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
topgunn said:
Gah!
It's just as complicated as it was before. The processor only matters for about 5% of the work, if that. The OS makes all the difference in the world.
If it can run versions of Windows, and offer the conveniences of Virtual PC, then it's exactly what I'm looking for. 
topgunn said:
I agree that there will be a lot less work to do to port a app, but only for really processor intense apps, "normal" apps wont port any faster if they dotn really do any low level stuff, they will still have to rewrite most of the stuff anyway because of the different API's used.
Apple should be carefull what they do now that they are on the x86 platform, yes it is easier for certain apps to be ported but for most there isnt really much difference in port times I think, if they want to encourage development of OS X apps they should make it even more easy to port apps. Making windows to easy to run on a mac will make any potential developer think twice before choosing the mac os.
Did OS X dual booting with OS 9 kill OS X apps? Did OS 9 "Classic" emulation kill OS X apps?
Answer a] no
Answer b] no
By either cube effecting into Windows or Dual booting nothing is going to be lost. The typical user will use windows just like early adopters in OS X used OS 9.. When nessecary. By building a superior OS apple will communicating to the end user that OS X is the way to go, however your cushion is there if you need it.
When OS X first released if they had not supported an OS 9 dual boot many early adopters would have stayed away - just as many possible NEW mac users are scared away by the thought of not being able to run many apps they already own.
Infact that market that was scared away is now going to be met with open arms.
Answer a] no
Answer b] no
By either cube effecting into Windows or Dual booting nothing is going to be lost. The typical user will use windows just like early adopters in OS X used OS 9.. When nessecary. By building a superior OS apple will communicating to the end user that OS X is the way to go, however your cushion is there if you need it.
When OS X first released if they had not supported an OS 9 dual boot many early adopters would have stayed away - just as many possible NEW mac users are scared away by the thought of not being able to run many apps they already own.
Infact that market that was scared away is now going to be met with open arms.
Look if Apple are clever they'll do two things
#1 take your old windows OS off your old computer and 'virtualise' it on your new Mac
This stops MS getting hold of any more of your cash.
#2 they won't give Window's internet access, unless you specifically enable it possibly totally (with terminal) or on an app by app basis in OS X.
this stops Windows viruses/malware spreading from Mac's but allows gamers/advanced users to play network games (and other software that *needs* network access) with a Mac.
The Windows app's also wouldn't have the Mac UI, this is annoying enough with X11 to stop me using Open Office for Mac (i have got the fonts working with it too...), people with Macs would also be exposed to the Mac alternatives for most software and because of this would find windows app's 'annoying' to use and when they re-bought they'd get the mac version.
#1 take your old windows OS off your old computer and 'virtualise' it on your new Mac
This stops MS getting hold of any more of your cash.
#2 they won't give Window's internet access, unless you specifically enable it possibly totally (with terminal) or on an app by app basis in OS X.
this stops Windows viruses/malware spreading from Mac's but allows gamers/advanced users to play network games (and other software that *needs* network access) with a Mac.
The Windows app's also wouldn't have the Mac UI, this is annoying enough with X11 to stop me using Open Office for Mac (i have got the fonts working with it too...), people with Macs would also be exposed to the Mac alternatives for most software and because of this would find windows app's 'annoying' to use and when they re-bought they'd get the mac version.
As far as ease of port is concerned, porting Altivec-heavy apps to Intel SSE has proven to be a daunting task.
Not something that can be done just by changing a "couple of lines of code"..
Not something that can be done just by changing a "couple of lines of code"..
Meemoo said:
To support this further, why don't all applications for OS X use X11? if they did they'd sell more copies as Linux/Other UNIX users could use them too, however X11 does allow you to use UNIX app's like Matlab that never had a Mac version before.
My question is, will this require any hardware changes, will the original Intel Macs be able to run it? Will there need to be a new CPU with virtualization? I'm guessing it will run on original hardware, and that we will see this show up around the time Vista arrives, and it will be sold as a software product with Vista as part of it.
mark88 said:
Perhaps.
But already one of my customers who has bought a MacBook Pro has done so because he wants to run AutoCAD. That's one sale to AutoDesk who have never supported the Mac and one less sale of VectorWorks.
It'll get worse when users can run Windows software alongside OSX.
there *is* emulation
A few instructions are emulated - the guest cannot be allowed to do direct access to the entire machine, when it tries the VMM (virtual machine monitor) emulates the instruction appropriately.
There's no wholesale emulation of one ISA (instruction set architecture) by a processor with a different ISA, like in VPC/Mac.
In common English, a "virtual environment" is clearly an "emulated environment" - that's what "emulation" means.
Actually, there's still emulation. The GOS is running in an emulated PC - not a real PC.adamfilip said:
A few instructions are emulated - the guest cannot be allowed to do direct access to the entire machine, when it tries the VMM (virtual machine monitor) emulates the instruction appropriately.
There's no wholesale emulation of one ISA (instruction set architecture) by a processor with a different ISA, like in VPC/Mac.
In common English, a "virtual environment" is clearly an "emulated environment" - that's what "emulation" means.
Eraserhead said:
I can't tell if this is an argument or not... but Linux is not a threat. It's not commerical, not user friendly and since people can't profit off of it the OS has no direction and it's nothing but a hobbyist OS or a bragging right.
Also interesting, MS may need to rewrite 60% of Vista. XP will stay an important OS for the next few years if this is true.
http://www.smarthouse.com.au/Computing/Platforms?Article=/Computing/Platforms/R7G5G6U4
http://www.smarthouse.com.au/Computing/Platforms?Article=/Computing/Platforms/R7G5G6U4
Ok, so since this is Apple, we know that they will do something different than just a normal window running windows inside of it.
Think of the many options they might have. I love the "Fast OS Switching" idea. We could have a little drop down menu in the top bar that we select an OS from and the screen spins downward to show the new OS. Or maybe the Mac OS zooms backward like it does in FrontRow, but then it spins around and shows the other OS on the back and zooms back in.
Just from a visual design aspect, Apple could really do some cool stuff to make it feel like a true part of Mac OS.
I personally love the idea of running Windows along side Mac OS for those few programs.
I wouldn't have to worry about Windows getting viruses as much because I would never check mail or surf the internet inside of Windows. Its like Mac OS would be this huge body gaurd that does all things amazing things and at the same time is protecting the little whimpy scared Windows OS from all the bad viruses and such.
Think of the many options they might have. I love the "Fast OS Switching" idea. We could have a little drop down menu in the top bar that we select an OS from and the screen spins downward to show the new OS. Or maybe the Mac OS zooms backward like it does in FrontRow, but then it spins around and shows the other OS on the back and zooms back in.
Just from a visual design aspect, Apple could really do some cool stuff to make it feel like a true part of Mac OS.
I personally love the idea of running Windows along side Mac OS for those few programs.
I wouldn't have to worry about Windows getting viruses as much because I would never check mail or surf the internet inside of Windows. Its like Mac OS would be this huge body gaurd that does all things amazing things and at the same time is protecting the little whimpy scared Windows OS from all the bad viruses and such.
aria505 said:
and when the average windows user got a virus for Windows, they would just start to see the benefit of the Mac OS. I can't tell you how many business people I know that have a virus and couldn't do the simplest thing such as check their email or check stocks.
Meemoo said:
That's a totally specious argument. OSX users and developers knew that eventually OS9 would go away so everyone had to move their apps to OSX.
Windows isn't going away (unfortunately). Equating Windows use with OS9/Classic is just plain bizarre. Users choosing to run Windows apps in OSX would know plain well that their investment is long term.
One would hope software companies that often applications on both operating systems would offer cross grades. And equally, I can see alternative application vendors offering sweeteners to get people away from using their old Windows applications in OSX instead of their own OSX software.
I think if they were to two this, a good way to switch from one to the other would be something like fast user switching. Hit a key command or button on the screen and the cube effect goes up and down rather than left and right to signify switching OSes
blasto333 said:
Wouldn't this just eliminate the need for Virtual PC? But someone would still need to go out an buy a windows license to run windows programs, right?
With that in mind, I don't think people would want to go out and buy windows unless they had an important need (ie, work software that only runs on windows).
I wonder how this would impact gamers though?
For the most part there are 3 types of software developers, 1 that makes software for Windows, 1 that makes software for OS X, and 1 that makes software for both platforms.
If this virtualization goes through, Windows only and OS X only software comapnies remain making their software. The companies that produce both could save a ton of money if they stopped development of the OS X version. I see this as a problem b/c companies #1 focus is to make money. If they can cut x amount of money and still have their programs run on both platforms, why would they continue to to develop both? And if their software is needed, people will still buy the windows copy because there is no alternative but can still be run on OSX.
Just my thought
If this virtualization goes through, Windows only and OS X only software comapnies remain making their software. The companies that produce both could save a ton of money if they stopped development of the OS X version. I see this as a problem b/c companies #1 focus is to make money. If they can cut x amount of money and still have their programs run on both platforms, why would they continue to to develop both? And if their software is needed, people will still buy the windows copy because there is no alternative but can still be run on OSX.
Just my thought
Eraserhead said:
Are you serious?
There's much more to an application than just the presentation layer. Apart from that, X11 is a lumbering dinosaur by comparison to Windows or OSX's native UI.
aegisdesign said:
But isn't that totally beside the point? your customer had to decide between two applications, not two platforms.
I have no experience of AutoCAD or VectorWorks but if AutoCAD is superior then it's only right that the customer chooses it, if it suits his needs & budget better. Why should he settle for inferior software if he has the choice of both?
You would probably then say, 'well, what if everyone chooses AutoCAD, that means VectorWorks would throw in the towel'
Then I'd say everyone has different preferences, different needs and different budgets. There's plenty of room for everyone, as can be seen on any Windows or Mac software download site.
Another angle: FTP apps on OS X suck compared to their windows counterparts, the best one IMO is Transmit and it still seems to have about 10% of the functionality of the FTP app I use on XP. Perhaps if people had the option of using Windows FTP applications such as SmartFTP, FTPVoyager, WSFTP Pro on their mac, the mac developers in this area might be given the kick up the arse they need.
Shamus said:
It's not emulating. Virtualization is like looking at a whole OS as an application. Look at virtualization support as "An OS for OS's".
I predicted this (to myself
) some time ago. The idea of swapping between MacOS X (multiple instances), Windows (multiple instances) and Linux (multiple instances of multiple distributions) just like one swaps (rotating cube) between MacOS X accounts now seemed like a serious "Ooo and Ah!" feature.Heh, and you thought that dual core CPU with quad core on the horizon would be "All you ever would need!" HA!
The writing on the wall for me was that recent Intel processors have low level support for such virtualization. I am assuming that Apple was given information (under NDA) by Intel about this in an effort to sweeten the deal for Apple to go to Intel.