Leopard to Include Virtualization Software?

[thestaton]

meh. hopefully this will help someone but I for one am not inviting of windows nor do I care to deal with it or the headaches that will come with. I can see it now we'll need quad core processors for a smooth environment 2 for windows to run virus / spyware software, and 2 more for OSX to operate.

Seriously we have it great on the Mac side, who cares if everyone else in the world owns or wants a Mac? I switched to get away from Windows and the 6 month format plan. If the latest headlines are true and they have to rewrite 60% of the code is this something you all are really want Apple to waste there time on? More people who switch mean longer times on hold, and more ignorant people taking up real estate at the Genius bar. I travel all over the world and any time I run into a fellow Mac user there's usually instant communication.

We have scene the screen shots Microsoft is stealing anything Apple can come up with from the Spotlight logo to widgets do you really want to use something that is just following the leader? Why not petition Apple to use there resources to continue to lead the pack and not welcome a 2nd rate operating system. If you honestly need to run windows then I welcome you spend $300 dollars and build your own machine.

I'm tired of all the news about windows why do we care? We have the superior OS why do we insist on needing a 2nd rate OS?

 

[dejager]

This sort of makes sense if Apple wants Mac OS X on PCs

A major barrier to selling Mac OS X to PC users would be that their purchased Windows software would simply stop working once they switched OS's. If virtualization leads to Mac OS X being able to running Windows software without needing Windows then OS X.5 becomes very attractive, especially if it comes out in time for the back to school and christmas markets. If you were PC owner given a choice what would you do? Buy the beautiful, secure, stable, easy to use, and cheaper, Mac OS X.5, which will support the majority of your apps, or wait till next January+ for Windows to release another upgrade to their sub-par operating system?

 

[Mr Skills]

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.

You're thinking from the consumer's point of view, rather than the developer's. At the moment, if you want the Mac market to buy something, you have to make a Mac version. If you can easily run Windows apps on a Mac, then there is no need - as a developer - to make a Mac version.

Sure, given the choice, Mac users would buy Mac programs. But what if you don't give them the choice? They will probably, however reluctantly, buy the Windows version. You might lose some sales from Mac users, but possibly not enough to offset the cost of Mac development.

This is a very difficult and subtle situation, involving the ease/cost of Mac development versus the ease/cost of running windows apps on the Mac. With the Intel transition, it is getting easier to run Windows apps on a Mac - but this may be offset by the increased ease of cross-platform development.

I'm sure there is a sweet-spot for Apple where a certain level of Windows virtualization will help Mac sales without hitting software development. They need to make it easier, but not too easy, or it will be OS/2 all over again.

 

[Kingsly]

I would live to see a Rosetta-like handling of .exe apps... "goodbye M$ market share"

 

[KindredMAC]

Can you imagine having a Windows icon in your dock and clicking on it when you needed to go to the dark side for a little bit? What would be really cool is if Windows booted up in the background as OS X was starting up so the transition between both would have no lag time at all.

Imagine, all you would have to do is go buy a copy of Windows Vista for $130, install it on your Mac running Leopard, and Voila! You now have the most powerful and versitle computing system in the history of all computers.... and it's a Mac!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And the main bonus to it is that if Microsoft tried to reverse this to work on any PC in their version of Windows, it would take them frickin 8 years to do it! By that time, the Mac OS would have totally changed under the hood probably 3 times!!!!!

It's great to be a Mac User today in this world!!!!!!!

 

[YoNeX]

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

You forgot Linux too While I love using VMWare for sandboxing XP on my XP to test stuff, its essentially all I need. Lets be honest here, if a software company starts to drop their development for OS X in favor of XP only, you can have a lot of interesting effects. This would allow all the developers to focus on the XP versions, essentially optimizing it to its full potential even optimizing it posssibly for the "virtualization" (i'm not sure about this, but I'm sure it could be done). Now issues may arise like some issues virtualization can't do. For example, I was trying to load this one game that required DX9 (hardly graphics extensive at all), and VMWare Windows could not open it, something about incomptability hardware.

In addition, most computer users aren't that tech savy. Have you tried turning it off and on. Push the power button, its that green glowing button. (IT Crowd ) So telling many of these people they have to go through a bunch of steps to just get their software is already difficult enough. But I'm sure this won't be that big of an issue since Apple is known for making software so damn easy to use.

Virtualization may good for a lot of things, but ideally, it can't solve everyone's solution. Some people simply need dual booting features to get the full native hardware and software. Virtualization may not be 100%, so it should not be soley depended on it. Is this an end for for OS X development, NO! Why do you think there are so many developers for so many different platform? Because they want to share their software with the rest of the other OSes, Opera is a good example of this. For the record, VMWare is fast, not as fast as native of course, but typically with enough RAM, its good enough for most testing. Games is another story as I said above.

Someone said earlier that if you buy a company software with only XP support, your supporting them not to port over or develop native OS X software. Well I'll tell you this right now, they would not have plans to do it. If they had plans to do it, they would have been working on it a long time ago. And how can they differentiate between regular XP sale customers and Mac XP Users that want to use it on their mac? They don't! So while ideally in a perfect world we could simply switch to a company that supports multiple platform, but sadly many times people are forced into using certain software for whatever reason. Just got to accept this.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

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

No no no, Vista has been 60% rewritten. that's why it is taking 6 years to come out.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

I don't agree. With the transition to Intel, porting apps to Mac OS is not nearly as complicated as it was before. Developers are going to take the little bit of extra time required to make a Mac port.

no, this is amazing news. Imagine if Apple released a computer that could "run 95% of all software on the market" out of the box. OS X, Linux, Windows, (DOS?) you get the idea.

The best part is, just because something "works" on OS X doesn't mean that you want it. Take AOL Instant Messenger for example. It's what people are used to, but it's not the best AT ALL. Imagine the toaster-style pop ups when people sign on. Completely out of place. No one would use AIM over Adium or ichat because those are native OS X apps.

The same holds true for just about anything else. except MS Paint and Solitare. I'm still waiting for a good OS X alternative to them.

but back to my point. If OS X could run 95% of all software made today, it gets a LOT of hype, some market share boost, and all of those real-estate guys get to run that program that they are always complaining about while using OS X. Everybody else, well they'd find native OS X apps that work better because they're native and use them anyway.

In the end, you get a secure, stable, beautiful OS that can do anything you throw at it.

 

[fabsgwu]

Good for AAPL, Good for M$FT?

This could be win-win for Apple and Microsoft. It would probably be a built-to-order option which would require some additional fee for use of Microsoft code/OS, and it would surely increase interest in 'switchers'.

On the other hand...

This could be detrimental to Mac OS software development, "why build an Apple version when you can just fire up the Windows version on your Mac..."

 

[thestaton]

if Virtualization means a rosetta style for .exe that would be incredible. anything more I'll pass on.

 

[tmornini]

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.

1) How about being able to run 10.3.9 and 10.4.0 on the same machine, at the same time(!) with zero hassles? Perhaps even automatically as part of each major upgrade?

2) How about the ability to seamlessly move your entire environment to another box? SuperDuper! does make this pretty easy already...but with virtualization, it's (potentially) a single file.

3) I totally agree that this would bring switchers. I have a buddy who wants a Mac, but *will not* do it until he can run Windows apps full speed.

 

[aegisdesign]

But isn't that totally beside the point? your customer had to decide between two applications, not two platforms.

No, it's exactly the point. He'd never have gone to Windows since he's been on a Mac for donkeys years and sensibly thinks Windows sucks. However, he's now not gone with a Mac native CAD package.

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?

No, AutoCAD is inferior and costs more. However, since it's a Windows application, it's the industry standard 900lb gorilla of CAD apps. Imagine if Microsoft Word didn't exist on the Mac and you were trying to share files. Sure, Pages or Mellel might get pretty close at approximating Word docs but you can never get them 100% right. AutoCAD is like that and when you're dealing with sending CAD files to Taiwan for them to build your drawings into 100,000's of dollars of metal, you want to get things 100% right.

You would probably then say, 'well, what if everyone chooses AutoCAD, that means VectorWorks would throw in the towel'

I'm sure they won't but now Vectorworks has to compete with AutoCAD on the Mac and Autodesk haven't even done any Mac development. Perhaps they'll think the same and only produce a Windows version instead of investing so much in the Mac market.

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.

That's very naive. There simply isn't room for everyone in the Mac market. It's a very small market with a few independent developers making a living by being small and owning a large amount of a small market. They'll potentially get squashed by 900lb gorillas that have no interest in the Mac market at all if you allow in Windows applications.

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.

I disagree that Transmit is only 10% of those you mention, however, if everyone started using those, then one outcome could be that Panic stops developing Transmit and we then have lost the best (which I disagree with anyway) FTP app on the Mac. Personally, I prefer Fugu btw.

I appreciate how you think this is good for consumers and in the short term it may be. But long term, this may prove to be a serious negative effect for native Mac development and the death of many small indy software developers that concentrate on the Mac market and stay away from the gorillas.

 

[GFLPraxis]

Why would anybody rate this negative? It basicly just said, "Apple's going to give everyone who buys Leopard a copy of VirtualPC for free so you don't have to buy it from Microsoft!"

 

[thefunkymunky]

No no no, Vista has been 60% rewritten. that's why it is taking 6 years to come out.

I think you'll find its 60% of Vista needs to be rewritten. Not has been rewritten.

 

[p0intblank]

I can't believe what I reading! I never thought I'd see the day Apple actually asks people to run Windows applications on a Mac. This would not only allow the user to have a much easier experience than dual-booting, but this very feature of Leopard could also increase the Mac's market share by a lot. Now there would be no reason to own a real Windows box for a lot of people.

 

[SpankWare]

You're thinking from the consumer's point of view, rather than the developer's. At the moment, if you want the Mac market to buy something, you have to make a Mac version. If you can easily run Windows apps on a Mac, then there is no need - as a developer - to make a Mac version.

Sure, given the choice, Mac users would buy Mac programs. But what if you don't give them the choice? They will probably, however reluctantly, buy the Windows version. You might lose some sales from Mac users, but possibly not enough to offset the cost of Mac development.

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.

 

[shawnce]

I think you'll find its 60% of Vista needs to be rewritten. Not has been rewritten.

I think you find that that 60% number is BS... the article you are referring to is FUD.

 

[DOUGHNUT]

If this is true, it's going to be HUGE if Apple can get Leopard in by the holiday season. Considering Vista won't be out until January next year, people would be like, hey, I can run Windows apps on these cool Apple machines now, let me buy a Mac instead of a Dell. It won't surprise me if Apple's marketshare doubles within a year with the iPod halo effect in full force. People are fed up with Windows, and the ability to run Windows software on a Mac will be the killer app on these new Intel Macs.

 

[SpankWare]

If this is true, it's going to be HUGE if Apple can get Leopard in by the holiday season. Considering Vista won't be out until January next year, people would be like, hey, I can run Windows apps on these cool Apple machines now, let me buy a Mac instead of a Dell.

The problem here is the fact that purchasing a Dell is less of a financial impact than purchasing an Apple. While it may work for some I think you'll find it to be a HUGE minority that have that viewpoint at the holidays. The Christmas shopping season is enhanced by spectacular deals. People become more bargin conscious during the holidays and as I result I don't see them using virtualization as an excuse to spend MORE money on a computer to run apps that they could run natively on a far less expensive machine. This is the area where Apple fails and will continue to fail in terms of gaining market acceptance. Many people here knock on Dell for being cheap when that's exactly what's made them successful. People want bang for the buck and in a Windows-centric world Dell and many other PC makers are the logical choice.

 

[Bhaidaya]

This is great news for me! I'm a switcher... doin it for exposure and experience in a new environment that i am now finding myself more and more excited about.

I'm just now realizing how much anti windows people there are... I personally have never had a virus and or problems with spyware... i know what to do and what not to do... not having that control previously on osx made me dislike it... imagine not having the option to jwalk because it's against the law....

I made the point to switch when i found out OSX has a linux backend (WOW) now the option for me to continue to use my fav dev environs from windows while i switch is awesome(WOWx2)... up until this point i was a little apprehensive about switching due to the fact i would lose time and productivity finding development equivelents and would need to retrain myself to use them.. which is actually exciting for me. I thrive on change and adapting to new requirments. This means i can afford to seek out and use and compare the equivelents but not be forced to lose the downtime i previously assumed.

For all you XP haters, why you gotta hate? now that you are finally in the limelight you gotta act indecent and exclusive? OSX dev style will not go away... thats like saying you are going to switch to windows... OSX community is too dedicated to drop OSX development. Now that Mac is gaining marketshare you just wait and see how the OSX environ gets flooded with deadbeat developers making software that guts OSX security and allows root access through websites and popup optin spyware TSR's!

Most of the flaws in XP was due to someone attempting to make **** better for windows (ala ActivX) just with thier eyes closed to all the problems that it would introduce. Hell, that is just human nature... (a-bomb Biotch)

My long wait is almost over my 2ghz macbook PRO should be here in 5 days... wish me luck

 

[wnurse]

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?

A lot of people who don't want to spend thousands for a computer. I have yet to persuade any of my friends to buy a mac. Everyone i know likes the fact that you can buy a $600 dell computer. They don't care about how it looks or that it's not brushed metal, etc. All my friends prefer to spend their money instead on houses, stocks, etc. To them, a computer is just a tool. I have just about given up even trying to persuade anyone to try macs.. so no, Dell is not quaking in their boots. Even some people willing to spend over a thousand still don't want a mac. The problem is that to many of these people, they are only interested in windows, so telling them that if they spend a few more dollars, they can get mac and windows (i'm talking about when virtualization becomes a reality) will not sway them. Why should they care they can run mac and windows together?. As mac owners who need to sometimes run windows app, we care but i have yet to meet a windows user who needs to run mac apps sometimes. No, this will not get more switchers. People will not suddenly flock to mac cause they can run windows too. People have to be persuaded that they need macOSX in the first place to even consider it. I have a friend who makes good money, i tried to get her to go to a mac.. her question was why?.. i don't need any mac apps. I tried explaining about lack of viruses,etc..that did not seem to concern her. (of course, the fact that she needed certain windows app played a role).. would be curious to know if she would consider a mac if it could run windows also (probably not, since she will point out you will need to acquire a copy of windows and she will ask.. why buy a computer and then pay more for another operating system.. why not buy a computer with the other operating system in the first place.. why dick around?).

I suspect apple is doing this for the mac loyal who needs to run windows app. I will be surprised if this would lead to significant switchers.

 

[shawnce]

The problem here is the fact that purchasing a Dell is less of a financial impact than purchasing an Apple.

Yet folks are consistently dropping a large amount of cash (often more then they would on a bargain rebate riddled Dell) on iPods, PSP, and console boxes. The money exists in the consumer world and consumers are willing to spend it on things that they see value in. Apple doesn't have to play (and really shouldn't) in the bargain computer world, leave it to Dell and others to fight over.

Apple can increase market share just fine playing in the product space it traditionally has... they have excellent mindshare/mediashare now, they now have hardware that is more acceptable then ever to the general market, they have an operating system that is more acceptable then ever, and consumers are looking for alternatives to Windows more then ever. I think the time is just about as good as it can be for Apple to grow Macintosh marketshare.

 

[thequicksilver]

Frankly, I don't believe a word of it.

But I hope it's true.

 

[Archmagination]

From what I read it just seems like Apple is going to provide the os/processor support needed to virtualize other os's on Mac's.

I wouldn't be suprised, since they are teaming up with Microsoft for this, that all they are doing is providing OS lvl support for Microsofts new Virtual PC for Mac. Apple doesn't want to make it TOO easy to run Windows, but at the same time they want to make it viable option for people who need Windows, but prefer Mac.

 

[DOUGHNUT]

The problem here is the fact that purchasing a Dell is less of a financial impact than purchasing an Apple. While it may work for some I think you'll find it to be a HUGE minority that have that viewpoint at the holidays. The Christmas shopping season is enhanced by spectacular deals. People become more bargin conscious during the holidays and as I result I don't see them using virtualization as an excuse to spend MORE money on a computer to run apps that they could run natively on a far less expensive machine. This is the area where Apple fails and will continue to fail in terms of gaining market acceptance. Many people here knock on Dell for being cheap when that's exactly what's made them successful. People want bang for the buck and in a Windows-centric world Dell and many other PC makers are the logical choice.

obviously, Windows and cheap consumer PC will never go away. But it's time for Apple to finally crawl out of the sub 5% marketshare area into the mainstream. There are ALOT of people thinking of switching, but at the same time reluctant to go into this 5% territory. If Apple can manage to get above 10% in terms of marketshare, that would be quite an achievement on its own. More developers would focus on developing software for multiple platforms, and word of mouth will be even bigger than it is right now. Also, this will drive competition between Microsoft and Apple, resulting in better products from both companies.