Leopard to Include Virtualization Software?

[AidenShaw]

Buy XP for the holidays, with free Vista upgrade

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..

You'll see all those holiday PCs including a coupon for a free upgrade to Vista.

The delay is good for the PC vendors - they won't have to rush the Vista qualification for all the holiday PCs. They can take the time to prepare an upgrade program to roll out in January.

And, the stores will have demo systems running Vista, so that the people will see what they'll be getting with the coupon.

 

[asphalt-proof]

I would love to see this but I have a hard time envisioning the APple that won't license out Fairplay to anyone, spending time and money creating an environment that allows users to use anything but Mac OS. Just seems counterintuitive.
But Stevo has shocked us all before. Leopard may be VERY interesting.

 

[dernhelm]

I'm looking forward to this, but not for Windows..

I run VPC on windows today because I need to test software on multiple versions of windows. Even though there is no emulation, the virtualization going on is still pretty slow. Still in all, it makes a lot more sense than having a bunch of different windows machines lying around configured for different environments. The same would hold true for virtualization technology on OS/X.

Yes, it could be configured to run Windows in a VM, but it can also be used to run multiple OS/X versions (Tiger/Leopard/etc) in a VM. That would be more compelling for me. It would allow me to upgrade and test without fear of horking up my machine.

 

[SpankWare]

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.

You can't really compare the home computer space to the specialized spaces of iPods, PSP, etc. as they are dissimilar. The iPods, PSP etc that you speak of are specialized portable devices. The success of the iPod was in my opinion largely built upon the fact that they built a better portable music device first and enhanced it with an online store for purchasing music. Console boxes like the XBox and PS2 are successful because they offer a more affordable specialized system for gaming. There's no question about whether or not your system can play the game because you know it can when you buy it. That's worth the rather small amount (XBox 360 excluded) you pay for it.

When you're talking about home computers people still want bang for the buck. I've used Macs off and on for more years than I care to remember but at the end of the day the main driving factor on why I might buy a PC over a mac was completely based on cost. I know the same goes for many other people I know. The home computer is a tool as well as entertainment (in however you view that entertainment) and people want to know that they've gotten good value for money spent. Unfortunately it's very hard to justify spending more money on a system that's not as widely used as the less expensive alternatives.

 

[seashellz]

I dont see WHY APPLE *shouldnt* make a version of 10.5 that runs on PCs.
First off they would sell many THOUSANDS more copies of X; $$$$$
Which in turn will show people just how cool Mac is, and since they needent fear being unable to natively run Windows Games, apps etc on a Mac, there would be thousands of new switchers- to a MAC. $$$$
it s BIG WIN/BIG WIN for APPLE.


Dont drop the ball there, Steve $$$$$

It just might even up the score between MS and Mac.

with VISTA is not due until probably 2011, lets get the ball rolling.

 

[SpankWare]

I dont see WHY APPLE *shouldnt* make a version of 10.5 that runs on PCs.
First off they would sell many THOUSANDS more copies of X; $$$$$
Which in turn will show people just how cool Mac is, and since they needent fear being unable to natively run Windows Games, apps etc on a Mac, there would be thousands of new switchers- to a MAC. $$$$
it s BIG WIN/BIG WIN for APPLE.

I do wish Apple would sell OS X seperately from the hardware. I can do the same computing for less with generic PC hardware.

 

[aria505]

Universial OS Applications

What if we are looking at this the wrong way?

What if Apple is actually building in the ability for different application types to run "natively" under Mac os X. That would turn Mac OS into the Universal OS.

If they were able to get .exe files to run natively inside of Mac OS, then it would turn .exe files into "Universial Applications" and there for eliminating the needs for developers to create seperate applications for Windows and Mac. .exe files would not just be windows applications anymore. They would be Mac/Windows applications.

That would be really scary though since I'm sure viruses would be able to execute as well.

 

[cgc]

The only downside to emulation is that it is slower. Dual booting would allow the programs to run in native format, right?

While there has to be a "middle-man" to pass Windows programs to the Windows DLLs, there shouldn't be too much of a slowdown...

 

[maxvamp]

Brought to you by the letters O and S, and the number 2!!!

In a perfect world, the OS9 classic environment would be replaced with a Windows ( lite ) environment that would allow a user to run off the shelf Windows apps seamlessly on the OSX desktop. This windows engine could run in a Virtualized Machine under the covers. Apple loves to integrate.

This has historically proven problems though....
- If MS and Apple join to make this happen, then several years down the road, split, MS could effectively gut OSX of the features that users may have become comfortable with. An Achilles Heel of sorts.
- The cost of OSX will go up, as Apple will be forced to pay the MS tax with every copy of OSX sold
- People at some point will get convinced ( usually by an idiotic salesman at a high volume electronics / computer store ) that
a.) Windows apps are not fully compatible
b.) Every thing runs slower on a Mac
c.) There are no apps for Apple so there is no need to run Windows this way, just buy an HP instead.


These were all the problems run into by OS/2, and unless Apple can really differentiate, and learn from IBM's mistakes, it is doomed to the same fate.

I personally would **NOT** like to see this path, but then again, who am I?

If you want a Mac, buy a Mac....If you want a DULL, well........

Max.

 

[tip]

I think if Apple really wanted to facilitate this, the new Intel Macs would have two/three button mice/trackpads. I'm skeptical.

 

[mark88]

No, AutoCAD is inferior and costs more. However, since it's a Windows application, it's the industry standard 900lb gorilla of CAD apps.

It seems bizarre to me that an industry would have a second rate app as the #1 must have. Surely if this is the case the professionals will always use the best software, regardless of platform. If Photoshop didn't exsist on Windows, I can't imagine Paint Shop Pro being the industries the 900lb gorilla or whatever. But like I said, I know nothing about AutoCAD.

That's very naive. There simply isn't room for everyone in the Mac market.

I don't see how it's that different than the Windows market. I'm not merely talking about AutoCAD now but in general. Windows has a larger market share but competition is also ten fold. There are certain mac developers who simply own their part of the market. For example, Yazsoft has basically no competition whatsoever and Speed Download IMO is far from the perfect download manager, but who's pushing them?

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.

You're missing my point, if those FTP applications became available for the Mac it simply means Panic has to try a bit harder to compete with them, not quit. If their product is up to the standard of these other apps then they have nothing to fear. But it isn't!... you'd do well to find one single FTP app on OS X that has filters for regular transfers. A feature than I cannot live without.

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.

Time will tell

The major underlining issue for me with this whole thing is that all this Windows on Mac thing would only be a problem if Windows was superior to OS X, which I think everybody here will agree it isn't. Instead of everyone fearing the death of OS X I think it will do much more to help it grow.

If people get a taste of the mac way they're gonna want all their applications to run inside OS X, and that demand will be met by more development, not by developers saying "hey, we're through with macs, just load up windows and run our software in there" IMO

 

[shawnce]

First off they would sell many THOUSANDS more copies of X; $$$$$

Thousands? An increase of thousands would be around 1% of the current volume of retail Mac OS X sales that Apples sees with a major update.

It would have to be millions (more likely 10s millions) of more copies to even have a chance to supply the revenue stream needed to support Apple (as it currently exists).

 

[adamfilip]

I do wish Apple would sell OS X seperately from the hardware. I can do the same computing for less with generic PC hardware.

besides the fact that apple wants to sell its hardware and software

just getting the drivers available for all the different types of pc hardware would. be... well crazy

 

[bdkennedy1]

I don't see it happening. It is almost like saying "Our OS can't do everything, so we are providing a solution for you to install other operating systems." I don't think Apple thinks like that. If it happens I will be very surprised.

Anyways, I am very happy with the dual boot, it works perfect. (I have an intel iMac 20'.)

I disagree. I can see Apple totally selling more Macs if there were an easier way for Windows users to ease into OS X.

 

[shawnce]

You can't really compare the home computer space to the specialized spaces of iPods, PSP, etc. as they are dissimilar. ...

You can to extent of the point I was making. If consumers see the value they will spend the money and it is obvious that the money exist in a decent enough population of folks.

Sure if Apple expanded their price point down into the bargain system space they could likely increase their hardware volumes but they would make less on those systems. Apple has no real need to do this given that they have the ability to grow in the product spaces they already are playing in. They can do this without eroding margins and by growing volumes at a pace that they can more easily keep up with. This is the better play for Apple to make at this time... down the road they could realign if they find they cannot grow in the space they currently play in.

 

[SpankWare]

The major underlining issue for me with this whole thing is that all this Windows on Mac thing would only be a problem if Windows was superior to OS X, which I think everybody here will agree it isn't. Instead of everyone fearing the death of OS X I think it will do much more to help it grow.

If people get a taste of the mac way they're gonna want all their applications to run inside OS X, and that demand will be met by more development, not by developers saying "hey, we're through with macs, just load up windows and run our software in there" IMO

Here's where I think most "Mac users" are deluded. I can guarantee you that OS X is not superior to Windows. I can also tell you that Windows is not superior to OS X. Take all the combinations of all the Operating Systems in the wild and it will be the same. No OS is better than another generally speaking. One may be better than another in a given task but none is superior over another. I come from the real world where you run whatever serves your purpose. This means OS and applications. If Windows does it then you run Windows. If OS X does it you run OS X. It's that simple.

Running OS X isn't going to make people abandon windows. OS X is nice but it isn't the end all be all of Operating Systems.

 

[Glassman]

what I think would be great is to forget about dual booting and instead hibernate each OS and wake up the one you want at the given time.. there can be hotkeys to do so, handled in firmware.. much like selecting consoles in Unix.. it would take approx. 30s to switch between OS's and they would all run native, having absolute control over the computer.. all the applications would stay opened exactly as they were left from the last switch..

I'm a Windows user, I have no troubles with them and all, but I very much like OS X and Apple as a whole because of the style, unmatched industrial and UI design etc. no doubt OS X is much more advanced system.. it may not be the fastest one but who cares about a couple of % anyway.. I especially appreciate it's a Unix in nature and even open-source.. I'm running it over a week and I'm discovering the internals - it seems pretty well thought-out and regular to me, I definitely like it..

there's nothing wrong with Windows since the days of 2000 (NT 5.0) and later XP (NT 5.1), but from the UI standpoint it's showing it's age.. XP default style is really horrible, I'm using classic looks of course, it's decent at least and I'm used to it after all these years.. today's graphics chips are so powerful 'thanks' to the gamers, but their power is not utilised at all under Windows and ordinary applications.. that's what I love on OS X - fully accellerated GUI..

I'm not running Apple machine yet even though I'd really want to.. there unfortunately are no OS X alternatives of software I use on Windows.. I simply need Windows for work, not that I prefer it over MacOS.. I refuse to run non-native OS X apps under OS X either, because it completely ruins the style.. someone noted the OpenOffice - I can only second that.. now talk about Matlab - yuck! I'm not a fan of running foreign applications under different OS like for ex. Wine does or X11 under OS X, if I have to run Windows program, I want to run it under Windows in fullscreen, preriod..

developpers are primarily interested in major platform, which is Windows at the time being.. in order to increase the quantity as well as quality of OS X software, Apple absolutely need to increase it's market share, otherwise we're not moving anywhere.. so what to do to realise this? what makes people buy Mac and on the other hand, what prevents people to do so? I guess we can find many answers to the first question, but what about the latter? is it the price? I'm not that sure.. or is it because they can't make the switch because of lack of alternatives? or do they simply not care at all and are using whatever they've been thought and are used to at present? we are (hopefully) sensible beings and we like beautiful things around us, which should serve as a great motivating force for users to become intrested in Apple and later find out it's not just a great looking boxes, but also great software.. I guess, first of all remove the barriers holding potential switchers back - that is let them run their old Windows applications somehow.. that should result in Apple gaining significant market share and in turn make developing OS X native applications worthwhile for the big companies, which again would attract more people and we have a closed circle! I tell you, people will hate to run ugly Windows apps under MacOS, they will urge OS X native versions..

thats about it, thanks for reading

 

[jmbear]

I repeat

Good news for...

Apple and Microsoft. Apples sells computers and software, Microsoft sells software, now Window will run very good on the Mac (VPC was sort of crappy IMO) and Apple can have Windows on their computers. More Windows sold through Macs and more Macs sold because they run Windows.

Bad news for...

Dull, HP, Acer and all the PC manufacturers because THEY CAN'T RUN OSX MUAHAHAHAHA SCREW DULL!!!

 

[mark88]

Here's where I think most "Mac users" are deluded. I can guarantee you that OS X is not superior to Windows. I can also tell you that Windows is not superior to OS X. Take all the combinations of all the Operating Systems in the wild and it will be the same. No OS is better than another generally speaking. One may be better than another in a given task but none is superior over another. I come from the real world where you run whatever serves your purpose. This means OS and applications. If Windows does it then you run Windows. If OS X does it you run OS X. It's that simple.

Running OS X isn't going to make people abandon windows. OS X is nice but it isn't the end all be all of Operating Systems.

I find myself being a strange position now because I remember saying time and time again the same things, OS X is far from perfect and actually flying the windows flag in the countless windows on mac threads. I even got banned for calling a zealot a retard. Now I'm on the other end and 'deluded'....?

What I would say is, the people who are fearing OS X doom and gloom are *usually* the anti windows people, to them OS X is the be all and end all. So I'm speaking to them, by saying if OS X is so good, there's nothing to fear.

Seen as though we are talking about 'real world', I don't wanna by dicking around with two operating systems. I choose the the one that suits my needs most and fly with it, to me that's the one I like best and is superior to the other for what I use it for.

 

[Edge100]

The only downside to emulation is that it is slower. Dual booting would allow the programs to run in native format, right?

No. Virtualization is not emulation. Windows apps would run at native speeds.

 

[justinjoylife]

seems like they could take it to the point where windows could be running in the background but you would be able launch an instance of a windows application within a window view. perhaps MSFT would have some api where osx could tie into it so that you could say minimize a windows app with the genie effect..

 

[avatarlgs3]

Word of Caution

Has anyone stopped to think of the possibility that maybe Apple, Intel and Microsoft are manipulating the public. Think about it, Apple switched to the same architecture as Windows now, Apple is now going to allow new Macs to dual-Boot Windows and OSX 10.5... What's next?? Think about it people, maybe Apple has come to the point, were they figure they could make more profit by stopping the production and development of a unique Apple OS, and replace with Microsoft's Windows? Could this decision be one of many tactical manuevers by Apple and/or Microsoft to control the technologic development of our economy? Does Microsoft win, and Apple becomes just another DELL?

This could be the end of Apple as a unique innovative option for people who just wanted a computer that works, and does multimedia to perfection. This could be a truly sad day for all Mac Addicts everywhere.

 

[YoNeX]

I dont see WHY APPLE *shouldnt* make a version of 10.5 that runs on PCs.
First off they would sell many THOUSANDS more copies of X; $$$$$
Which in turn will show people just how cool Mac is, and since they needent fear being unable to natively run Windows Games, apps etc on a Mac, there would be thousands of new switchers- to a MAC. $$$$
it s BIG WIN/BIG WIN for APPLE.


Dont drop the ball there, Steve $$$$$

It just might even up the score between MS and Mac.

with VISTA is not due until probably 2011, lets get the ball rolling.

Hasn't this been beaten to death. Put through a blender. Purated. Then finally served as a McDonald milk shake?

It seems bizarre to me that an industry would have a second rate app as the #1 must have. Surely if this is the case the professionals will always use the best software, regardless of platform. If Photoshop didn't exsist on Windows, I can't imagine Paint Shop Pro being the industries the 900lb gorilla or whatever. But like I said, I know nothing about AutoCAD.

Points you to Microsoft Word...

 

[SpankWare]

I find myself being a strange position now because I remember saying time and time again the same things, OS X is far from perfect and actually flying the windows flag in the countless windows on mac threads. I even got banned for calling a zealot a retard. Now I'm on the other end and 'deluded'....?

What I would say is, the people who are fearing OS X doom and gloom are *usually* the anti windows people, to them OS X is the be all and end all. So I'm speaking to them, by saying if OS X is so good, there's nothing to fear.

Seen as though we are talking about 'real world', I don't wanna by dicking around with two operating systems. I choose the the one that suits my needs most and fly with it, to me that's the one I like best and is superior to the other for what I use it for.

But see you put it in a much more reasonable perspective. Post after post about the superiority of OS X never includes any personal reference. I can respect your position because you've explained how you view it. Others spew it as a form of hate. All in all I agree with what you've said other than picking one OS. In my world I have to run a LOT of things. In my house alone that includes Windows XP, Windows 2003 Enterprise Svr, Vista, Linux (various flavors), OS X, and Solaris.

 

[AtariMac]

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.

What an elitist point of view! What does Adobe gain in this scenerio? Nothing at all. They already have the sale, why bother with a cross grade?

What a pathetic excuse for a post.