No Virtualization in Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard)?

[Doctor Q]

Dual boot and virtualization each have advantages and disadvantages, so consumers ought to have both options available, for a price. But that doesn't mean the virtualization option has to come from Apple. So I'm not concerned about Apple's plans in this area.

 

[amac4me]

Strategic

The strategic thing for Apple to do would be to deny it. Does the video capable iPod come to mind? Recall that Steve Jobs denied that Apple would include the ability to play videos on an iPod.

 

[guzhogi]

I just bought the July, 2006 MaximumPC magazine today that compared the speed of 3 apps (Doom 3 and some photography software common to both OSes) of Windows XP & Mac OS X on an Intel iMac and the Windows versions were faster. Kinda weird. Hopefully this will change w/ Mac OS X 10.5. I wonder if Windows Vista would be able to run on Intel Macs when (more likely if) it ships.

 

[^squirrel^]

I like the idea of being able to run small windows app such as MSN messenger. The mac messenger sucks and it would be good to have voice and video work on OSX.

 

[weg]

Apple needs to treat Windows just like they did Classic. They need to minimize Windows into an emulation mode.

Mac OS/2? ;-)

 

[Voidness]

The way I see Apple improving Boot Camp in 10.5, is to incorporate some sort of "quick boot" and "quick shutdown", in a way similar to Safe Sleep in the latest Powerbooks and Macbook Pros. So instead of completely shutting down Mac OS X, it just saves all the RAM contents to the hard drive, and then boots into Windows. Shutting down Windows will quickly return to Mac OS X with everything intact.

 

[mattcube64]

I want Boot Camp for the few games that I play. However, I do plan on buying Parrallels just to have it there.

 

[codo]

The way I see Apple improving Boot Camp in 10.5, is to incorporate some sort of "quick boot" and "quick shutdown", in a way similar to Safe Sleep in the latest Powerbooks and Macbook Pros. So instead of completely shutting down Mac OS X, it just saves all the RAM contents to the hard drive, and then boots into Windows. Shutting down Windows will quickly return to Mac OS X with everything intact.

Sounds perfectly feasible - Very Apple.

Not long to go now, until we get a peek.

 

[aussie_geek]

oh well, all it means is we will need a copy of parallels to run our windows stuff. dual boot is great for gaming - the only reason where you would boot into windows rather than virtual technology.

still gets a negative vote. apple should have incorporated their own version of parallels into the os. there must be more than just technical reasons for this. i am sure there would be some legal implications of supporting an osx native virtualisation program.

aussie_geek

 

[inkswamp]

The strategic thing for Apple to do would be to deny it. Does the video capable iPod come to mind? Recall that Steve Jobs denied that Apple would include the ability to play videos on an iPod.

Exactly! Kudos to you for bringing out such an excellent example.

I was going to comment that we weren't there to hear Shiller's response, nor are we certain as to the context of the question or any hidden motives to keep future plans quiet. I think Apple has shown itself willing to bluff in the face of questions and speculation from observers. The iPod video example above illustrates that perfectly.

I'm willing to bet there was a little tongue-in-cheek tone to Shiller's answer, an I'm-not-going-to-tell-you-the-truth-and-we-know-it sort of thing that maybe the reporter didn't catch.

His response seems a little evasive, just on the surface, and a tad off-base. Just offering the ability to run Windows doesn't automatically mean Apple must support it. If it's an elective feature, Apple can simply fend support calls off with a standard sort of "You'll have to call Microsoft" type of disclaimer. Providing that's made clear up-front, I see no problem with that, and MS should support Windows even on a Mac. What's the problem?

So I'm not sure I buy it. Apple is very definitely moving the in the direction of greater Windows compatibility and offering a Windows-in-OS X type of feature is a no-brainer.

We'll see, I guess, in a few weeks.

 

[Peace]

Exactly! Kudos to you for bringing out such an excellent example.

I was going to comment that we weren't there to hear Shiller's response, nor are we certain as to the context of the question or any hidden motives to keep future plans quiet. I think Apple has shown itself willing to bluff in the face of questions and speculation from observers. The iPod video example above illustrates that perfectly.

I'm willing to bet there was a little tongue-in-cheek tone to Shiller's answer, an I'm-not-going-to-tell-you-the-truth-and-we-know-it sort of thing that maybe the reporter didn't catch.

His response seems a little evasive, just on the surface, and a tad off-base. Just offering the ability to run Windows doesn't automatically mean Apple must support it. If it's an elective feature, Apple can simply fend support calls off with a standard sort of "You'll have to call Microsoft" type of disclaimer. Providing that's made clear up-front, I see no problem with that, and MS should support Windows even on a Mac. What's the problem?

So I'm not sure I buy it. Apple is very definitely moving the in the direction of greater Windows compatibility and offering a Windows-in-OS X type of feature is a no-brainer.

We'll see, I guess, in a few weeks.

I agree with that completely..Why would Shiller flat out deny a potential part of Leopard instead of the normal "We don't comment on future releases" jive?..Apple sure doesn't tell us in advance what will be in Leopard except for "Boot Camp"..And since that's "Beta" we don't really know what form the final release will be in..

My guess is smokescreen..

 

[iMikeT]

Why do people find it so difficult to have to restart a computer to run another operating system?

 

[chicagdan]

I agree with that completely..Why would Shiller flat out deny a potential part of Leopard instead of the normal "We don't comment on future releases" jive?

Because he was talking to a financial analyst, not a customer or reporter. They tell those guys a lot more than they tell the rest of us. I think what Shiller said makes sense ... it's stupid for Apple to devote resources (and declare open war with Microsoft if the solution did not require Windows) when so many others are doing it for them.

 

[Doctor Q]

Why do people find it so difficult to have to restart a computer to run another operating system?

If your goal is to switch everything you are working on and change to another O.S., another login identity, and another set of applications and documents, restarting may be fine.

But if you run mostly Mac apps and want to run one Windows app occasionally, as if it was one of your Mac apps, and being able to keep it in a window under Mac OS X while you go back and forth between other applications, running Windows under Mac OS X much better suits you.

 

[chicagdan]

Why do people find it so difficult to have to restart a computer to run another operating system?

Because people on this website always dream of impossible next steps for Apple then throw tantrums when their unconfirmed visions don't materialize. It has nothing to do with the usefulness of existing or likely new options, if the next OSX doesn't read minds and kill cylons, they'll label it a disappointment.

 

[Peace]

Because he was talking to a financial analyst, not a customer or reporter. They tell those guys a lot more than they tell the rest of us. I think what Shiller said makes sense ... it's stupid for Apple to devote resources (and declare open war with Microsoft if the solution did not require Windows) when so many others are doing it for them.

For all intent and purpose that "analyst" might as well have been a reporter since the statement Phil made is all over the internet.


And I have many,many times seen Steve Jobs interviewed by analyst on CNBC etc.And every time he says "As you know.We don't discuss upcoming features in our OS"

 

[SmurfBoxMasta]

If these new intel chips allow you to run more than one OS at a time why cant you boot Windows and Mac on the same machine at the same time?

With the Intel solution being HARDWARE virtualization, you could, everything else being discussed here is using SOFTWARE emulation, which is an entirely different animal..........

the REAL question here is whether or not Apple will start using the Intel chips that support hardware virtualization ?

My guess is: HELL YES! But ONLY when they feel the time is right. Unless they buy up or liscense one of the software solutions first and incorporate it into OS 10.5 or 6........

maybe they could even offer the intel solution as a BTO option, but include the software as a standard OS feature for those of us who dont wanna pay the extra $$ for the new chips

 

[MikeTheC]

Ok, Evangelion, obviously you're just not willing to actually listen to anybody else's comments or try to understand a point of view other than your own. You're just waiting for the opportunity to keep talking about your world view.

So, you know what... you win. You're always right. Gee, you know, I just don't understand how I could be so hopelessly stupid and not see the light.

We're done here, folks.

 

[MRU]

MMMM interesting mr.bond !!

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/211673/

Looks like my previous thread about Apple to buy Parallels may have more weight behind it It will be another Emagic style take-over. Buy Parallels, use it's software and maybe re-brand it Apple Parallels and end the development of the windows workstation version......

 

[generik]

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!"

Bravo, quoted for truth. Thinking difference simply means "Thinking differently from the rest, we can't think for ourselves".

 

[JackSYi]

I suspect that Windows applications will run in Mac OS X without needing Windows.

 

[boncellis]

I think the only thing to read into this is that there will be no virtualization in the near future. When you think about it, it makes sense because the majority of Apple's machines are still PPC. Developing a virtualization solution for PowerPC would certainly be cost prohibitive like Mr. Schiller says, but once the Intel machines take over it will probably be far enough into the future that integrating virtualization into the OS will no longer be so expensive.

In the meantime, which may be awhile as it turns out, I suppose boot camp will sell its share of Intel Macs.

 

[F14CRAZY]

Hmmm, I had/have Virtual PC 6. It seems like with the crazy power of the Core Duo and all that virtualization would work out fine

 

[solvs]

See above: Boot Camp will be an official part of Leopards feature-set. Again: why is Boot Camp OK whereas virtualization is not?

Because it's separate from OS X. You're rebooting into Windows, so you're running Windows. OS X isn't running. That's the way they decided they want to do it.

Others can make it work. Parallels can make it work. Why can't Apple?

Apparently they don't want to. I don't agree, but I can understand why. They're happy with Boot Camp, and are more than willing to let third parties pick up the slack. If they did without buying Parallels, we'd be complaining that they put another third party out of business even if they were already planning on doing this.

Third-party app that costs money.

So's Windows for Boot Camp. So's VPC. WINE is free. They don't want to support Windows at all.

Crummy and un-elegant.

Yes it is, but that's what Apple has decided to do.

Apple didn't buy anything from Karelia Software (the makers of Watson).

They offered. Even told him what they were planning on doing with Sherlock, which seemed an obvious next step. He said no.

Dashboard is a 1:1 copy of Konfabulator.

And Konfab is just like Desk Accessories. You do know Arlo Rose used to work for Apple right? And that he knew what Apple was working on before Tiger came out? I'm not happy they did it the way they did, but I can't say I blame them anymore than I blame him for being upset.

Apple is just a company as is M$. They don't owe us anything. They don't owe their developers anything. Sucks, but that's the way it is. I don't understand why anyone expects anything else.

 

[Stella]

Not an issue, just buy the existing solutions. Apple doesn't need to create one, when there are a few alternative existing solutions out there.