I'd point out that none of the current Intel Macs support Intel's virtualization technology so you early adopters are screwed.
DTphonehome said:If this is true, Dell and HP must be quaking in their booties. Besides for those going for the absolutely cheapest PC on the market (which Dell and HP don't make much off of anyway), or the most powerful gaming PC possible, who wouldn't seriously consider a Mac for their home?
byokitis said:A lot of developers would stop making native Mac Apps if this happens. Why port to the Mac if users could use Window versions?
Peace said:While virtualization is great and all I still can't understand why a developer would bother to make an OS X version when the Mac could just run the Windows version.Seems to me this would put the brakes on any porting to OS X.
I do the same - even though the host OS is XP. It runs an XP VM that's set up with VPN and other clients.SpankWare said:My primary box runs Linux and I have VMware installed running among other things Windows XP.
This VM is setup for my work environment with my VPN, CRM and other tools to allow me to work from home.
SpankWare said:That's not entirely true. While I'm definitely not the average user I have a real purpose in running VMware at home. My primary box runs Linux and I have VMware installed running among other things Windows XP. This VM is setup for my work environment with my VPN, CRM and other tools to allow me to work from home. The benefit of virtualization to the home user is seperating out tasks. Before my kids had their own computers they could easily run inside a virtualized environment for their protection and mine. One of my coworkers is moving his wife and kids to their own VMs.
DTphonehome said:You know, I wouldn't be surprised if that's a tagline they use if this is true.
SpankWare said:Because anybody who would WANT the OS X version wouldn't be interested in running the windows version. This idea is FUD, pure and simple. Companies that make OS X software now will continue to do so. Those that don't aren't doing it anyway so it's not like it's going to stop anything.
aegisdesign said:I'd point out that none of the current Intel Macs support Intel's virtualization technology so you early adopters are screwed.
Lollypop said:Im not a VMWare expert, the little ive used it was in a testing enviroment, but my question to you is, as far as I understand it to access a VM you actually need to log into a physical machine to access the VM, so if you have one computer at home your still going either have each user have their own account or a single account where everyone can access VMware from, so how do you enforce your kids to work in their own VMs rather than their own or the family accounts?
aegisdesign said:I'd point out that none of the current Intel Macs support Intel's virtualization technology so you early adopters are screwed.
kalisphoenix said:Uh, yes they do. http://www.intel.com/performance/resources/briefs/mobiletechnology.pdf (page 6, middle of the page)
AeronPrometheus said:It also sends a clear message to computer buyers. Which machine would you buy? A Dell that runs Windows? Or a Mac that runs Mac OS and Windows? I'd buy the machine that has suddenly become the most universal platform to run any consumer and business application. Wouldn't you?
Shamus said:The only downside to emulation is that it is slower. Dual booting would allow the programs to run in native format, right?
aegisdesign said:ok, my mistake. They'd renamed it. It used to be called Vanderpool and I could have sworn reading that Yonah wouldn't support Vanderpool.
SpankWare said:Kids working in their own VM is simple. When you're talking about the same machine then they run VMWare from their seperate account. The benefit (and purpose) is to allow them full use without the ability to completely destory the box. Some applications still need full access and restoring a VM snapshot is a lot easier than reinstalling the OS. If they have their own machine you simple do a thin Linux install with VMware and their environment running in the VM. Again you have the benefits of the quick restore from the snapshot. Other alternatives (depending on use) would be GSX or ESX server where the VM is running on a dedicated host and they have a thin install of whatever and remotely access the system that way. My wife did that for some time before I bought her a new laptop. She had a crappy laptop with software to remotely login to the dedicated VM running on a dedicated host. Gave her portability and a faster platform on which to run her core apps despite the less than appealing specs on the craptop.
There's a ton of ways to use virtualization, you just have to think of how you can best use it yourself.
aegisdesign said:I'd point out that none of the current Intel Macs support Intel's virtualization technology so you early adopters are screwed.
xterm said:THIS IS A BAD IDEA.
why? becouse it will kill off mac native software. Developers will have the mentaliy of "why port it to mac when it can run the windows version fine?"
thefunkymunky said:Maybe a Leopard can change its spots after all.![]()
![]()
aegisdesign said:Not entirely. If you've already got a Windows version, it's pointless buying a Mac version or an alternative.