU would have to work with some of the guys/gals in the OS group, too, to make sure they understand some of the insides of XP and Vista to make the extended features work.

I haven't used Parallels yet, and they might have some of this, but I doubt that they've gone far beyond making XP run at a nice clip and providing the basics for networking and USB support. I would think that the MBU is doing a ground up rewrite of the Mac version which require much different coding to mix and match OS X to Windows, as opposed to mixing one Windows with another, as in the Windows version of VPC.

I dunno. Can you drag and drop an iso image file from the Mac and turn it into a lettered drive in Parallels? Make virtual floppies (images) (not that they'll be necessary much any more) that will boot the PC if "inserted" (loaded)? Can you expand and shrink "fixed size" PC drive image files in Parallels?

I'm not asking sarcastically as if I think I know they don't... These are honest questions from someone who's still struggling with a tired old dog (eMac 800) and won't be able to get an Intel Mac for a while to learn it myself. I'm just curious about it (and admittadly a bit lazy to go looking around at their site to find out).

 

[Photorun]

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

All fine and dandy but I'm thinking Apple could make something that looked hella less FUGLY than the Dull Chumputer pieces of crap pictured.

 

[ryanflanders256]

Beta 3 is out

Beta 3 is out.

http://www.parallels.com/en/download/mac/

 

[AidenShaw]

All fine and dandy but I'm thinking Apple could make something that looked hella less FUGLY than the Dull Chumputer pieces of crap pictured.

Dark metal and plastic is just fine lurking in the shadows under a desk - they more or less disappear.

Not at all like the garish PowerMac G5....

 

[Billy Boo Bob]

No Parallels cant do that..but Vmware can. And much better then VPC from MS

That's cool. And, I suppose that Parallels might at some point, too.

I'm not saying that MS is the only one I want. Myself, I'll go ahead with one of the others once I have a MacTel (due to lack of $). The only thing that I'm thinking is that some potential switchers (we need a new term for those that will still want or need to use Windows primarily on their Mac PC (to begin with)) will want to stick with the Microsoft branding all the way around. The not-so-tech-knowledgable ones might feel more comfortable going with MS's version of virtualization instead of an unknown (to them) third party solution.

So, even if Parallels, VMWare, and others can match the features, MS has the advantage of brand recognition (even if at a higher price). Plus, they stand a chance to sell more copies of XP/Vista bundled with it to cut into the bootleg % rate of the OS that will surely happen with the other solutions. I think it would be in their own interest to continue with VPC development.

 

[Billy Boo Bob]

Beta 3 is out.

http://www.parallels.com/en/download/mac/

I looked through their site but couldn't find it. Just curious what was fixed / improved in this version. I'm sure it's probably included in the download, but I haven't been downloading since I have no MacTel.

 

[ManchesterTrix]

I looked through their site but couldn't find it. Just curious what was fixed / improved in this version. I'm sure it's probably included in the download, but I haven't been downloading since I have no MacTel.

The list from the email I got was: No need to reinstall Parallels Workstation if its moved from the default file location
Mac OS X no longer restarts when Parallels Workstation is left running and host wakes up from "Sleep" mode
Kernel no longer panics when working with several VMs
Improved speed and performance
Idling guest OS now consumes only 1-2% of CPU power
Bridged networking issues fixed
Sound support introduced
Improved wi-fi support (especially for MacBook pros)
Improved mouse synchronization tool
Keyboard mapping and repeating bugs fixed
CD/DVD problems fixed
Many other minor bug fixes

Sound does work if a little bit flakey at times, I notice it stutters sometimes.

 

[Billy Boo Bob]

The list from the email I got was: No need to reinstall Parallels Workstation if its moved from the default file location
Mac OS X no longer restarts when Parallels Workstation is left running and host wakes up from "Sleep" mode
Kernel no longer panics when working with several VMs
Improved speed and performance
Idling guest OS now consumes only 1-2% of CPU power
Bridged networking issues fixed
Sound support introduced
Improved wi-fi support (especially for MacBook pros)
Improved mouse synchronization tool
Keyboard mapping and repeating bugs fixed
CD/DVD problems fixed
Many other minor bug fixes

Sound does work if a little bit flakey at times, I notice it stutters sometimes.

Good news, though. Sounds like they're coming along with it. I'm sure the stopping of kernal panics, and no longer restarting coming out of sleep will be welcomed fixes by the early testers/adopters.