I'd point out that none of the current Intel Macs support Intel's virtualization technology so you early adopters are screwed.
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
DTphonehome said:
Built in virtualization isn't going to get the average consumer to switch. Despite the many myths about Dell here the make a PC product in a PC world. No amount of virtualization will cause a consumer to spend more money on a machine that requires more effort to run the apps they need just because it's considered pretty by some.
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.
Windows can rot in hell. I'm not running that stinkin OS on MY mac. It's bad enough having to use it at work...
Peace 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.
Even Windows on Windows is useful
I have troubles with the VPN if I try to run it on the main box - the VPN routing conflicts with my normal network. (The VPN routes 192.168.0.0/16 to private internal networks, for example.)
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:
I have troubles with the VPN if I try to run it on the main box - the VPN routing conflicts with my normal network. (The VPN routes 192.168.0.0/16 to private internal networks, for example.)
SpankWare 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?
Even of you access the VM over a network, you need to to that from a physical machine eliminating the need for the VM because you most likely have your own machine then. And like you said, most people these days have their owm personal PC completely making the discussion a thing of the past.
My point is that I see no real reason for apple to provide this feature to the average consumer, most people dont really have to share a PC, and if thats the case they have their own accounts, so unless a member of the family has a critical app running there is no use for the protection that a virtual or virtualized OS will provide. Its my opinion that IF there is a critical app that you want to run and actually make money of off, why not get that app its own machine where it can run safely isolated from everything with no performace hit and with no limitations?
If its to easy to run windows and mac apps side by side what will stop mac os x becomming the next os@Warp?
edit: Ok, I see the point of being able to run multiple copies of the same OS, that way if someone with an account does screw it up the other people will simply run their own OS as if nothing happened, but I really think apple shouldn't allow other operating systems to be virtualized. this entire thread makes me think OS2Warp, wonderfull OS screwed up by being able to run software form anohter OS.
DTphonehome said:
I wouldn't be surprised either. It's quite clever. I dig it when Apple makes pop culture references ("This one goes to 11" on their X11 page, for instance) and their taglines generally are at least mildly memorable, so
Here's hoping we'll get some sort of virtualization or hypervising in Leopard. I'm hoping for hypervising, personally.SpankWare said:
Not entirely. If you've already got a Windows version, it's pointless buying a Mac version or an alternative.
So all those companies that provide Mac products where the Windows developer hasn't bothered with porting it to OSX have now suddenly got to contend with competing with Windows now also.
aegisdesign said:
Uh, yes they do. http://www.intel.com/performance/resources/briefs/mobiletechnology.pdf (page 6, middle of the page)
Lollypop 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 thought they did support it but it was just disabled in the EFI or something. A firmware/software update will just turn it on.
kalisphoenix 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.
AeronPrometheus said:
Only if I wanted to use both Operating systems! Not that many people would even give OS X a second thought so why would they even bother with the extra expense? Wannabe switchers are likely to buy Intel Macs who otherwise wouldn't have, but I can't see the average joe who doesn't know much about computers being at all swayed by the fact that Macs can run two Operating Systems.
This is win win for both Apple and Microsoft. The hardware company sell more hardware, the software company sell more software for that hardware. That's pretty simple business IMO.
I'm sure Apple and MS both have their own spin on it on how they hope to gain but who knows what's gonna happen. One thing I'm sure of is that PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO STOP MAKING SOFTWARE FOR OS X, I wish people would stop saying this. That will only happen when people stop using OS X altogether and how likely is that?
aegisdesign said:
It still is called Vanderpool. I don't blame you, though -- Intel has apparently gone back and forth on it. One guy whose site I visited got four different answers from four different customer service people (the ones who asked their supervisors, at least).
SpankWare said:
Ive installed a lot of beta/alpha software on my powerbook, and in a period of 2 years ive had to reinstall the OS once, and that was because the harddrive failed not software failure. I admit that snapshots are really cool, and ive personally used them to get my ass out of the fire, but what apps do you really run in the home environment that needs that kind of protection, especially for the mac os? In the windows environment I would be behind you 10000%, but given my experience with the Mac I dont see why apple would put in the development time to provide a additional (redundant) failsafe into the mac when they could rather spend it on reworking the finder?
I find the mac os stable as can get despite my best attempts to bring it down via software, and I dont want to run windows. As cool a technology as virtualization is, I dont have the need for it, and I would guess that many mac os users would agree wiht me that the security isnt really required in the home environment, rather give us more cool stuff to get the poor windows users to switch.
aegisdesign said:
i bet the core chips have Virtu built in. and intel just hasnt enabled it yet
a simple. firmware upgrade and its off and running
thats what happened with intels Xeon. if i remember correctly
xterm said:
It is a risk. yes. but the same could have (and probably was said) when virtual PC arrived.. why develope Mac apps with people can run windows with VPC
I think. once more of the public works with a Mac and sees how much better and more productive it is. and that they can still play games.. they will go mac.. and then stay
An it is handheld
The question would be which are the spots. But the good news is that the whole thing will be handheld
http://www.pnhs.net/Events/Shows/PSC2002/027 Frank with Leopard Gecko.JPG
ghobi
thefunkymunky said:Maybe a Leopard can change its spots after all.
The question would be which are the spots. But the good news is that the whole thing will be handheld
http://www.pnhs.net/Events/Shows/PSC2002/027 Frank with Leopard Gecko.JPG
ghobi
As long as XP isn't emulated that's cool. If it's not full speed I wouldn't touch it. I think they should/are going to change the name from Virtual PC to something that better defines it. When I think Virtual, I think Emulated, when I think Emulated, I think overpriced Celeron speed OS.
ROTFLMAO, Mac OS 10.X is like a virus. It's taking over the entire PC bodies at large at a slow and stead pace.
Windows OS just sits there like a host and waiting for any virus to infect it with open arms.
You will eventually see Apple Dominating the gadget, hardware PC and OS market. Steve Jobs is not making the same mistake as in the past, however he is going to make it so that any OS and software can run on Apple hardware with the except of the iPod at present.
Only time will tell.
Windows OS just sits there like a host and waiting for any virus to infect it with open arms.
You will eventually see Apple Dominating the gadget, hardware PC and OS market. Steve Jobs is not making the same mistake as in the past, however he is going to make it so that any OS and software can run on Apple hardware with the except of the iPod at present.
Only time will tell.
aegisdesign said:
But if you've got a Windows version then you're probably a windows user already? Hence, nothing is lost. You weren't gonna buy the Mac version in the first place.
I think Software companies like Adobe need to get wise and start offering cross platform upgrade paths. Scenario:
Windows User(interested in OS X) has Adobe CS for Windows. The news about Intel macs has finally convinced him to buy a Mac and try out OS X while at the same time he can still run Windows just like he always has.
After using his Intel Mac for a while, he decides he much prefers OS X. Therefore he wants all of his software on his prefered platform, settling for Windows versions isn't gonna make him happy. It's like having a HDTV and your favorite movie is only available in SD.
He wants to upgrade to CS2, he wants it for OS X. Therefore Adobe should make this upgrade path available. If they don't, then he might have to settle for the XP version, given the costs involved.
---
If people are so confident that OS X destroys windows then I don't understand this scared reaction regarding developers stopping making software for it.