Thanks for providing the full detail. Great explanation. I think, however, we will see something different as initially described or even requested by the patent. MS has stated they are porting the Presentation Foundation to the Mac environment. I don't think it is necessary to have Windows installed at all when that has been completed. I think the MS framework will be the key here, and that's why emulation will not be necessary. Just to secure OS/X, I think the Presentation Foundation will run in containers but with access to disks and NIC etc.AidenShaw said:
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
MarcelV said:
That's really just an opinion though. I've been working in environments running thousands of XP machines doing development and graphics work. Haven't seen a single machine crash since Windows 2000.
This is very true. It's the same Windows code, but they moved alot of it around to implement better protection and security. In theory, it should be rock solid, but I certainly wouldn't put money on it until I've seen it in action for a few months ... :-|
rayz said:
why are people making a big deal over EFI. Yes it better than the BIOS but at the same time it just a glorific BIOS. After boot up there is noughting EFI system can do that a BIOS cannt. Now in boot up things can be a little differnt but as soon as the OS is loaded there is no differnce in the system.
Timepass said:
A LOT of things actually. BIOS Is actually a very old component that has basically been "patched" each time somthing has changed intechnology. BIg word being patched, as it was not originally intended with todays technology in mind. With the development in EFI you get these and other benifits:
* Breaks through fundamental BIOS barriers. For example, preboot RAM (random access memory) can now be greater than 1 MB, which means developers can control how RAM is allocated, and the Option ROM (read-only memory) space crunch is resolved.
* Allows a developer to compile pretested modules into a working BIOS that is more likely to be efficient and error-free.
* Encapsulates system specifics in the drivers. For example, drivers map to software-visible hardware. Also, hardware and platform specifics are isolated to support component-based firmware construction.
* Allows OEMs to add preboot features.
* Framework based on the C language, which will allow developers to use these frameworks quite easily
Just give me VMWare - I dont have any strong feelings about it being inbuilt other than that they are wasting their time.
I'd much rather that Apple either fixed or (preferrably) replaced entirely the horrible OS X kernel. OS X Threading is horrific and needs to be totally reviewed. Kernel signalling is horrific and needs to be reviewed.
Apple have the best GUI interface. The OS is the easiest-to-use and setup (even my mother managed to setup a printer). The applications they ship with the OS have reputations (and well deserved ones at that) for simplicity, power, and reliability. Shame it's all built on such a horrid foundation.
I'd much rather that Apple either fixed or (preferrably) replaced entirely the horrible OS X kernel. OS X Threading is horrific and needs to be totally reviewed. Kernel signalling is horrific and needs to be reviewed.
Apple have the best GUI interface. The OS is the easiest-to-use and setup (even my mother managed to setup a printer). The applications they ship with the OS have reputations (and well deserved ones at that) for simplicity, power, and reliability. Shame it's all built on such a horrid foundation.
The people making a big deal about EFI are the same ones who think that the PC is a horrible relic because it still has a floppy drive.Timepass said:
You are right, though - after the system is running, it simply doesn't matter. EFI is better, it has some advantages, but once the OS is running it just disappears.
Some people, though, are so consumed by feelings of inadequacy that they'll seize on anything that makes them feel superior. Feel sorry for the "my Mac rocks, it boots with EFI - your PC sucks, it uses BIOS" fanbois.... They need to get a life.
Amazing
Amazing how the RUMOR and the discussion starts about rumors that Apple will possibly include virtualization in OS X 10.5, and somehow weaves it's way to "oh my heck Apple is selling out and switching to Windows!!"
my take....
**Virtualization:**
Most likely.
But will it be virtualization intended to allow running other OS's, or somehow emulate parts of other OS's so the apps will run?
only time will tell.
**Apple's Road map pointing to a complete switch to windows, or even switching to a windows based core:**
Possible not probable.
I'll admit I have a personal bias here, I love OSX, I love the Unix core.
I love the stability I get out of OSX (current versions of windows XP are a bit better than in the past, but in my opinion still doesn't match OSX in this area yet) I love the look and feel of OSX, I love how simple yet powerful it can be, or if you go digging how complex it can be (for us geeks).
in short yes I admit I have a bias.
**OS X 10.5 be universal:**
Most likely, but don't expect to see an exact matching feature set between the PPC and X86 installations.
Having it universal, yet allowing some "Intel only" features allows transition time for users while still providing incentive to switch.
Amazing how the RUMOR and the discussion starts about rumors that Apple will possibly include virtualization in OS X 10.5, and somehow weaves it's way to "oh my heck Apple is selling out and switching to Windows!!"
my take....
**Virtualization:**
Most likely.
But will it be virtualization intended to allow running other OS's, or somehow emulate parts of other OS's so the apps will run?
only time will tell.
**Apple's Road map pointing to a complete switch to windows, or even switching to a windows based core:**
Possible not probable.
I'll admit I have a personal bias here, I love OSX, I love the Unix core.
I love the stability I get out of OSX (current versions of windows XP are a bit better than in the past, but in my opinion still doesn't match OSX in this area yet) I love the look and feel of OSX, I love how simple yet powerful it can be, or if you go digging how complex it can be (for us geeks).
in short yes I admit I have a bias.
**OS X 10.5 be universal:**
Most likely, but don't expect to see an exact matching feature set between the PPC and X86 installations.
Having it universal, yet allowing some "Intel only" features allows transition time for users while still providing incentive to switch.
rayz said:
What's right with the threading?!
Look at the graph on that page. That's how well the OS X threading implementation deals with threads. It doesnt; it just caves in. We have thread layers on thread layers on userland threads. Performance sucks!
Also check out on that site how slow OSX inter process communication and signalling is.
Svennig said:
This is why I think the transition to Windows I described in my prior post is not necessarily a bad thing. Mac OS could be built on top of Windows just like it's built on top of Unix. Users won't see Windows any more than they see Unix today.
There is that pesky virus problem on Windows though...
Svennig said:
Yawn.
So how much faster would Photoshop, Handbrake, Quake III or whatever is important to you run if OS X Threading and Kernel signalling were reviewed?
AtariMac said:
What a pathetic excuse for a retort. A lot of companies offer cross-grade pricing (sometimes even free). I've used it for two products myself after switching. It costs the company essentially nothing as long as they trust the user not to pirate the old version. (One company asked me to send in the old disks). The problem for Adobe is there is already a ton of piracy, and they can't afford to do anything that would make it easier. The idea for a cross-grade isn't ridiculous, it just isn't likely for a company like Adobe.
cgc said:
I believe that the article says that it WAS tiger server being tested.
gnasher729 said:
What a bizarre point of view.
The threading system is disasterous for server environments (where processes that spawn many threads are the norm), and as processors change its going to get worse for desktops. Most of the intel macs are dual core. The future is multi-core (perhaps also multi-processor). To take advantage of this demands that applications are written using threads. If the thread creation and scheduling mechanism does not scale, this is going to be difficult, and as shown by the Mysql graph performance gets WORSE the more threads there are.
Your attitude is astounding. There is a threading problem on OS X that reduces its use in server enviroments. The same problem makes the computer perform less well than it has the potential to do. That same problem leads to older computers being less able to run the OS for no good reason. Your OS isn't as fast as it could be (how about explaining why your fancy OS X kernel gets trounced by a free kernel written by volunteers).
And your reply is, effectively, "meh, I don't care"? You do want to get the most out of your mac, don't you? I know I do!!!
Amen, Brother.
I set up a special account for my 5 year old son,
and he still screwed up the account by using Safari and kids games on the internet. He got into some safari control key combinations, and then on to the desktop, and other apps.
With a virtual machine, I could simply destroy his current copy and restore an old one.
SpankWare said:
I set up a special account for my 5 year old son,
and he still screwed up the account by using Safari and kids games on the internet. He got into some safari control key combinations, and then on to the desktop, and other apps.
With a virtual machine, I could simply destroy his current copy and restore an old one.
What's the Market share of VPC?
Here's the simple answer.
Telling a user he needs to buy Virtual PC on his Mac to run your Crappy Windows applicaion, means he will have to buy TWO PRODUCTS.
That user will more then likely tell you to take a Hike.
This leave your company open to the OS X environment allowing a competitor to GROW in a protected environment where YOU DON'T COMPETE.
Keep your eyes closed, because, you're probably not really spending all that much to develop your Windows app. A Competitor on the MAC can grow and then PORT to Windows destroying your cosy Monopoly on Windows.
The Mac competitor will Compete with you on Windows, but, have the Apple marketshare to subsidize that Attack.
Suckers write Windows Only Code.
guez said:
Here's the simple answer.
Telling a user he needs to buy Virtual PC on his Mac to run your Crappy Windows applicaion, means he will have to buy TWO PRODUCTS.
That user will more then likely tell you to take a Hike.
This leave your company open to the OS X environment allowing a competitor to GROW in a protected environment where YOU DON'T COMPETE.
Keep your eyes closed, because, you're probably not really spending all that much to develop your Windows app. A Competitor on the MAC can grow and then PORT to Windows destroying your cosy Monopoly on Windows.
The Mac competitor will Compete with you on Windows, but, have the Apple marketshare to subsidize that Attack.
Suckers write Windows Only Code.
Can you rewrite this in grown-up language?
You might have an argument here, but it's hard to tell with The strAngE CaPItaliZation, misspellings and name-calling....MikeAtari said:
Svennig said:
That was not the point, I think...but it seems like this threading "problem" is linked to MySQL performance and server-specific operations...little else. As the same analysis (and others) show, the PPC is a great real-world performer when compared to Opteron, Xeon and the like...
So if this microkernel issue does not affect 99% of the users in their daily routines, there is not much scope for desperation...Win XP on a brand new Dell is usually MUCH slower and bloated than OS X on G4s/G5s/Intels...and this is real life perception.
BRLawyer said:
An interesting point - go to Activity monitor. Sort by threads.
DVD Player 8 threads
Safari 7 threads
ITunes 7 threads
iCal 7 threads
...
In total, I have 209 threads in 61 processes, about 4 threads per process. If those threads suffer the same issues as MySQL does, then the performance of all those programs is being greatly reduced.
This affects users, whether they notice it or not. They'll almost certainly notice it if apple don't fix it and they install Leopard +1, or +2 (where the performance problem could be made more evident by the ageing hardware). It reduces the lifetime of your Mac!
Also, remember that now we have the intel transition people can do a direct apples-to-apples comparison. We're in a position where we can compare the "MUCH slower and bloated" Dell running Windows to a Mac. If OS X doesn't stand up, Microsoft can say "Macs might be pretty, but they are more expensive and don't perform as well as <X BRAND> cheaper PC running our Windows operating system".
Svennig said:
My reply is not "meh, I don't care". My reply is: I write software for a living, and if I were responsible for MySQL performance on MacOS X, then it wouldn't be slow. There is one single thing that is slow on MacOS X, and it is quite trivial to work around that problem. MacOS X doesn't have problems with any numbers of processors, it doesn't have problems with any number of threads, it has a problem with idiot programmers who create and destroy gazillions of threads all the time. To be fair to the MySQL programmers, the whole thing is most likely a benchmark artefact, and real life performance will be much better.