Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Leopard to Include Virtualization Software?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
unless Apple plans to deal with everyone calling in and complaining about everything there is to be complained about Windows, i don't think a virtualized Windows on a Mac is going to happen.
because they certainly won't be calling Dell, and calling Microsoft won't get them anywhere either.
because they certainly won't be calling Dell, and calling Microsoft won't get them anywhere either.
It's going to happen.macdong said:
No one calls Microsoft when Linux in a VMware virtual machine or a Virtual Server virtual machine has a problem - yet lots of Linux and Solaris VMs are running on Windows.
No one calls Suse when a Windows VM on Xen or VMware has a problem = yet lots of Windows and Solaris VMs are running on Linux.
Your argument has already been rejected by the real world. Apple can't ignore the coming age of virtualization - especially since they're embracing chips with hardware support for it.
Sorry if this has been said
Has anyone mentioned "Red Box?" It was Apple's rumoured emulation environment for Windows. Read about it here.
It would blow everyone's mind if you could double click a Windows app and it would open in OS X (in an UBER SECURE PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT) without actually launching another OS. Kinda like Classic only without the 2 minute load time.
The question is, like the linked article suggests, would the developers flee?
David
Has anyone mentioned "Red Box?" It was Apple's rumoured emulation environment for Windows. Read about it here.
It would blow everyone's mind if you could double click a Windows app and it would open in OS X (in an UBER SECURE PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT) without actually launching another OS. Kinda like Classic only without the 2 minute load time.
The question is, like the linked article suggests, would the developers flee?
David
Stridder44 said:
I would agree. It will be interesting to see if the next version of OSX will even run on G4 and G5 systems. I am waiting to see if I can even run 10.5 before I toss my PPC Macs out the window and be forced to upgrade. My guess is all of the focus has switched to the Intel side, so even if they make a new version of OSX run on a PPC it probably won't run very well. Oh well...that is technology. I like all of these exciting things coming out, but it can get pretty expensive.
I assume if Apple adds virtualization to 10.5 then it will require an Intel processor. So much for Apple supporting PPC for years to come!
rayz said:
Oh, I know it's sad--yet I can't help it. Call it an addiction, a hangup, an unfounded devotion, but OS X makes me happy just by looking at it. I really think it is the most beautiful thing that Apple has created (not speaking strictly of aesthetics, but function as well).
I realize I had a touch of the melodrama in that post, and for that I sincerely apologize. I was responding to the previous posts who (presumed to) take this rumor to its logical end by concluding that OS X would go the way of all the world.
In the light of day I have come to a new take on this possibility, or eventuality, of virtualization, and that is that it may well help OS X down the road.
This is a ridiculous statement, if I ever heard any.Abercrombieboy said:
One word: "universal" = intel AND ppc.
I doubt Intel Macs make up more than 20% of the total in the wild, the rest being PPC. Apple is not gonna leave the majority of these users in the larch, especially since they will make a good chunk of change in Leopard sales. Of course, Apple will support PPCs!
10.6 is another question. It'll probably be another 2 years, at least, before 10.6 comes to fruition. So Apple may force an upgrade path then for the laggards.
A logical Step and Most Welcome
I can't wait to see this as it is a very logical step for this OS, both from a home and work environment.
We are using more and more VMware at my company. While testing is the main use (we can build multiple virtual machines on one server) I can easily see it expanding to different uses. The guy writting earlier about setting up virtual machines for his kids is a great example.
The other benefit is the ability to use softare that was not developed on your OS. This type of cabability is different than VMware, and I'm certainly happy if this is what Apple will bring in the next release.
Either way, this is a good thing for Apple and us.
I can't wait to see this as it is a very logical step for this OS, both from a home and work environment.
We are using more and more VMware at my company. While testing is the main use (we can build multiple virtual machines on one server) I can easily see it expanding to different uses. The guy writting earlier about setting up virtual machines for his kids is a great example.
The other benefit is the ability to use softare that was not developed on your OS. This type of cabability is different than VMware, and I'm certainly happy if this is what Apple will bring in the next release.
Either way, this is a good thing for Apple and us.
Abercrombieboy said:
I'm guessing 10.5 will be universal, there's still enough "new" G4's and G5's out there to make a few bucks selling OSX upgrades.
I also fully expect that Apple will likely keep operational versions of there OS for multiple architectures indefinitely. Even if not released to the public I think you could expect in their labs to see running versions for several types of architectures.
It will be interesting to see if 10.5 will have Virtualization, and if it does how it will be implemented, what capabilities & limitations it may have.
honestly, while that is a fun thought, I'm hoping for some of their old ideas to come to light (especially since I hear they are reworking the Finder) like stacks/piles (I can't remember which it was called) and PVR capabilities, Blue-Ray / HDDVD added to the DVD player App. Some features added to current apps. (like a remote help/remote desktop feature in iChat similar to Windows Messengers) etc.. etc..
Also, I've read a few notes from people saying they think eventually that Apple will transition to windowz and just be another hardware manufacturer (i.e. dell, hp, etc...)
I respectfully disagree,
1) If that were the case Apple would have chosen BIOS for more transition time and compatibility. Why not just out of the box allow duel booting if that were the case.?
2) Apple would lose many of it's fans, and would lose allot of respect from allot of people. (Remember their slogan of "Think Different")
3) Apple has allot of software tied to OSX, that they make money off of
They are no longer a hardware company just with a cool OS to sell the hardware (Final Cut Studio, Shake, iLife, iWork, Aperture, Logic, Webobjects, Remote Desktop, etc.)
4) I love Apple, but I wouldn't pay the Apple price tags for a computer that just looks pretty on the outside, but is the same as everyone else's on the inside. OSX is a huge reason why I, and many others I know buy Apple stuff. I want it pretty inside and out. (I don't think I'm alone)
5) iPod/iTunes may be a crown jewel for Apple, and a money maker by itself, but it was and still is a marketing tool to sell Macs.
6) Apple likes tight control of their products, and control (as much as possible) the experience you have interfacing with their products. They would lose this control.
7)OSX isn't perfect, but it's sure been a heck of allot more stable then any of my windows computers, if I have a windows crash on a Mac it dang well better ONLY be in a confined virtualPC type environment.
8) I know more viruses, hackers, etc etc will attack Mac if they continue to grow in popularity, but for now I love not paying the yearly virus/spyware etc tax. And if there's going to be a windows virus on a mac it again better be confined to ONLY a VirtualPC type environment
9) Apple loves to advertise the UNIX roots of OSX
Anyhow sorry for the rant, none of us have a crystal ball and can see the future so it's speculation at this point, but that's at-least how I see it.
cheers and best wishes to all
~Arkman
Here's the plan:
Phase 1 - fully develop the NeXT OS as a GUI to Unix for the Mac, and secure Microsoft Windows during this time (phase complete)
Phase 2 - adopt Wintel hardware and continue to use the OS from Phase 1 (in process)
Phase 3 - virtualize Microsoft libraries, to seamlessly run Windows applications on the Mac OS
Phase 4 - Invert phase 3, by running Windows as a base, but with a Mac OS GUI (so you get the dock, expose, single menu bar, etc.), and virtualize Mac libraries to continue to run existing Mac software. From the user's perspective, it will look, feel, and operate exactly like in Phase 3. This Mac GUI will only run on Apple Macs, which will continue to use innovative hardware (like scrolling trackpads).
End result: Macs, based on the Windows core (so MS does most of the development), that can run all Windows apps and "Mac apps" which over time will simply be the same as Windows apps. Apple makes money from the hardware sales, just as the do with the iPod, while retaining their distinctive look and feel.
Of course, that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong.
Phase 1 - fully develop the NeXT OS as a GUI to Unix for the Mac, and secure Microsoft Windows during this time (phase complete)
Phase 2 - adopt Wintel hardware and continue to use the OS from Phase 1 (in process)
Phase 3 - virtualize Microsoft libraries, to seamlessly run Windows applications on the Mac OS
Phase 4 - Invert phase 3, by running Windows as a base, but with a Mac OS GUI (so you get the dock, expose, single menu bar, etc.), and virtualize Mac libraries to continue to run existing Mac software. From the user's perspective, it will look, feel, and operate exactly like in Phase 3. This Mac GUI will only run on Apple Macs, which will continue to use innovative hardware (like scrolling trackpads).
End result: Macs, based on the Windows core (so MS does most of the development), that can run all Windows apps and "Mac apps" which over time will simply be the same as Windows apps. Apple makes money from the hardware sales, just as the do with the iPod, while retaining their distinctive look and feel.
Of course, that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong.
Okay
I'll have a go.
If you're talking about OS/2, then running Windows apps was certaoinly not the reason why it failed. In fact, IBM squandered the best chance it had.
1/. Poor marketing and no direction. At the time, IBM was much less of a unified company than it is today. It was made up of huge numbers of divisions, each with different levels of influence and different agendas. The Personal Software Products Division was fighting against other IBM divisions that had already decided to support Windows NT. This prevented the PSP division from making any serious effort to market OS/2. They couldn't even get IBM's hardware divisions to preload OS/2 on IBM PCS; which leads me to point number 2.
2/. Preloads. Most Windows installations are preloads that come with the machine. If you haven't got OEM partners, then you're sunk. MS realised this and stitched up the preload market good and tight, not allowing OS/2 to make any headway.
Apple certainly doesn't have a problem with 1/. and since it sells its own boxes, it doesn't have to rely on vendors preloading OSX.
How does that sound ....
guez said:
I'll have a go.
If you're talking about OS/2, then running Windows apps was certaoinly not the reason why it failed. In fact, IBM squandered the best chance it had.
1/. Poor marketing and no direction. At the time, IBM was much less of a unified company than it is today. It was made up of huge numbers of divisions, each with different levels of influence and different agendas. The Personal Software Products Division was fighting against other IBM divisions that had already decided to support Windows NT. This prevented the PSP division from making any serious effort to market OS/2. They couldn't even get IBM's hardware divisions to preload OS/2 on IBM PCS; which leads me to point number 2.
2/. Preloads. Most Windows installations are preloads that come with the machine. If you haven't got OEM partners, then you're sunk. MS realised this and stitched up the preload market good and tight, not allowing OS/2 to make any headway.
Apple certainly doesn't have a problem with 1/. and since it sells its own boxes, it doesn't have to rely on vendors preloading OSX.
How does that sound ....
Abercrombieboy said:
I agree. Apple is desperate to get people onto Intel Macs as fast as possible so they can cut development costs. They'll support PPC alright, but don't expect them to carry on supporting it to the same level as the Intel version. You'll see security and bug fixes and that's about it. Didn't a group of users have to take Apple to force them to keep a promise to support older machines?
Having said that, virtualization relies on the Intel chip, so they couldn't add it to PPC OSX anyway.
boncellis said:
Right, put the mouse down and step away from the keyboard ....
I would have to agree that it certainly is a very nice GUI. I think the secret the way it's rendered. Quartz makes everything look really, really good. MS is coming up with something similar in Vista, but I'm not sure what it looks like yet.
No need to apologise for being passionate. I just find it a little odd when people apply it inanimate objects, when there is still so much to get passionate about, right outside your window.
I don't not believe that this will lead to the end of MacOSX. Here's the thing:
Apple now makes Intel boxes. Fair enough, they had no choice. They don't actually make Intel boxes that are better than anyone else's Intel box. I think the Sony line of laptops look better to be honest.
Contrary to popular belief around here, Windows people are not stupid; they know when they're been taken for a ride. If Apple attempted to sell a Windows machine at their usual markup, it would not sell, no matter what the box looked like.
But it is definitely the case that the Mac user base is being lead towards a more Window-sy way of doing things. The appearance of multi-button mice; strange inconstistencies in the UI. Likewise, Windows is adopting the better elements from the MacOSX.
At some point in the future, they're going to meet in the middle.
Undecided said:
Yeah, you could be wrong, but I don't think you are.
Apple would slash development costs to the bone, and manufacturers wouldn't have to write separate drivers for the MacOSX.
There would be no real reason to buy any other PC. Dell would have to beg Apple for a license (and now it really could run on any old box), or close up shop and give the money back to the shareholders.
I'm starting to wonder. When Adobe and MS release their applications which 'support Intel Macs', what will that mean exactly?
arkmannj said:
Becasue in general, folk would prefer to run Windows apps inside the OS, rather than dual boot. Saves all that faffing about.
I don't think they will sell Windows as is, but I think they are looking at some way to make Windows apps run seamlessly on MacOSX.
'Fans'?
Apple cares about the bottom line first and foremost. They would certainly sacrifice the feelings of a relatively small number of ... er .. 'fans', if it meant they could tap into HUGE marketshare enjoyed by Microsoft.
They could sell an order of magnitude more if they ported to Windows though ... :-|
But what is MacOSX? The GUI and the frameworks. The frameworks already exist on Windows or versions exist in Apple labs somewhere. Remember that Cocoa's forerunner ran on Windows; I doubt Apple has abandoned that work.
Nope. The iPod is a separate and highly successuful product in its own right. Selling more Macs is a side effect, not a strategy. Over the past couple of quarters, Apple has made more from the iPod than it has from the Macs, and the clever money (if there is such a thing) reckons that this will continue.
Apple will give up control if it makes more money or cuts costs. Apple does none of it's own quality control for hardware anyway. And the initial release of Tiger wasn't all that great as I remember.
Yeah, I keep hearing this from Mac users. If you have Windows XP SP2 and are experiencing regular crashes, get your hardware checked out.
Clued up Windows users don't pay for their anti-virus software. They use something like Avast!. Free, regularly updated. Robust, stable and doesn't slaughter your machine's performance or turn it into a train wreck like NAV does.
Personally I wouldn't put a Symantec product on any machine; Mac or Windows.
And last year, Apple loved to advertise the PowerPC underpinnings of its hardware. It's just marketing.
Jobs could stand up at this year's WWDC and announce Windows Virtualization or MacOSX running over a Windows core, or whatever else, without batting an eyelid.
I don't think that will happen. The GUI is not where the stability is, and while Windows is getting better over the years (XP is really not that instable if we are just honest) it still isn't there compared with OSX. And the stability of Vista is well unknown.Undecided said:
What I will think is going to happen (maybe already stated but haven't read to 10 pages of opinions) will be that virtualization will be available in the Leopard/Intel version only. The PPC will not contain this feature and to be honest there is no direct need for. There is still VPC and other programs available that make it happen, and everyone that really has a need for it, has already the software laying around. They will make sure VPC will be compatible with Leopard/PPC.
This will provide a possibilty for Apple to say, if you want to run Windows apps faster than before, buy an Intel based Mac. This would make financial sense for them. Still full support on PPC and extra features available on Intel platform without the PPC owners feeling betrayed by Apple.
I also think the virtualization is not emulation based at all. The instruction set is in the processor. Yes, they will need to make some MFC calls available to make it work, but it is fairly 'native'. It probably will run in it's own containers, just like Java does with very limited access to the root system.
the-fish said:
I don't think so. Did Apple sell us out when they switched from SCSI hard drives to IDE hard drives? From ADB and SCSI ports to USB? From OS9 to Unix? From 68k processors to PPC? In each case, it wasn't a sellout because it always still just operated like a Mac always did. Besides, using standard components (hardware AND software components) makes them less expensive.
I think another poster had it exactly right: Apple sells an experience. So long as the experience is there, what difference does it make what the underlying hardware (or core software) is?
Little ISA emulation, but some
Since the underlying ISA (Instruction Set Architecture) of the real PC is the same as the ISA of the emulated PC, most instructions can be executed directly by the real CPU at native speeds. ISA emulation is not needed for most instructions. (Full ISA emulation is what Virtual PC/Mac uses to run x86 code on a PPC chip.)
Even with an emulated x86 PC on a real x86 CPU, some privileged instructions must be emulated - since the OS running in the emulated PC cannot be allowed to modify the state of the real PC.
In a WINE environment, yes - you'd need to provide special MFC libraries that interfaced with the native Carbon and Cocoa libraries. But that's just what WINE is, a set of libraries to translate Windows APIs like MFC to native Linux APIs.
The virtualization (using VT) being discussed does emulate a PC, with emulated devices like graphics, NIC and disks.MarcelV said:
Since the underlying ISA (Instruction Set Architecture) of the real PC is the same as the ISA of the emulated PC, most instructions can be executed directly by the real CPU at native speeds. ISA emulation is not needed for most instructions. (Full ISA emulation is what Virtual PC/Mac uses to run x86 code on a PPC chip.)
Even with an emulated x86 PC on a real x86 CPU, some privileged instructions must be emulated - since the OS running in the emulated PC cannot be allowed to modify the state of the real PC.
In a virtual machine environment, this would not be necessary. The MFC libraries running in the Windows OS on the emulated PC would be there, as would all the other libraries and OS APIs.MarcelV said:
In a WINE environment, yes - you'd need to provide special MFC libraries that interfaced with the native Carbon and Cocoa libraries. But that's just what WINE is, a set of libraries to translate Windows APIs like MFC to native Linux APIs.
An emulated virtual machine has complete isolation, but WINE has almost no isolation.MarcelV said:
Thataboy said:
No. Virtualisation means that two or more operating systems can run simultaneously, and each one believes that it is in full and complete control of a complete computer system. But in reality, each operating system is only in control of some resources.
Both MacOS X and Windows or another operating system like Linux would run completely unmodified.
