Leopard to Include Virtualization Software?

[yac_moda]

Yes - virtualization *is* emulation.

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.

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 can be executed directly - they would change the state of the host computer also. The VMM emulates these instructions, so that the state of the emulated computer is modified, 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.

THE VIRTUALIZATION THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE is NOT not NOT EMULATION ! This software does NOT create code for calls the CPUs can NOT handle, it does supply SOMETHING that the software CAN handle without CRASHING, it manipulates the machine image to profiles that are acceptable to the software, and the minimum that the software needs.

If you read about how it works on the web site of the company that builds the software it says that it is a thin layer of software that sits above the processors and creates an image of the hardware that is totally generic and independent from other processes.

Its just a weigh-station or a layer of glue that intercepts calls and passes them on when the processor is ready. This sort of thing has been done for so long in so many ways it should be VERY EFFICIENT !!!

The advantage is that if there is something a game does NOT need is slowing it down the virtualization layer could detect that the app is a game and remove the driver that would normally mess with it.

 

[AidenShaw]

If read about how it works on the web site of the company that builds the software it says that it is a thin layer of software that sits above the processors and creates an image of the hardware that is totally generic and independent from other processes.

Its just a weigh-station or a layer of glue that intercepts calls and passes them on when the processor is ready. This sort of thing has been done for so long in so many ways it should be VERY EFFICIENT !!!

The advantage is that if there is something a game does NOT need is slowing it down the virtualization layer could detect that the app is a game and remove the driver that would normally mess with it.

Yes, this is done today.

When you first install an OS like Linux or XP, the virtualization layer emulates a complete graphics card - such as a rather simple S3 Trio. Same for disk and network drivers.

Later, when you install the VM toolset - it installs drivers for a special device never before seen in nature. This device knows that it has a VMM underneath it, and can improve performance by making some calls to the underlying OS driver.

For example, when the full S3 Trio emulation is occurring, a window might be scrolled by the GOS driver moving the pixels in the emulated frame buffer. With the VM-aware driver, however, the special driver might simply call the "scroll-region" function in the nVidia driver in the host.

It would be possible to pass DX9 calls directly to a DX9 host driver, but that's quite a bit more complicated and isn't currently being done much. (VMware does have an experimental feature to do some of this.)

 

[AtariMac]

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.

I suppose humour isn't one of your strong points. I just found it funny that on two different threads we had entirely diffent views. And yes, I know what an elitist is. I was just trying to joke with you. Frankly, I still don't find much gain for Adobe to offer a crossgrade. It sure benefits the user and might make some good will for the future. But frankly if you need Photoshop for your business you'll buy it. If the tool makes you money you will buy the tool.

I was not angry at your comments, you just entirely missed my point. I was attempting to convey that being a mac user involves a certainly amount of sacrifice. If Apple's OS and UI did not stand above that of Windows I wouldn't have much reason to stay with the platform. That's what i mean by demanding. I demand a certain level of quality in those areas. Windows users can be equally demanding, high amounts of readily available software and cutting edge gaming are examples.

So honestly my last post was intended as a joke. I'm sorry you missed it.

 

[AidenShaw]

it's not ISA emulation, but it is emulating a virtual computer

THE VIRTUALIZATION THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE is NOT not NOT EMULATION !

Only the Mac fanatics believe that "emulation" only means "ISA emulation", because their world view was formed by 68K ISA emulation in Mac OS and x86 ISA emulation in VPC/Mac.

If the computer isn't the same as the real computer, it's an emulated computer.

If the graphics card isn't the same as the graphics card in the real computer, it's an emulated graphics card.

If the network card isn't the same as the network card in the real computer, it's an emulated network card.

_______________
Having complete ISA emulation (as in VPC/Mac) or partial ISA emulation (as in VT/VMware/VPC-x86/Xen) is a detail, not the defining characteristic.

Calm down...please.

 

[SeaFox]

Wow, that would be really handy, I never thought Apple would do something like that though.

It would certainly save all the fuss concerning hacking Windows onto the Mac.
The article specifies Intel chips though, so would they disable the feature on PowerPC based releases of the OS?

Of course. How else is Apple going to make you buy a new Intel-based Mac when you can still get OS updates for you PPC-based machine? They just make the PPC-10.5 substandard in features to the Intel-10.5.

 

[mark88]

So honestly my last post was intended as a joke. I'm sorry you missed it.

Ok my bad, usually though jokes are accompanied with lots of these:



no hard feelings

 

[kingtj]

Dangerous??

This is the age-old argument that a percentage of Mac users cling to any time the potential is there for the Mac to become more "Windows like" in some aspect.

Really though, similar things have been done before - so I think we have some history to look at, to get an idea what the outcome might be.

Best example I can think of was IBM's OS/2 Warp product for the PC. Not only did it run native 32-bit OS/2 code, but also ran anything made for Windows 3.x, and eventually quite a few 32-bit apps using win32s extensions. The fact was, people who really liked the OS/2 environment always sought out native OS/2 apps first, and settled for Windows alternatives only when it was a last resort. The thing that eventually killed OS/2 wasn't the fact that it could run Windows code! It was the fact that IBM didn't ever really believe in their own product. (They were actually selling brand new IBM branded PCs that weren't even OS/2 compatible, and came preloaded with Windows NT!)

I don't think this is an issue with Apple. Unlike IBM, OS X is their crown jewel that everything else they sell revolves around. You don't see conflicts of interest with departments inside Apple pushing for Macs sold pre-loaded with Windows XP or Vista.

I'd say that if anything, the few developers who think Windows virtualization in OS X would eliminate their need tocode native OS X apps would be offset by the increased demand for such apps brought about by many more new Mac sales if this were to happen.

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

 

[SeaFox]

THIS IS A BAD IDEA.

why? becouse it will kill off mac native software. Developers will have the mentaliy of "why port it to mac when it can run the windows version fine?"

But the Mac can't run the Windows verison fine, unless you have Windows. And in case you have forgotten, Windows doesn't come with Macintoshes, and it's expensive.

 

[reyesmac]

Heres what I would like to see come out of using virtualization.

Run two user accounts at the same time on different screens.

Run Windows applications in a compatibility layer instead of the whole OS. The developers will have to make a simple update to their App to make it run on the mac but once they do they can put a mac compatible sticker on their box. This way, windows apps wont just run on any mac, they will only work if they have been updated to meet apples standards or an app and thus giving us a watered down version of a true mac app but it would be a mac app, because if they don't patch the original windows applications, they just wont run on the mac. Its like a quick and dirty port, but it would allow things like games to be "ported over" quicker. Yes, it might kill off porting companies, or maybe it would give them more titles to port since it would not take as long.


Either way its good that Apple is using all that new intel technology they have.

 

[lectro33]

This is how the Mac will die

The history of personal computers is short, but it can teach us this: If you make a computer that runs the applications of a far more popular computer, people will stop making software for your computer. Nobody made software for the Commodore 128 because it ran software made for the more popular Commodore 64. The Apple ][GS ran software made for the well-worn Apple ][e and ][c, and it was a flop.

If you were a software developer (who made software to sell, for money), would you make software that 10% of the market can use, or 100%? If the numbers were 10% and 90%, you could carve out a niche selling to the 10%, which these days is still a lot of people. But when that 10% is able to run the software made for the othe 90%, why bother?

If Macs gain the ability to run Windows software, there will no longer be a reason to program for them.

 

[lectro33]

The fact was, people who really liked the OS/2 environment always sought out native OS/2 apps first...

...and they never found it because no one made it because OS/2 ran windows apps.

I don't think this is an issue with Apple. Unlike IBM, OS X is their crown jewel...

The iPod is their crown jewel.

 

[manu chao]

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.

You have a point but allowing/helping VirtualPC to run on Intel-Macs (by providing MS with the information necessary to get VirtualPC running) is about the same.

 

[manu chao]

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.

Except that Matlab had a Mac version for a very long time up to version 5.2. Starting with version 6.5 (plus or minus) it was available again, albeit only as an X11 app.

 

[celebrian23]

I have to agree the ipod is their crown jewel. No matter how you spin it, the ipod holds 70% or more of the mp3 market. They are no where near that domination in their computers.

 

[kingtj]

OS/2, etc.

1. Not true! I used to be an avid OS/2 user myself, and I recall quite a few native OS/2 applications from companies like Stardock Systems (EG. Object Desktop - which much later became a Windows app) and in the shareware/freeware world (the Hobbes ftp server had a great repository, for example). A number of popular BBS packages had native OS/2 versions, including PC Board - and that was when multi-node BBS's were still a big thing. Of course, IBM provided a number of apps as well - including the Lotus Smartsuite for OS/2 and Lotus Notes for OS/2. The OS/2 community was a very stong, close-knit one, that reminds me a lot of the Mac community today. The *only* big difference was IBM's relative lack of committment to the platform. When Microsoft dumped millions and millions into advertising for Windows '98, IBM released their best version of Warp ever, 4.0 "Merlin", with little fanfare and an announcement soon afterwards that support for it would be discontinued soon on corporate contracts. Nice.... They had the perfect chance to "one up" Microsoft with it if they had any desire. OS/2 4.0 had integrated voice recognition and dictation capabilities, integrated pen computing support, excellent font support for LCD laptop screens, color-coded tabbed folders in the file manager, and object-oriented drag and drop functonality far surpassing Windows.

2. I *knew* someone would point out the iPod as Apple's crown jewel as soon as I clicked "Submit Reply" on my message post. Fair enough.... But I thought we were discussing Apple's computer products. To me, the iPod is much more a part of their "other half" that's interested in marketing media content. If you strictly consider their computer business, it all revolves around OS X, to the point where it's introduction marked the death of the classic MacOS they'd used on every system they ever built up till then.

...and they never found it because no one made it because OS/2 ran windows apps.

The iPod is their crown jewel.

 

[manu chao]

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.

I am in exactly the same position as you, and I also would like to see some VirtualPC kind of solution, because it is sandboxed which not only helps with security issues as you said, but also is good in case Windows crashes or tries to corrupt your harddrive.
(Although, already today VirtualPC is more likely to cause kernel panic than the vast majority of programms since it uses kernel extensions.)

 

[aegisdesign]

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?

You know, I do this already with VirtualPC. It's no ball ache.

Click on a Windows EXE, VPC starts in about 20 seconds. Installing Windows was as much a ball ache as on a PC. I used the old copy of Windows I got with my old PC which now runs CentOS.

However, on a G5 it only just about runs acceptably so using it for serious work isn't viable. I only use it to run IE6 for web design work/bug hunting. I have that as a specific need that can't be replaced with Mac software as I'm explicitly testing sites on IE6.

A full speed Intel VPC would be great for my circumstances but I still think it's a bad thing for Mac developers.

 

[Multimedia]

This Is What I Am Looking For

This is great news to me. It would be great if Leopard had both this and better broader Quad support among all the applications that come with it.

 

[Goliath]

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.....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 have to disagree! Mac OSX is by far a superior OS- over 90% of the world uses Windows and that in and of itself is where the problems lie.

Within the 5 years that Mac OSX has been available Apple has all but killed OS9 support. No machines they sell today support OS9 booting and "classic" isn't even a feature that's widely used.

Windows on the other hand has to include legacy code for outdated OSes just in case some huge enterprises need compatability! And it's this legacy code that is the reason MS is so full of Worms and Viruses.

Honestly why can't MS drop the support of Win95, 98 and all before it?? Anybody that is using decade old software needs to get with the times!

Apple designed MacOSX from the ground up and at first I was peeved that some of my software wasn't supported or didn't run as fast...BUT today almost 6 years on there is not 1 software title that I miss from OS9 days or that isn't better natively on OSX.

MS NEED to do the same- re-write the OS from the ground up and kill support for legacy systems.

Maybe then it'll be fair to compare OSX and Windows.

END OF RANT!!!! (Been on the pi** all night!!)

 

[celebrian23]

After 7 years using only windows 95, I was always glad they never completely killed it off. It could play all my computer games, and it was good at what it did. My computer alsoo couldn 't be upgraded to 2000. This is something I do like about MS.

 

[arkmannj]

Just my thought

Just a thought, you might call me crazy, but I don't think Apple will build virtualization that will natively run windows on Mac os x, but I do think they may build in tools to help virtualization apps run better.
(Sort of a core audio/video of virtualization apps if you will, along with other tools.)

Anyhow, obviously everything is just extreme speculation at this point.

 

[tmornini]

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.

This is not true with Intel's (and other's) hardware virtualization.

All OS's can run simultaneously and have separate banks of registers so privileged instructions MAY be executed in ring 0 by ALL operations systems.

They've created an even higher ring level for the virtualization layer to run in,
but the OS's all run as natively as they did on pre-hardware-vt bare metal installs.

http://www.intel.com/cd/ids/developer/asmo-na/eng/223724.htm?page=4

 

[boncellis]

With apologies to Mr. Bruce, Mr. Clapton, and Mr. Baker, it seems more and more these days that Apple is coming up on a crossroads that could significantly effect the future of the company.

We all know Mr. Jobs' health has not been great in recent years, and news of him cashing in stock options made me stop to make sure I had read the headline correctly. It may be that he does not stick around in the same capacity at Apple much longer. I seem to recall something about him gaining some respectable position at some world-famous corporation not too long ago...

Apple has tremendous momentum going for it right now, and a very tricky decision in front of it: will the company continue on as it has nobly fighting the uphill battle for the last couple decades, or seize upon a potential opportunity for increased hardware marketshare with the makeshift cohabitation of its oldest nemesis in an effort to sell that many more machines?

My vote is for the former--in all the instances Apple has been declared close to death over the years, something has brought them back. Even if Mr. Jobs is not long for his current position, I simply cannot fathom Apple ceasing to fight the good fight, something that OS X has done since its conception.

I honestly cannot imagine my life without it. I have never felt that way about any other inanimate object.

 

[mikefarinha]

You sir, hit it on the head.

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.

You have hit the nail on the head my friend!


Is everyone here so blind as to not see what is coming?

Why do people buy Mac over another computer? (btw, i'm generalizing this may not be the reason you bought it)
1. Ease of use
2. User Experience
3. Status symbol/sex appeal

What prevents people from switching from Windows to Mac? (again, i'm generalizing)
1. Unable to run majority of their software and other compatibility issues.

The PC market has reached maturity, if apple is to grow it has to take customers away from M$. In order to take customers from M$ it needs to destroy the reason people won't switch. All this discussion about virtualization isn't the answer, people don't want to bounce around between different OS to use application A and then back to use application B.

I recently read a case study stating that if Apple were to gain 1% of microsoft customers, it would mean a 35% increase in market share for Apple.

If you look at what everyone here is saying, you want to run all windows programs natively on your Mac.

Apple has already established that they are NOT a company that creates operating systems. They are a company that creates user experiences. That is why they scrapped their OS in favor of another OS, a better OS. They, sucessfully, turned UNIX into a user friendly OS. However, people don't want a user friendly version of UNIX, they want a user friendly version of Windows.
(Does it make you feel better if I say people want a user friendly OS with the functionality of Windows?)

Also, Apple is obsesed with quality control, this is why they only want their OS on their hardware. Since they control both the hardware and software interface, they can control the user experience. You won't see Apple allowing their 'OS' to be run on a dell or hp, nor will you ever see Apple support Windows on their hardware.

I believe that avatarlgs3 is close to what will happen. Apple will develop their next GUI on top of windows. Microsofts forthcoming "windows presentation foundation" will give Apple all sorts of goodies to play with to develop the "GUI of the future."

If you don't believe me now, I have no doubt that SJ will convince you later.

After the next Mac OS is created on top of windows, there will be another layer of emulation so that you can run all your old OS X apps. I know, a head ache but you guys are all used to it by now right? Don't worry, after you hear it from SJ the world will be right again and you will love running more Mac emulation.
(ps your typical windows user doesn't even know what emulation is, since microsoft rarely breaks compatibility between new releases, again I'm generalizing. rarely =~ 95% of the time)

So, what will happen next?

Apple will start gaining market share 5%...10%...20%...
Businesses will stick with windows; hippies, college students, grandmas and artists all alike will move to the new Win/Mac en mas.

Ta-da! No more reason Not to switch to Mac if you can afford it!

But now, M$ will have really sunken its claws into the PC world, All that remains is to destroy Linux.

But Apple will survive and the Mac philosophy will live on via its Windows core.
Mac users will claim that the reason SJ didn't do this sooner was because all versions of Windows prior to the one Mac OS is implemented on were way to unstable, but this version of windows is far supierior! This version of windows is finally good enough to be mixed with Mac.

Start buying apple stock when you hear more of these rumors...

 

[mozmac]

I'm coming into the discussion late. Sorry, I was busy getting engaged tonight.

Virtualization would an awesome addition to Mac OS X. It would make Apple hardware the number one computer to buy, hands down. Why buy a Wintel when you can get a Mactel that runs EVERYTHING?

I think it's great that people are experimenting with booting XP on the current Mactels. They are to be commended. They will get a lot of the driver issues figured out so that when Apple's ready to have it be a part of their system, we'll have some drivers to support everything.

I really hope this rumor is true. It is one of the only rumors that I REALLY REALLY REALLY need to be true. Many of the other rumors are fun: Mac DVR, video iPod, iPhone, etc. However, virtualization w/ Windows and Linux would be a life saver for my line of work. I will be ready for a new laptop by the time that comes out.