Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Leopard to Include Virtualization Software?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Thataboy said:
If virtualization means you can run the OS natively:
Then M$ could assume even more copies of Vista sold to the Mac community.Arn said:
I am still waking up to this, but have done both:
Mac OS X on a generic PC
Windows on a real Mac
Now M$ helping Apple... and vice versa
all you people who scream "hooray!", seem to forget that once such an emulation is implemented, maybe preinstalled, and works with no hassle (why should Apple develop such a thing and then cripple it..???), there will be significantly less native applications for OS X. why? because if a windows app runs on a mac without a problem and it's easy to install, there's no reason why a company (one that's primaly developing for windows) should dedicate development resources towards a mac version. people could just buy and use the windows app and get the same results (again, if it is easy to install, comes with your OS X installation, and if integration is seamless - I guess that is the goal of emulation, otherwise it would be pointless).
this is dangerous. leave this to a third party and don't make it too easy.
vSpacken
this is dangerous. leave this to a third party and don't make it too easy.
vSpacken
I would love to have the ability to run the odd Windows program (.exe) without having to dual boot or run Virtual PC -- just click the icon and it runs on it's own layer, no need to install Windows.
As an average consumer, this would be ideal and less hassle. I also think that this will bring more switchers; since many people using Windows already have software, and one concern is having to re-purchase Mac versions of their software. There is also the occasional Windows version of a program that is not available on OS X.
It would be just more convenient to have the ability to run a .exe Windows file on the occasion that we need to use the program.
I know that this is possible in Linux, because I've been reading up on the Wine project. Although it's probably not at the peak of perfection, it really piques my interest and the possibility of cross-compatibility.
It would be cool if one day they made a Universal Binary that worked on all systems, sort of like what Apple is doing down with OS X on PPC and Intel. So, you could grab any software off the shelf and install it into your computer, no matter what it is: OS X, Windows or Linux.
Developers would save time and money because they won't have to port stuff over and then re-ship the product for another platform. It would also open the door to moer sales, since you can access other platforms.
As a consumer, this would just be great. No more waiting for ports or having to dual boot or run Virtual PC. It would allow the consumer to choose which ever OS they want, but still have all of the benefits of everyone else.
Who knows, it may happen in the future; however, the idea of running Windows programs with out dual boot, running virtual PC, or even needing to purchase a copy of Windows, would be awesome. And, that technology is here (like Wine). I can see this as a possibility and a great selling point for consumers who want to switch, but still need to use Windows programs that are not available on the Mac.
--nate
As an average consumer, this would be ideal and less hassle. I also think that this will bring more switchers; since many people using Windows already have software, and one concern is having to re-purchase Mac versions of their software. There is also the occasional Windows version of a program that is not available on OS X.
It would be just more convenient to have the ability to run a .exe Windows file on the occasion that we need to use the program.
I know that this is possible in Linux, because I've been reading up on the Wine project. Although it's probably not at the peak of perfection, it really piques my interest and the possibility of cross-compatibility.
It would be cool if one day they made a Universal Binary that worked on all systems, sort of like what Apple is doing down with OS X on PPC and Intel. So, you could grab any software off the shelf and install it into your computer, no matter what it is: OS X, Windows or Linux.
Developers would save time and money because they won't have to port stuff over and then re-ship the product for another platform. It would also open the door to moer sales, since you can access other platforms.
As a consumer, this would just be great. No more waiting for ports or having to dual boot or run Virtual PC. It would allow the consumer to choose which ever OS they want, but still have all of the benefits of everyone else.
Who knows, it may happen in the future; however, the idea of running Windows programs with out dual boot, running virtual PC, or even needing to purchase a copy of Windows, would be awesome. And, that technology is here (like Wine). I can see this as a possibility and a great selling point for consumers who want to switch, but still need to use Windows programs that are not available on the Mac.
--nate
thejadedmonkey said:
Check Solitare Plus! - my wife is using that one and you can even put in your own pics on the back of the cards. Solitare XL also looks pretty good. You can link to both of them at http://osx.hyperjeff.net/Apps/
Oh, and I should mention Red Box (which, I believe, I has already been mentioned). Red Box is sort of like Wine -- you can run Windows apps without needing to run Windows. Red box has been rumored for a while, and it looks like a possibility.
Some critics state that if this became available, people will stop making programs for the Mac. I don't see this happening.
The OS X is a strong platform and offers software, like iLife, which isn't available on Windows. That helps bring people over, and so does the great software base that already exists on the OS X.
But, there are times when we need to use the odd program for work or play that is only available in Windows. Having the ability to run a Windows program out of the box without dual booting or using Virtual PC would be great for consumers, and give OS X more of an edge. Plus, it would be much easier to transfer over.
I know so many people who are sick of Windows, but feel they have little choice but to stick with it. One excuse that I hear is that they have already invested money in programs for Windows, and they just can't afford to re-purchase Mac versions, if they are available (some are, but some are not).
If I were a Windows PC user and knew I could use my old programs on OS X until it's time to upgrade and get the Mac OS version, I would switch much easier.
And I think that OS X is a strong enough platform now that we're not going to see it vanish like OS/2 from IBM, which offered similar features. Also, with Mac-only benefits and software (like iLife, Final cut, Logic, etc.) it gives the OS X consumer something extra and beneficial to hold onto.
--nate
Some critics state that if this became available, people will stop making programs for the Mac. I don't see this happening.
The OS X is a strong platform and offers software, like iLife, which isn't available on Windows. That helps bring people over, and so does the great software base that already exists on the OS X.
But, there are times when we need to use the odd program for work or play that is only available in Windows. Having the ability to run a Windows program out of the box without dual booting or using Virtual PC would be great for consumers, and give OS X more of an edge. Plus, it would be much easier to transfer over.
I know so many people who are sick of Windows, but feel they have little choice but to stick with it. One excuse that I hear is that they have already invested money in programs for Windows, and they just can't afford to re-purchase Mac versions, if they are available (some are, but some are not).
If I were a Windows PC user and knew I could use my old programs on OS X until it's time to upgrade and get the Mac OS version, I would switch much easier.
And I think that OS X is a strong enough platform now that we're not going to see it vanish like OS/2 from IBM, which offered similar features. Also, with Mac-only benefits and software (like iLife, Final cut, Logic, etc.) it gives the OS X consumer something extra and beneficial to hold onto.
--nate
nate said:
mark88 said:
Autodesk vs. Vectorworks isn't a question of need/budget. It is a platform issue. Autodesk is the standard in CAD software. Period. imo, the only reason Vectorworks is even a consideration is because Autocad does not exist on the mac.
If Autocad was available for the mac, everyone would be using it. In other words, if Autocad had a mac version Vectorworks would have a tough time making any money.
Think of it this way... back in the day, pc users used Corel software instead of Adobe products. But when Adobe made their products available on Windows, Corel basically disappeared.
That is what can happen to mac software... Personally, I don't think it will be that drastic, but it could easily happen.
And to the people that argued that VPC had no effect. It did. Many developers abandoned the mac and just suggested they buy the windows version and use vpc. Like Intuit with Quickbooks. Some have since come back, but vpc definitely affected the market. And plenty of windows developers that might have had interest or consumer demand for a mac version might not bother now. What comes to mind are im/voip apps, like skype and yahoo messenger. Mac development is already severely lacking there... virtualization could tip it enough so they just kill all development.
Bhaidaya said:
It doesn't. It's not based on Linux at all. It's based on BSD.
Bhaidaya said:
It's not a matter of hating. We want OSX native applications, not Windows apps. Many of us left Windows for OSX because we were fed up with Windows and OSX is so much better. Asking us to run Windows apps in OSX is like asking Windows XP users to run Windows 3.0 apps.
I'm probably the typical non-tech VPC user. VPC was the only thing that allowed me to buy my first Mac as I have to demo a small, proprietary WIN app for the service I sell. I've had to use VPC/2000Pro for a few other small proprietary Win only apps, but very seldom. I keep Windows isolated from the internet and it actually runs better (not faster) than on a PC.
The reality, though, is that I would not have VPC or Windows on the Macs if I didn't require them for work. The average consumer will NOT want to have Windows installed on their Macs. For those software companies that believe they can get by with one version (Win) - let 'em. I'll buy Mac software elsewhere.
I believe that Apple is probably meeting MS half way for the development of VPC 8.0 for Mactels. It ensures that MS doesn't get some of the mystic code, but has all of the hooks it needs to run full speed. MS is happy because they can sell a Win Box and Apple is happy because they can sell a Mac.
A virtual PC will, in my opinion will always be better option for running Windows. Not only for a security point of view, but also because it allows you to drag & drop files between the two desktops.
The reality, though, is that I would not have VPC or Windows on the Macs if I didn't require them for work. The average consumer will NOT want to have Windows installed on their Macs. For those software companies that believe they can get by with one version (Win) - let 'em. I'll buy Mac software elsewhere.
I believe that Apple is probably meeting MS half way for the development of VPC 8.0 for Mactels. It ensures that MS doesn't get some of the mystic code, but has all of the hooks it needs to run full speed. MS is happy because they can sell a Win Box and Apple is happy because they can sell a Mac.
A virtual PC will, in my opinion will always be better option for running Windows. Not only for a security point of view, but also because it allows you to drag & drop files between the two desktops.
Meemoo said:
That is an awful analogy. Classic is/was a dead OS. All development on it basically stopped when osx debuted. I highly doubt all windows development will stop when/if virtualization is offered in osx. Dual booting of os9 and classic emulation was offered to give developers and consumers time to transition to osx. But the goal was to kill os9 completely.
The closest thing to what your talking about is Rosetta. And in a few years, Rosetta will be a distant memory. As will ppc-specific osx development.
nate said:
That's possible today, it's called Java. And look how crap Java applications are on OSX.
The problem with OS independent code is you can't use ANY of the features of the OS that make it stand out over another OS. So that means you code for the lowest common denominator - aka Windows.
Or look at Firefox on OSX, Windows and Linux and compare the OSX version to Camino or Safari. Windows users think Firefox is great because they can't tell it's not really a Windows application. On OSX it looks totally out of place, doesn't support have the OS features and generally sucks.
AtariMac said:
LMAO.....I don't think you know what 'elitist' actually means. If you did I don't see how you could call me one suggesting Adobe make cross platform upgrades available????? how is that 'elitist'?
It sounds like you're pissed off because I disagreed with you or something in another thread if I remember, you were the "oh we mac users are more demanding....." guy weren't you? to which I said you were elitist, not you're calling me one. Smart.
What's in it for Adobe? keeps customer happy, customer still purchases the upgrade, Adobe still gets the same money, retains customers business....
You're suggesting that Adobe should demand people buy 2 FULL licenses, even if they only plan to use 1 copy? ....dunno about anyone else but I'm guessing not too many people would be willing to take that hit.
Doesn't take a genius to find an illegal copy of Photoshop so if Adobe wanna play hardball with their loyal, honest customers then it's not hard to understand why people turn to warez.
IMO
If I remember, at one point Adobe did infact offer cross platform updgrades? and many other software companies will do if you ask.
They are going to build it ...
... so Windows software can run on a Mac and LOOK like Mac software.
... so the graphic for the control will change but the Windows code will remain unchanged.
... so linux or Java apps can run but the user sees nothing different.
THIS IS WHY the Quicktime settlement involved agreements on HOW future software would LOOK AND FEEL !!!
I give ALL the credit to JOBs BRILLIANT especially having it all in his head so LONG AGE !
Although YOU could give credit to the guys that built the OS pathway from before JOBs which ended with Gershwin and processor independence ...
... there CERTAINLY was no concept of virtualization in those days, there was Open Doc which could have been called software based virtualization gone INSANE !!!
NeXT may have had virtualization in it, those concepts were over my head in those days, but did it ever launch more then 1 OS like say with the OS IDE to avoid conflicts ? I would NOT be surprized if it DID
I had a teacher years later, getting my ISM BS, after hearing about NeXT from a boss working there, when he told us, and he was the good one, ALL ABOUT how Macs weren't so GREAT because they didn't have IDEs in their development environments -- IDIOT A HOL !!!
I tried to tell him about how THINK C had the FIRST IDE (At least on a PC, I won't know about mainframes or workstations !) and was on the Mac FIRST, he probably did not understand, if he was THAT SMART he would have noticed the revolutionary IDE on NeXT and realized that would also ensure that there would be one on the Mac before or after.
... so Windows software can run on a Mac and LOOK like Mac software.
... so the graphic for the control will change but the Windows code will remain unchanged.
... so linux or Java apps can run but the user sees nothing different.
THIS IS WHY the Quicktime settlement involved agreements on HOW future software would LOOK AND FEEL !!!
I give ALL the credit to JOBs BRILLIANT especially having it all in his head so LONG AGE !
Although YOU could give credit to the guys that built the OS pathway from before JOBs which ended with Gershwin and processor independence ...
... there CERTAINLY was no concept of virtualization in those days, there was Open Doc which could have been called software based virtualization gone INSANE !!!
NeXT may have had virtualization in it, those concepts were over my head in those days, but did it ever launch more then 1 OS like say with the OS IDE to avoid conflicts ? I would NOT be surprized if it DID
I had a teacher years later, getting my ISM BS, after hearing about NeXT from a boss working there, when he told us, and he was the good one, ALL ABOUT how Macs weren't so GREAT because they didn't have IDEs in their development environments -- IDIOT A
HOL !!!I tried to tell him about how THINK C had the FIRST IDE (At least on a PC, I won't know about mainframes or workstations !) and was on the Mac FIRST, he probably did not understand, if he was THAT SMART he would have noticed the revolutionary IDE on NeXT and realized that would also ensure that there would be one on the Mac before or after.
don't care if it's virtualization or emulation.
i need to run certain windows applications and games, but i don't want to run windows.
that's the bottom line.
i need to run certain windows applications and games, but i don't want to run windows.
that's the bottom line.
...care to explain how this is profitable for Apple? Show some details...avatarlgs3 said:
Apple is about selling solutions, not hardware, not an operating system but a solution... Mac OS X + Macintosh, iPod + iTunes (iLife) + iTMS, etc. To do what they do and do it well they need solid control and power over the major aspects of those solutions.
mark88 said: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.
Many people don't actually care which OS they're using as long as it's running the apps they want.
Sadly that means they often don't look at the alternatives. If being able to run Windows apps easily means they can run the knocked off copy of Access from work then they will, instead of buying Filemaker. Repeat ad nauseum for any application across the whole range where there isn't a direct Mac version of a Windows app.
This is what we fear. People who don't give a fudge.
Real Mac fans will buy OSX native apps. Those that don't care now have the option of just running their Windows version. And this would be bad news for Mac developers.
macidiot said:
Spot on. And that would mean 1 less indy Mac developer and the market ceded to the 900lb Gorilla who may of course decide to drop Mac development later on anyway.
Sogo said:
If they are using the kind of virtualization that they are presumed to be using, Open Source software from a company Intel funded, the partitions are totally transparent and independent -- VERTICALLY INDEPENDENT !!!
And if they allow it Leopard could VLeopard.
Don't forget the Quicktime settlement between JOBs and Gates that strangely included future OS designs that would bring the two OSs closer together
WINE, WINE, WINE! Windows is completely redundant and only leads to problems. Just run the apps and there's little to no security risks and the OS won't bog down the puter.
I'll take VMWare-ish, but I want WINE!
I'll take VMWare-ish, but I want WINE!
aegisdesign said:
I could easily understand your point if it was a straight forward process. But the fact is, it isn't....
Even if Apple introduce some VPC-alike EMU thing it's still a major ball ache. Who want's to buy another OS? Who wants to fanny around installing it and deal with drivers etc etc? who wants to have it running at the same time taking up memory? Who want to have to load it up everytime they wanna run an application? and then switch back again?
My point here is, most computer users want conveinience, having 2 operating systems , in whatever enviroment is not very appealing to 'average joes'. Me included. I want a seamless experience, I don't wanna be jumping from Windows to OS X all day long. So in that respect, I think people will care and want their software in the OS of their choice, not split between.
regards
Please try to get this straight - it is emulated!
A Guest OS runs in an emulated computer, with an emulated graphics card, an emulated network card, and other emulated devices.
Look at the hardware devices as seen by GOS in the virtual computer - it's not the same as the hardware seen by the host OS.
That is emulation.
______________
In some cases, when the emulated virtual computer has a different ISA (Instruction Set Architecture), the VMM (Virtual Machine Monitor) also has to emulate the instructions. This is the case for Virtual PC for Mac. VPC/Mac is clearly virtualization, but it also needs ISA emulation to work.
In other cases, when the emulated and actual ISAs are the same, most instructions can simply be executed directly by the processor. Even in this case, though, some instructions still must be emulated though.
Privileged instructions that affect the state of the computer cannot be executed directly - they would change the state of the host computer also. The VMM emulates these instructions and does what is needed so that the state of the emulated computer is modified, but not the state of the real computer. Privileged instructions that look at the state of the computer might also need to be emulated so that they see the state of the emulated computer - not the state of the real computer.
_______________
Please try to consider that "ISA emulation" is just one facet of emulation, and may or may not be present in a particular emulated ("virtual") computer.
Yes - virtualization *is* emulation.Edge100 said:
A Guest OS runs in an emulated computer, with an emulated graphics card, an emulated network card, and other emulated devices.
Look at the hardware devices as seen by GOS in the virtual computer - it's not the same as the hardware seen by the host OS.
That is emulation.
______________
In some cases, when the emulated virtual computer has a different ISA (Instruction Set Architecture), the VMM (Virtual Machine Monitor) also has to emulate the instructions. This is the case for Virtual PC for Mac. VPC/Mac is clearly virtualization, but it also needs ISA emulation to work.
In other cases, when the emulated and actual ISAs are the same, most instructions can simply be executed directly by the processor. Even in this case, though, some instructions still must be emulated though.
Privileged instructions that affect the state of the computer cannot be executed directly - they would change the state of the host computer also. The VMM emulates these instructions and does what is needed so that the state of the emulated computer is modified, but not the state of the real computer. Privileged instructions that look at the state of the computer might also need to be emulated so that they see the state of the emulated computer - not the state of the real computer.
_______________
Please try to consider that "ISA emulation" is just one facet of emulation, and may or may not be present in a particular emulated ("virtual") computer.
macdong said:
This is the best situation you could imagine for games.
If they use it properly every APP will run the way many games do.
One game app multiple OSs, the OSs just get out of the and let the processor do EVERYTHING like the game has the processor to itself -- THIS IS PRETTY FAR AWAY FROM EMULATION