Asar said:
Exactly, Im not surprised at all. It's not like it was even gonna happen anyway. I like how some people are freaking out though....
ifjake said:
Amen!! Come on guys its not like there arn't any other solutions
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.
No Virtualization in Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard)?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Exactly, Im not surprised at all. It's not like it was even gonna happen anyway. I like how some people are freaking out though....
Amen!! Come on guys its not like there arn't any other solutions
I think this is a good thing. By all accounts, paralells has created an excellent product. If Apple goes and includes something in OS X every time, it will seriously thwart 3rd party developers. What developer will want to develop for OS X if they know the likely result is "apple will watch us, see how our product goes over, and if it works well, they'll do it themselves, throw it into the OS and put us out of business." Certainly core features can be put in the OS but I don't see virtualization as a core feature. It is something the GREAT majority of mac users will never use. Most will simply use OS X only. Others will want to game, but that means dual boot. There is only a small percentage of Mac users that will want or need to constantly run Windows "in a box." For them, paralells is a perfectly good option.
chicagdan said:
5) Alky -- translating game source code PC->Mac... (www.alkyproject.com)
I agree this is a good move on apple's part. Virtualization is '3rd party functionality'.
This subject has been talked to death. I seems to me there is a market for all three solutions; dual-boot, virtualization and Codeweavers solution.
As an IT manager, Codeweavers is the clear choice for me. That is if they offer the applications I would want. I sure do not want to license Windows if I do not have to. At present, I am running my Window apps through Citrix and it works well. But, this is not a solution available to home users.
As an IT manager, Codeweavers is the clear choice for me. That is if they offer the applications I would want. I sure do not want to license Windows if I do not have to. At present, I am running my Window apps through Citrix and it works well. But, this is not a solution available to home users.
Too Bad
I would have prefered to see Apple go out of its way to run windows along side OSX. Perallel solution is nice but leaves the gamers out, requires purchase of windows, and is just as subseptible to viruses as regular windows. Codeweaver solution would be more virus and trojan resistance.
I can see the headlines..... Apple makes computers that run windows applications safer.
Just my 2 cents, 98 to go.
I guess it comes from being a security consultant.
I would have prefered to see Apple go out of its way to run windows along side OSX. Perallel solution is nice but leaves the gamers out, requires purchase of windows, and is just as subseptible to viruses as regular windows. Codeweaver solution would be more virus and trojan resistance.
I can see the headlines..... Apple makes computers that run windows applications safer.
Just my 2 cents, 98 to go.
I guess it comes from being a security consultant.
Really? How come Parallels managed to do it, even though the have just a fraction of the resources Apple has? How come Linux managed to do it with just few people working on the code? And I bet that the guys behind Xen had a fraction of Apple's resources as well.
If Leopard does not support virtualization, then we will have a situation where Windows and Linux will support it, but OS X does not. Dual-booting is tedious and crude, virtualization would be a lot more elegant solution.
I am more inclined to agree this is more of a tactical move. Make windows seemless in OSX, and it DOES reduce the "need" for developers to release an OSX edition.
I much rather see OSX run windows with full hardware acceleration in a window, but then I have, well, a more secure version of windows running a program. Then the need for OSX (not from useability, but for virus and stability issues) is lessened.
Who knows, what is the real definition of "dual boot" Perhaps leopard, with intels virtualization tech, WILL mean actually simultaneous boot, and we will have the OS equivalent of fast-user switching.
A little off-topic, but all of us want windows to be in its own safe, restricted, area. How much damage could a windows virus do to a mac with bootcamp?
I much rather see OSX run windows with full hardware acceleration in a window, but then I have, well, a more secure version of windows running a program. Then the need for OSX (not from useability, but for virus and stability issues) is lessened.
Who knows, what is the real definition of "dual boot" Perhaps leopard, with intels virtualization tech, WILL mean actually simultaneous boot, and we will have the OS equivalent of fast-user switching.
A little off-topic, but all of us want windows to be in its own safe, restricted, area. How much damage could a windows virus do to a mac with bootcamp?
I think the R&D is more about making sure it is right. If Apple deploys a Parallels solution consumers and investors will expect it to work RIGHT, the first time. Things like DirectX, which Parallels doesn't support, airport, firewire 400/800 connections, etc, etc would all need to be throughly researched. There will not be much leeway as this would be a huge step. Plus, you then have the supporting staff when you start selling this on the street. Imagine all the calls from people trying to figure out how to get windows working correctly!Evangelion said:
Evangelion said:
Correct me if I am wrong, but virtualization is supported on the chip level, not OS. In other words, the Intel chips in new macs support (or to some extent) virtualization. This has nothing to do with the OS supporting it. PPC users will be stuck no matter what, unless you get something like Virtual PC that runs on PPC. I say leave it to the third party developers. At some point Apple may take include it but for right now, focus on making Leopard better and improving the hardware offerings.
Hmm...
I disagree with the notions here that Apple should support, or give the appearance of supporting, the Win32 environment. Even for computer companies producing boxen intended to run Windows, Windows support is a major expense and a major liability.
I think the thing a lot of people here don't understand is what it means to lend your name to something, like Apple saying anything beyond "we've provided a means for users of their own accord to allow Windows to run on our boxen." And it's not just mere plausable deniability, folks. Believe me, and I speak with 5 years' experience working for Sony's computer support call center, supporting Windows is a huge millstone. It's simply not one Apple has any good business case for supporting. It's eminently more desirable to leave the support of such capabilities to third parties, who's staff can be 100% devoted to supporting that functionality.
In my opinion, the ONLY thing Apple should be doing is putting in whatever basic code is necessary for (or, conversely, not writing code that is antithetical to) both dual-boot and virtualization. This gives Apple more than just an easy out; it allows them to say (in total honesty) they're facilitating users' requests not to be restricted in their OS choice, and in many ways and on many levels allows them to brag about bringing a better overall solution to the market than Microsoft does.
There are really no downsides to this approach, folks.
And, as someone else already mentioned, this also eliminates the 1990s Apple tendency to see a cool 3rd party app and just suck it right into the OS, leaving the developer high and dry with no customer base to sell their product to.
Why do you think that Apple doesn't go hog wild selling all kinds of multi-function mice and keyboards? Why bother? Not everyone is going to want one, and not everyone is going to want the same thing, and Apple can't possibly be profitable making 5 or 10 versions of the same thing. And, it again leaves the opportunity open for third parties to provide a solution and make a good living doing it. (And, what's more, this is a further differentiation on a B2B level between Apple and Microsoft).
Microsoft: Make a product of sufficient appeal, and we'll steal your customer base for it.
Apple: Make a product of sufficient appeal, and we'll feature it in our Apple Stores.
Which one do you think is the more compelling option for developers?
Just my 2¢.
I disagree with the notions here that Apple should support, or give the appearance of supporting, the Win32 environment. Even for computer companies producing boxen intended to run Windows, Windows support is a major expense and a major liability.
I think the thing a lot of people here don't understand is what it means to lend your name to something, like Apple saying anything beyond "we've provided a means for users of their own accord to allow Windows to run on our boxen." And it's not just mere plausable deniability, folks. Believe me, and I speak with 5 years' experience working for Sony's computer support call center, supporting Windows is a huge millstone. It's simply not one Apple has any good business case for supporting. It's eminently more desirable to leave the support of such capabilities to third parties, who's staff can be 100% devoted to supporting that functionality.
In my opinion, the ONLY thing Apple should be doing is putting in whatever basic code is necessary for (or, conversely, not writing code that is antithetical to) both dual-boot and virtualization. This gives Apple more than just an easy out; it allows them to say (in total honesty) they're facilitating users' requests not to be restricted in their OS choice, and in many ways and on many levels allows them to brag about bringing a better overall solution to the market than Microsoft does.
There are really no downsides to this approach, folks.
And, as someone else already mentioned, this also eliminates the 1990s Apple tendency to see a cool 3rd party app and just suck it right into the OS, leaving the developer high and dry with no customer base to sell their product to.
Why do you think that Apple doesn't go hog wild selling all kinds of multi-function mice and keyboards? Why bother? Not everyone is going to want one, and not everyone is going to want the same thing, and Apple can't possibly be profitable making 5 or 10 versions of the same thing. And, it again leaves the opportunity open for third parties to provide a solution and make a good living doing it. (And, what's more, this is a further differentiation on a B2B level between Apple and Microsoft).
Microsoft: Make a product of sufficient appeal, and we'll steal your customer base for it.
Apple: Make a product of sufficient appeal, and we'll feature it in our Apple Stores.
Which one do you think is the more compelling option for developers?
Just my 2¢.
For gaming I can see the dual boot, for most people parallel solution is the way to go, but.... both have 2 major problems:
1) Have to buy Windows
2) Virus and other malware (Parrallel a little less)
No, it should not affect OSX file system and files unless you start sharing files between the two OS(s) by using FAT, FAT32 or some other way to move the files.
What both solutions need to clean up, is a way to perform read-only disk imaging, install windows, create a disk image, install your games, create a disk image of the games also (no need to fish for the CD(s). When malware hits, reboot from the disk image and re-install windows, then reinstall the software, keep the data files in a different drive and use virus checker against them. I don't know about you but I can never find a CD when im looking for it, LOL.
Codeweaver solution is the way to go if you want a safer environment since you are using libraries and not the windows OS. It would be a lot harder to install and run malware when using the code weaver solution (but not impossible). Some subceptability still exist due to having to emulate the API's so closely. This is where Apple should put its money, keep it open, but pay for the programmers time to continue development and maybe give them some Mac(s), participate, and give them some emulation hardware so they can kick the tires good. I think Apple can easily afford 12 millions easy on this and get a hell of a lot of switchers in return. The publicity would be thru the roof and I can see M$ loosing a lot of sleep.
UMMM, maybe ill can do some security code reviews for WINE or Codeweaver.
I had the security team from Microsoft at my shop and we talked at lenght about their process to security review their code and the controls they place before new code is released. They are doing good, but as long as they continue having to support older OS versions and continue adding functionality like they do with IE, they will always have some serious issues in my opinion. Ease or use and integration can be one of the worst security risks to the software if you do not have a solid foundation.
will that be 6 cents?
1) Have to buy Windows
2) Virus and other malware (Parrallel a little less)
No, it should not affect OSX file system and files unless you start sharing files between the two OS(s) by using FAT, FAT32 or some other way to move the files.
What both solutions need to clean up, is a way to perform read-only disk imaging, install windows, create a disk image, install your games, create a disk image of the games also (no need to fish for the CD(s). When malware hits, reboot from the disk image and re-install windows, then reinstall the software, keep the data files in a different drive and use virus checker against them. I don't know about you but I can never find a CD when im looking for it, LOL.
Codeweaver solution is the way to go if you want a safer environment since you are using libraries and not the windows OS. It would be a lot harder to install and run malware when using the code weaver solution (but not impossible). Some subceptability still exist due to having to emulate the API's so closely. This is where Apple should put its money, keep it open, but pay for the programmers time to continue development and maybe give them some Mac(s), participate, and give them some emulation hardware so they can kick the tires good. I think Apple can easily afford 12 millions easy on this and get a hell of a lot of switchers in return. The publicity would be thru the roof and I can see M$ loosing a lot of sleep.
UMMM, maybe ill can do some security code reviews for WINE or Codeweaver.
I had the security team from Microsoft at my shop and we talked at lenght about their process to security review their code and the controls they place before new code is released. They are doing good, but as long as they continue having to support older OS versions and continue adding functionality like they do with IE, they will always have some serious issues in my opinion. Ease or use and integration can be one of the worst security risks to the software if you do not have a solid foundation.
will that be 6 cents?
macnews said:
Others do manage to get it right, why can't Apple, even though they have a lot more resources at their disposal?
And that's different from Boot Camp.... How, exactly?
You still need software to make it happen. If Leopard does not support virtualization, you need something like Parallels to make it happen. The CPU has hardware-support for it, but that support alone does NOT enable virtualization.
Apple could ship Leopard with no virtualization. In which case you could still get virtualization through third-party apps (like Parallels). But the thing is that many other OS'es would be shipping with virtualization out of the box.
Well...they could get around that whole R&D issue by buying Parallels...then technically he would not be lying.
OR
Maybe they plan to save full blown virtualization for a later OS X release. Like maybe when a larger percentage of their user base is running Intel-based machines. It's tough to advertise an Intel-only feature as a major reason for all the existing Mac users to upgrade their OS. And frankly, I don't care about using Windows. I left that for OS X, and I don't see any real reason to go back!
Speaking of the Mac user base, does anyone know if there are any figures floating around that show what percentage of mac users are running Moto/IBM vs Intel?
OR
Maybe they plan to save full blown virtualization for a later OS X release. Like maybe when a larger percentage of their user base is running Intel-based machines. It's tough to advertise an Intel-only feature as a major reason for all the existing Mac users to upgrade their OS. And frankly, I don't care about using Windows. I left that for OS X, and I don't see any real reason to go back!
Speaking of the Mac user base, does anyone know if there are any figures floating around that show what percentage of mac users are running Moto/IBM vs Intel?
MikeTheC said:
They already do that with Boot Camp (which WILL be part of Leopard). Why is Boot Camp OK, whereas virtualization is not? Besides, Apple could (and should) just tell everyone that "Problems with Windows are not Apple's concern".
And I really fail to see the difference between virtualization and Boot Camp there. Well, the difference might be that virtualization is clean and elegant, whereas Boot Camp is crude and crummy. Why is Boot Camp OK, but virtualization is not?
And what makes you think that Apple would be "supporting" Windows? Is Apple supporting Windows because they are providing people with Boot Camp? How would virtualization change things?
I can see it already: "If OS X is the most advanced OS in the world, how come both Linux and Windows support virtualization right out of the box, whereas OS X needs hand-holding from third-party software?".
You mean sonething like Konfabulator? Or Watson?
RichP said:
But it would still be Windows. Just because running Windows on the Mac is easier does NOT change the fact that Windows is still crummy OS. OS X wuld have all those nice bells and whistles, whereas Windows would not. Just because Windows would be running on a Mac does not mean that the OS is magically better. No, it would still be the same sucky Windows that runs on Dells.
I would be happy with "Fast OS Switching" (similar, of course, to Fast User Switching).
It seems to be a good compromise.
It seems to be a good compromise.
chicagdan said:
Link? And it won't mean much if they can't get full hardware acceleration.
I'm not sure if I quite believe what they're saying here fully. They may not be doing virtualisation like we're used to, but more inline with a Classic type environment. They have the technology for running two operating systems at the same time and Intel filed a patent for a unified user interface for virtualised apps. Think Classic style, where the virtualised environment isn't restricted to a window in an application, its transparent and apps you're running on the second OS interact like they would as if they were running on the first.
Something's coming, it may not be with 10.5 but the technology's there. We're going to see it sooner or later.
I'm still trying to figure out how Boot Camp is a "Beta"..I mean how much better can they do the dual-boot.Other than drivers for Windows which isn't really part of the dual-boot process..
How do they improve it? better graphics ?
Something is going on that we don't know about..
How do they improve it? better graphics ?
Something is going on that we don't know about..
vniow said:
The Intel filling is similar to what most people would love to have. Full integration of more that one OS at the GUI level, where people can not detect it is windows or OSX or Linux by looking at it. Clicking on an object starts the program and it runs in a window with full cut and paste between windows and network sockets so the programs can talk to each other and share data.
The combination of Intel idea (we had the same idea) and Codeweaver libraries, will likely be in Leopard to one extend or another. I do think the intel integrated gui idea has been discussed extensivly with Apple and was submitted to prevent others from using it. I think it is Apple's if they want it, and I think they do.
wmmk said:
I was kidding, of course. I use a tactic called "humor" to get through my day... doesn't work for everyone.
Anyway, my point is rebooting is a pain. Installing 2 operating systems just to use X application or X game is a pain. I want it to be easier.
Peace said:
"Beta" keeps them from having to support it.
Evangelion said:
Your logic is totally wrong, Evangelion...Boot Camp is a stand-alone package to allow those that WANT to run Windows to do that...also, it's a BETA product, and expressly disclaimed by Apple as a non-supported product. And finally, it's something that must be downloaded/installed separately by the user.
See above. The difference is not only about being "clean", it's about being completely built into a system you are supposed, as a company, to support.
It's impossible for Apple to say that "certain" parts of the OS X are not supported...and that's why virtualization is subject to a very delicate decision in terms of R&D and corporate interest.
See above again...with virtualization, Apple cannot just escape the support trap...it's there, in the OS X, and cannot be waived...it's not a case of supporting Windows (this is easier to be disclaimed), it's a case of supporting the environment over which Windows is run...unfortunately, both elements are not easily separated, especially in the minds of wannabe Apple users or switchers.
The fact that OS X does that with 3rd party products means nothing in terms of feature package...in the end, Windows can have the best virtualization set...this means crap, if it cannot run OS X.
The opposite side is that OS X is THE best OS out there...and it can also run Linux/Windows etc., either via Parallels, Boot Camp or other emulation software. This is more than anyone will ever have on a PC.
This practice is rightly done by any developer or hardware producer out there, but Apple gets the flak for being the only maker of a homogeneous software/hardware duo.
In some cases, Apple just buys what it wants (as with Watson or FCP), as Microsoft always did...in others, it just develops over an idea that might be there or not (as Konfabulator)...I would like to see Arlo Rose's comments regarding the '85 Desk Accessories or the widget/DA-like software that was in NeXT waaaaaaaaaaaay before Konfabulator ever existed...people whine too much.
Evangelion:
I was all set to write a response, but BRLawyer pretty much wrote what I had planned.
We're not trying to argue against Virtualization per-se. Clearly it has some user-friendliness advantages over dual-booting. However, it is *not* as clean an option (from a programming standpoint) and it certainly is not as safe an option from a liability-of-support standpoint.
When you dual-boot, you're providing a nice, clean "sandbox" for Windows to play in. There's really no concern about OS-OS interaction. Also, if anything goes to hell in it (apps, user data, the OS itself) Apple can honestly say "Hey, it doesn't have anything to do with us. Go talk to Microsoft." Which, as I've already indicated, is exactly as it should be.
I was all set to write a response, but BRLawyer pretty much wrote what I had planned.
We're not trying to argue against Virtualization per-se. Clearly it has some user-friendliness advantages over dual-booting. However, it is *not* as clean an option (from a programming standpoint) and it certainly is not as safe an option from a liability-of-support standpoint.
When you dual-boot, you're providing a nice, clean "sandbox" for Windows to play in. There's really no concern about OS-OS interaction. Also, if anything goes to hell in it (apps, user data, the OS itself) Apple can honestly say "Hey, it doesn't have anything to do with us. Go talk to Microsoft." Which, as I've already indicated, is exactly as it should be.
BRLawyer said:
Didn't you get the memo? Apple has stated that Boot Camp will be part of Leopard. So how exactly is my logic "totally wrong"? Boot Camp is a beta of a feature that will come standard with Leopard.
See above: Boot Camp will be an official part of Leopards feature-set. Again: why is Boot Camp OK whereas virtualization is not?
Others can make it work. Parallels can make it work. Why can't Apple?
There ARE other OS'es out there than OS X.
debatable. For some users it is, for others it's not. My wife prefers Linux to OS X
. And OS X is not the be-all-end-all OS out there. For some tasks some other OS would be superior. Third-party app that costs money.
Crummy and un-elegant.
There are Linux-solutions out there that will allow you to run OS X on Linux (on Apple-hardware, of course). So Linux will be able to run Linux, Windows, OS X and lots of other OS'es.
I fail to see how that comment answered my question.
Apple didn't buy anything from Karelia Software (the makers of Watson).
Dashboard is a 1:1 copy of Konfabulator. Anyone who disputes that is a RDF-infected fanboy.
They aren't actually that similar in the end. YOu are just using that as an excuse because that was what Steve Jobs used as an excuse.
MikeTheC said:
You guys are basically making up excuses for lack of a feature in Leopard. Apple could handle Windows-problem nicely. Hell, every time user loads a virtualized OS, OS X could present a splash-screen stating that Apple is in no shape or form liable for anything that happens inside a virtualized non-Apple OS. You are trying to come up with ANY reason why Apple should not offer this feature. Benefits of this feature FAR exceed any perceived negatives.
Seriously, everyone thought virtualization ws a great idea when we thought that Leopard would have it. Now that is seems that it will not have it, everyone turned 180 degrees and thinks that virtualization is a bad idea. It's like the Intel-switch all over again.
"Booo, Intel sucks! PPC rules! What was that? Apple is switching over to Intel? Yay, Intel kicks ass! PPC sucks!"
QCassidy352 said:
agreed... i was really looking forward to virtualization in leapord....
without it... i dont see any big improvements...
guess we'll just have to wait and find out...