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

Leopard to Include Virtualization Software?

Interesting, but I don't think that you're correct

Phil A. said:
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)
Click to expand...
OS/2 Warp History says:

"OS/2 2.x won over many Windows 3.x users because of it's [sic] ability to run Windows programs seamlessly, while maintaining a stable system, something that Windows had trouble doing. IBM even went so far as to trademark the term "Crash-Proof.""​

This sounds like Win16 support was available before 3.0 to me....
_________________________

But the true moral of your story is even more worrisome for Apple - a 32-bit OS died because it could seemlessly run 16-bit applications.

So much for the idea that the masses will choose the "better" applications.
 
AidenShaw said:
The question might be how many of the hard-core Mac fans are design-driven, and how many are application-driven?
Click to expand...

I would say that most should be app-driven, but you do get the occasional chap who picks his OS for some other reason. But relatively speaking, they're few in number, which is why Windows maintains such a high share, despite its flaws.

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

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?
Click to expand...

What if they had no reason to drop it? What if they could create a single Windows application that would look like a MacOSX application when it was deployed on MacOSX? What if everyone could?

That's the OS/2 lesson....
Click to expand...

I'll have to disagree here.

The OS/2 lesson is that if you're going to build an operating system, then make sure your ENTIRE company supports it.

Building in Windows support did not cause it to fail. Windows support was added, in an attempt to stop it from failing .... but it was already well on the way for that to make any real difference.
 
rayz said:
I'll have to disagree here.

The OS/2 lesson is that if you're going to build an operating system, then make sure your ENTIRE company supports it.

Building in Windows support did not cause it to fail. Windows support was added, in an attempt to stop it from failing .... but it was already well on the way for that to make any real difference.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

If you Yahoo! for "why did os/2 fail", there are lots of hits. Win compatibility wasn't the only reason, true.

Here's one opinion:

"Why did OS/2 fail? The first is marketing, i.e., Nuns and surfers! I'm sure most people here remember those ads for OS/2 Warp. One featured nuns who wanted to surf the web. Another featured surfers who apparently had more time to surf because the networking features of OS/2 Warp allowed them to spend less time at work.

One extremely funny thing about those ads was that they contained no information about what OS/2 Warp was. Was it a browser/email client? Was it some sort of networking software?! Was it some sort of dial-up client (back when OSes relied on third party dial up programs, wow am I old!)?

At no time did the ads ever say, "If you're running Windows 3.1, you can upgrade to OS/2 Warp and get a real 32 bit OS complete with multitasking and stability." Also, not only did the ads fail to tell us that it was an OS, but they utterly failed to even SHOW us the product!

A little while later Microsoft started advertising Windows 95. Microsoft did something really brilliant, from a marketing point of view. It introduced the "Start" button. The ads featured users clicking that one button. What could be easier to learn than one simple button? It was marketing genius!

(Ironically, the new OSX "switch" ads remind me a lot of those old Warp ads. The ads claim that OSX is easier and more intuitive, but never show us how. If OSX is as elegant and user friendly as Apple claims, why do they keep it hidden?!)"​

http://discuss.pcmag.com/forums/165111008/ShowPost.aspx
 
AidenShaw said:
Fair enough.

If you Yahoo! for "why did os/2 fail", there are lots of hits. Win compatibility wasn't the only reason, true.

Here's one opinion:

"Why did OS/2 fail? The first is marketing, i.e., Nuns and surfers! I'm sure most people here remember those ads for OS/2 Warp. One featured nuns who wanted to surf the web. Another featured surfers who apparently had more time to surf because the networking features of OS/2 Warp allowed them to spend less time at work.

One extremely funny thing about those ads was that they contained no information about what OS/2 Warp was. Was it a browser/email client? Was it some sort of networking software?! Was it some sort of dial-up client (back when OSes relied on third party dial up programs, wow am I old!)?

At no time did the ads ever say, "If you're running Windows 3.1, you can upgrade to OS/2 Warp and get a real 32 bit OS complete with multitasking and stability." Also, not only did the ads fail to tell us that it was an OS, but they utterly failed to even SHOW us the product!

A little while later Microsoft started advertising Windows 95. Microsoft did something really brilliant, from a marketing point of view. It introduced the "Start" button. The ads featured users clicking that one button. What could be easier to learn than one simple button? It was marketing genius!

(Ironically, the new OSX "switch" ads remind me a lot of those old Warp ads. The ads claim that OSX is easier and more intuitive, but never show us how. If OSX is as elegant and user friendly as Apple claims, why do they keep it hidden?!)"​

http://discuss.pcmag.com/forums/165111008/ShowPost.aspx
Click to expand...

So I have a MORE contemporary question for you ...

And I don't buy all these OS2 rules because I have noticed most of my life all the rules that old senile people make and how they claim to KNOW because they have EXPERIENCE, but when you ask them about what they know you will find they DON'T have EXPERIENCE they are repeating what some other old guy told them, and in essence are doing what kids do, just listening to a different crowd, they do this when there are no rules to be made or learn.

The rule is, one generations failure is the next generations success and means of rebellion, distinction, or proving their worth !!!

Probably the main reason OS2 failed is because network managers were still smarting from when IBM tried to take over the IT market with their proprietary mainframes and support -- and almost succeeded and were very arrogant about it.


So my question is:

Why do YOU think MS is falling apart internally, and why are their development efforts so weak, getting weaker, and how bad can it get :eek:

Will their developement teams become soo devisive that they for all practical purposes won't be able to produce ANYTHING of market value :confused:
 
Does anyone know if "Chameleon" was the code-name for Boot Camp, or is there more virtualization software coming in Leopard?
 
weldon said:
Does anyone know if "Chameleon" was the code-name for Boot Camp, or is there more virtualization software coming in Leopard?
Click to expand...
How 'bout this. You have Boot Camp installed and in Leopard there is Fast OS Switching. That would be sweet. Though I'd want my Windows install on a external drive.
 
crees! said:
Sounds like someone knows something :eek: Hopefully WWDC will show Apple's current cards in hand.
Click to expand...
I was just thinking about "fast OS switching" on the way home last night and I'd even be happy with a situation where I could "Safe Sleep"/Hibernate two different OSes and switch between them as easily as waking up from sleep.

Almost makes me want to sign up as a developer so I can preview Leopard in August...

B
 
Maybe its been mentioned, but does anyone think they did this, and will also bring out Leapord faster since VISTA is dragging its butt getting out? I see Apple capitalizing on MS's blunder.
 
if there puting in a VT i would much rather it work like wine or rosseta with windows apps not haveing to switch to a diffrent destop or anything, but i dont want X11 popping up ether. Just let the apps load in there native form on the screen, games in full screen and hurry up and do it. it cant take much to fix up wine a little bit.
 
macpastor said:
Maybe its been mentioned, but does anyone think they did this, and will also bring out Leapord faster since VISTA is dragging its butt getting out? I see Apple capitalizing on MS's blunder.
Click to expand...
It's possible. We'll just have to wait and see what the boss says.
 
edenwaith said:
These are the types of radical features that make a new OS sound very compelling. :)

I'm curious to see when the day will come where we can run multiple operating systems on one system at the same time. Fast OS Switching!

I've heard that some of the IBM servers (i.e. iSeries) can do this and run multiple OS's on one box at a time, so it probably will just be a matter of time when we can do it on a personal computer.
Click to expand...

ehm.. I've been doing this 5 years ago on my Linux server using VMWare, running various Windows machines and other Linux distros...
 
One more for WINE

Put me in the Wine camp. It would be soooo much better to run a single OS, and have a compatability layer (Isn't that how Classic runs on PPC's?). You wouldn't have to load a gigantic OS (XP), and you would be able to change the look and feel of Win32 apps to better fit in to the Mac environment. Boot Camp is a good stop gap measure, but I just want a consolidated desktop that does everything (and doesn't BSOD). Heck, even Microsoft did it with the transition to the NT based kernel (16 bit apps run under a single parent process called WoW... not the game...). By making it all blend well, MS was able to eventually transition to XP from the old DOS kernel. Worst case scenario, the WINE folks are already working on an implementation for OSX, they just have a lot of work to do.
 
parallels desktop...

i'm actually pretty happy using parallels desktop for my Mac virtualization right now. I feel as though by the time leopard is out, many people will be set in parallels and will just stick with it anyways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back