Leopard to Include Virtualization Software?

[gnasher729]

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".

It is not the number of threads that are alive at the same time that is the problem, it is thread creation and destruction. An application that creates thousand threads and then uses them while it is running has no problems. An application that tries to create and destroy thousand threads every second has a problem, and that is something that applications don't usually have any reason to do.

And applications that _do_ have a reason to work that way just create some threads initially, give them work to do, and when the work is finished, the thread is stopped and restarted when there is more work to do. This avoids the problem quite easily.

 

[Svennig]

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.

That may be the case. However MySQL has no problem with creating "gazillions" of threads under linux and windows. Nor does Apache, which was reported to run poorly in this article.

Even if you are correct, that these programmers are idiots, the "one single thing" that is slow is not present on other platforms. Doesn't it therefore present a(nother?) stumbling block to porting (and writing, no matter how trivial the workaround is) software? Should you, as a software writer, be having to create workarounds to increase the performance of your operating system?

 

[AidenShaw]

MySQL does use thread-pooling

It is not the number of threads that are alive at the same time that is the problem, it is thread creation and destruction. An application that creates thousand threads and then uses them while it is running has no problems. An application that tries to create and destroy thousand threads every second has a problem, and that is something that applications don't usually have any reason to do.

And applications that _do_ have a reason to work that way just create some threads initially, give them work to do, and when the work is finished, the thread is stopped and restarted when there is more work to do. This avoids the problem quite easily.

http://arjen-lentz.livejournal.com/50960.html

All versions of MySQL Server have a thread cache (tunable with thread_cache_size). Currently, connection to the server runs in its own thread.

Creating a thread costs time, so rather than killing the thread when a connection closes, the server can keep the thread in its thread cache, so it can be used for new connection later. A very handy feature...​

 

[Mr Skills]

I'm definitely thinking about this as a developer. I write software and I work for a software company. I'm pretty aware of the reasons for releasing an OS X version vs. a Windows only version. The reality is that OS X has very little market share. Most companies developing applications will develop that application for the largest target audience in order to maximize potential profitability. That target market is Windows. While I realize many here don't like that it's a fact of life. Virtualization will have absolutely no bearing on whether or not a company can financially justify porting that Windows application to OS X. They won't look at it as has been suggested and say "gee we don't have to because they can virtualize a Windows environment." What they'll do is determine if it's financially reasonable to build it or not. If it's not reasonable then they won't do it. It's that simple.

I don't mean this to sound confrontational - it is a genuine question to someone who has experience in software development: what went wrong with OS/2 that will not go wrong this time?

 

[Mr Skills]

THIS IS WHY the Quicktime settlement involved agreements on HOW future software would LOOK AND FEEL !!!

What is the Quicktime Settlement?

 

[Mr Skills]

OK ... everyone's talking about Windows... what if they build in compatibility with Linux? It would be free (from a licence point of view) and might have an affect on enterprise sales...

Also, I can quite imagine that SJ on stage would go on and on about all the other things you can do with virtualisation and only briefly skit past the Windows thing ... a bit like the whole "iPod that also plays video, not Video iPod" thing.

While we're on the subject, what ARE the other things you can do with Virtualisation?

 

[yac_moda]

What is the Quicktime Settlement?

A couple of years after the MS monopoly trails ended, mainly the part Apple was a plaintiff in, ended, where MS was determined to have been unfair in its distribution chain, by having agreements with box makers that stopped them from including other OSs.

Notice the stagnation and dropping of MS stock since a short time after those penalties were imposed.

It was about half a year after JOBs returned, it looked like it was part of the agreement of his return, kind of like the board of directors might have said to Steve, "Hey Steve, we Gates over a barrel if you come run Apple we could make a good business out of it again !!!"

HEREs THE FACTs:

Apple had contracted exclusively with a contract programming company for them to help Apple build the BEST codecs into Quicktime.

These were the days when QT was the best and its use was growing and it continued to grow after that.

Then one to two years after this company helped Apple, Intel and MS contracted with them together, this was when Intel and MS were getting along REALLY WELL

Perhaps that was the ONLY TIME that they got along really well.

Then when MS media player and Intel's bundled version of it started to work as well as QT and started to take marketshare back quickly, Apple sued

And they EASILY WON, then Jobs agreed to settle out of court FOR CERTAIN UNDISCLOSED CONCESSION from MS

What WAS disclosed was certain cash penalties, and long term agreements on the look and feel of future OSs -- they had actual pictures and explanation made public of how Mac and weWINyouLoose would look and feel.

A LOT of Mac people were disappointed because the Mac SEEMed to be getting closer to openWINsLetaDaftWaftThroughTheHouse and that was the first time Mac people heard anything about a dock !!!

One or two years later you could hardly get a WINlover to admit ANYTHING vaguely resembling that case had EVER occurred.

 

[yac_moda]

OK ... everyone's talking about Windows... what if they build in compatibility with Linux? It would be free (from a licence point of view) and might have an affect on enterprise sales...

Also, I can quite imagine that SJ on stage would go on and on about all the other things you can do with virtualisation and only briefly skit past the Windows thing ... a bit like the whole "iPod that also plays video, not Video iPod" thing.

While we're on the subject, what ARE the other things you can do with Virtualisation?

YES, of course, virtualization to run LINUX, this is most likely a given.

What I would have done from a business standpoint if I WERE RUNNING APPLE many years ago, would have built an APPLE cell phone that would be set up to call Macs and administrate the server, perhaps a home control device for consumer Macs, and for ALL a personal voice mail server that converts voice mail to text and sends it to the users APPLE cell phone automatically.

Notice with this kind of setup the Mac itself would be able to alert the user automatically, generically, and VERY CHEAPLY with text messages.

This maybe what they have planned for Leopard, and I suggested this to Apple MANY years ago, the APPLE cell phone has been one of my biggest and earliest ideas for them.

The reason I got HOT on this idea around 2000 and suggested to them many times to build it is because I had found out that consulting companies were charging HUGE fees to add a little bit of tech to servers that would automatically alert admins with pagers that the server had gone down, or allow them to reboot them remotely.

Apple nearly had this ages ago, with just a little bit more tech they could have had it all working from a cell phone very easily.

Virtualization and having a SECOND Mac OS X running to observe the User will make for very robust remote administration.

Since Jaguar their remote administrate app has been available and built in, I have not had a chance to use that, but as far as I know it is conventional, no cell phone client, no automatic notifications.

 

[truz]

Something I would like to see is a "Switch OS" option for easy os switching

They have the User Switching for multi users, I would like to have windows running and mac at the same time and switch back and forth without them shutting down or closing there internet connection.

To be honest tho, I'll always be on a windows box as I purchase cheap laptops from sams club (returns) for $300-$400 open boxes (no problems with warranty). I'll always keep an updated mac desktop in my house tho but I keep my laptops for windows as my business support system runs on windows and HL2 runs on windows

 

[Tupring]

Something I would like to see is a "Switch OS" option for easy os switching

They have the User Switching for multi users, I would like to have windows running and mac at the same time and switch back and forth without them shutting down or closing there internet connection.

To be honest tho, I'll always be on a windows box as I purchase cheap laptops from sams club (returns) for $300-$400 open boxes (no problems with warranty). I'll always keep an updated mac desktop in my house tho but I keep my laptops for windows as my business support system runs on windows and HL2 runs on windows

Then it looks like you're all set, can't be hard to switch between them, when you have both

 

[AidenShaw]

Originally Posted by Mr Skills
OK ... everyone's talking about Windows... what if they build in compatibility with Linux? It would be free (from a licence point of view) and might have an affect on enterprise sales...

YES, of course, virtualization to run LINUX, this is most likely a given.

Actually, MacYoda, it's much simpler than that.

Since OSx86 has a Unix-like core and the x86 instruction set, it would possible to run x86 Linux applications directly under OSX with just a thin compatibility layer. No need to run the Linux OS.

Sun has this capability for Solaris x86 - unmodified Linux binaries can run via a lightweight API layer - see http://www.sun.com/software/linux/compatibility/lxrun/ for more info.

This is similar in concept to WINE, but it's much easier to run Linux on another *nix than to run Windows on a *nix.

Of course, any full virtualization solution that can run the Windows OS in an emulated PC (VM) could run a Linux OS in a VM as well.

 

[gnasher729]

I don't mean this to sound confrontational - it is a genuine question to someone who has experience in software development: what went wrong with OS/2 that will not go wrong this time?

OS/2 was initially developed by Microsoft and IBM together; IBM paid, Microsoft was supposed to do most of the work. When Microsoft got Windows 3.0 ready, they were not really _that_ interested in doing a good job for IBM. At some point, IBM had enough, they threw Microsoft out and finished OS/2 themselves.

So what is different now? For starters, Microsoft doesn't have its dirty fingers anywhere in MacOS X. Second, Microsoft has much less chances nowadays to play dirty. The have lost so many court cases, I think they lost count and if anyone sues them, the whole world, including Microsoft management, will automatically assume they are guilty.

 

[AidenShaw]

I'm not sure that any of that is relevant....

OS/2 was initially developed by Microsoft and IBM together; IBM paid, Microsoft was supposed to do most of the work. When Microsoft got Windows 3.0 ready, they were not really _that_ interested in doing a good job for IBM. At some point, IBM had enough, they threw Microsoft out and finished OS/2 themselves.

So what is different now? For starters, Microsoft doesn't have its dirty fingers anywhere in MacOS X. Second, Microsoft has much less chances nowadays to play dirty. The have lost so many court cases, I think they lost count and if anyone sues them, the whole world, including Microsoft management, will automatically assume they are guilty.

I don't think that either of your points (however true) are relevant to the lesson of OS/2.

It doesn't matter whether or not MS had a part in OSX development (or OS/2) - the point is that the ability to easily run Windows apps on OS/2 reduced the advantage (and profits) of making OS/2-specific ports.

While some of the Apple purists (and fanbois) will pay extra for a more-polished, integrated native app - for the majority of users a computer is a tool, not an obsession. They'll buy what does the job for them, and some minor UI differences won't matter. I'd prefer the nice shiny chrome-plated drill bit, but if the only bit in the size that I need is black that's the tool that I'll buy.

(Case in point: iTunes. It looks like a fish out-of-water on Windows - completely inconsistent visuals and UI. Yet it's a tool that does what many people want, so they learn to use its quirky interface.)

As fas as "evil deeds" from Redmond, Microsoft has much less power here to do anything. Maybe they could make Vista apps so good that people would prefer Vista apps to OSX native apps (the fanbois are "throwing up a little" here). Maybe they could introduce special Windows pricing for VM-specific versions (they already have many licensing breaks for running Windows in VMs, many times you don't need a separate license for the OS in the VM).

The real power and concern is with the whole ISV industry - the issue is if Adobe, Oracle, Autodesk, SAP, CA, Symantec and many of the others decide to drop OSX-native apps in favor of Windows-on-OSX apps. What about Web Services, just code to .Net and run IE on W-o-OSX - no need to make a dumbed-down Java version that will run like molasses in Safari.

Photoshop (and other large apps) should be especially worrisome. It follows its own UI standards. Once you make Photoshop full-screen, does it even matter which operating system or API set Photoshop is hosted on? It's like a virtual machine itself.

The 3rd party ISVs were the core of the OS/2 problem - not any collusion on Microsoft's side.

 

[toaster_oven]

someone might have speculated this already... but...

reading about this on engaget - they allude more to the possibility of running windows apps without switching OSes. I'm thinking running windows will be more like the classic environment - where you don't see the windows desktop, but you can run windows apps while you are running your mac apps... and still have the OS X UI.

Anyway- that is what I'd like to see...

-to

 

[rayz]

While some of the Apple purists (and fanbois) will pay extra for a more-polished, integrated native app - for the majority of users a computer is a tool, not an obsession. They'll buy what does the job for them, and some minor UI differences won't matter. I'd prefer the nice shiny chrome-plated drill bit, but if the only bit in the size that I need is black that's the tool that I'll buy.

Then why has the Mac platform lasted this long?

 

[AidenShaw]

Answer is easy, and obvious.

Originally Posted by AidenShaw
While some of the Apple purists (and fanbois) will pay extra for a more-polished, integrated native app - for the majority of users a computer is a tool, not an obsession.​

Then why has the Mac platform lasted this long?

Because a minority of about 3% *is* obsessed....

Or at least are more concerned about form and less about function and price.

 

[rayz]

Because a minority of about 3% *is* obsessed....

Or at least are more concerned about form and less about function and price.

Fair enough.

Then why won't this 3% continue to be obssessed?

 

[AidenShaw]

Fair enough.

Then why won't this 3% continue to be obssessed?

The question might be how many of the hard-core Mac fans are design-driven, and how many are application-driven?

A lot of graphics/music folks would be app-focussed.

Imagine the extreme case of Adobe dropping Mac native for W-o-OSx apps. How many people would decide that the "Apple tax" no longer had any benefit, and switched to Windows?

Multiply that effect - market share drops a little due to the Photoshop exodus. Another major app decides that W-o-OSx is good enough, and a few more leave.

Or killer new apps in Internet or multi-media/entertainment just never come to the Mac, because W-o-OSx is good enough.

That's the OS/2 lesson....
______________________________

Note that by "Apple Tax", I am not arguing that an Apple is more expensive than a comparably equipped Dell or HP.

Apples have a lot of bundled features - when you don't need those features, you can find a much cheaper solution elsewhere.

Find the cheapest Wintel with 500 GB of disk and a 23" or 24" monitor. Compare that to the cheapest Apple with those specs.

Apple needs a Conroe mini-tower in the lineup....

 

[steelfist]

do you know why apple is annoying us with secrecy?

if we know, then microsoft will know. what's going to happen?

 

[yac_moda]

The question might be how many of the hard-core Mac fans are design-driven, and how many are application-driven?

A lot of graphics/music folks would be app-focussed.

Imagine the extreme case of Adobe dropping Mac native for W-o-OSx apps. How many people would decide that the "Apple tax" no longer had any benefit, and switched to Windows?

Multiply that effect - market share drops a little due to the Photoshop exodus. Another major app decides that W-o-OSx is good enough, and a few more leave.

Or killer new apps in Internet or multi-media/entertainment just never come to the Mac, because W-o-OSx is good enough.

That's the OS/2 lesson....
______________________________

Note that by "Apple Tax", I am not arguing that an Apple is more expensive than a comparably equipped Dell or HP.

Apples have a lot of bundled features - when you don't need those features, you can find a much cheaper solution elsewhere.

Find the cheapest Wintel with 500 GB of disk and a 23" or 24" monitor. Compare that to the cheapest Apple with those specs.

Apple needs a Conroe mini-tower in the lineup....

What you are suggesting is SILLY, its LAME, its OBGUS, its SCIKAINERY, its BAZARE, its WEIRD, its NOT TO BRIGHT, its A MISTAKE, it WOULD NOT BE A GOOD IDEA

Why would anyone do what you suggest


Why did you call me MacYoda its YacMODA -- Siden Ahaw !!!

 

[yac_moda]

Actually, MacYoda, it's much simpler than that.

Since OSx86 has a Unix-like core and the x86 instruction set, it would possible to run x86 Linux applications directly under OSX with just a thin compatibility layer. No need to run the Linux OS.

Sun has this capability for Solaris x86 - unmodified Linux binaries can run via a lightweight API layer - see http://www.sun.com/software/linux/compatibility/lxrun/ for more info.

This is similar in concept to WINE, but it's much easier to run Linux on another *nix than to run Windows on a *nix.

Of course, any full virtualization solution that can run the Windows OS in an emulated PC (VM) could run a Linux OS in a VM as well.

YOU don't seem to understand the MAIN reason they are including virtualization, read the rest of my previous post to find out why.

Won't the Mac Linux venders ship exactly what YOU suggest, probably for free but not very exciting, because if it ran in its own virtual layer instead of as an APP it would be MUCH MORE STABLE AND COULD HAVE ITS OWN FIREWALL

VIRTUALIZATION ROCKS Rocky

How LONG do you think it will REALLY take until MS ships something like Leopard

I think the Mac OS X AFTER Leopard will ship at the same time that MS ships something close to Leopard

 

[yac_moda]

do you know why apple is annoying us with secrecy?

if we know, then Microsoft will know. what's going to happen?

APPLE ALWAYs annoys us with SECRECY And AMAZEs us with COMPETENCE

MS ALWAYs annoys us with INCOMPETENCE And AMAZES us with its EMBARRASSING PUBIC DISPLAYs

 

[AidenShaw]

I said MacYoda...

Why did you call me MacYoda its YacMODA -- Siden Ahaw !!!

...because that's the handle that you've used in the past.

 

[yac_moda]

...because that's the handle that you've used in the past.

Maybe YES maybe NO


Its obvious who let 911 happen, and it WAS NOT BUSH !!!

It was the USA military, the leaders at the TOP, the Pentagon.

And its also looks like US Presidents have been held hostage or murdered by the military since Eisenhower !!!

 

[Phil A.]

The question might be how many of the hard-core Mac fans are design-driven, and how many are application-driven?

A lot of graphics/music folks would be app-focussed.

Imagine the extreme case of Adobe dropping Mac native for W-o-OSx apps. How many people would decide that the "Apple tax" no longer had any benefit, and switched to Windows?

Multiply that effect - market share drops a little due to the Photoshop exodus. Another major app decides that W-o-OSx is good enough, and a few more leave.

Or killer new apps in Internet or multi-media/entertainment just never come to the Mac, because W-o-OSx is good enough.

That's the OS/2 lesson....

Not strictly true - OS/2 was a dying operating system with virtually no applications at version 2. IBM released Warp (version 3) in a last desperate bid to save it. Unfortunately, they added Windows 3.x support just before MS released Windows 95 (for which it had no support) - OS/2 was then perceived as an outdated OS and died the death that had been nothing more than delayed with OS/2 Warp.
OSX is a strong OS in it's own right and adding virtualisation isn't, IMO, going to weaken it - the opposite could well be true because more people may buy Mac hardware if it can run Windows at a decent speed, thereby also increasing the penetration of OSX