No Virtualization in Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard)?

[guzhogi]

Doom 3 requires (according to www.doom3.com) Windows 2000/XP and DirectX - neither of which run on OSX natively. I tried to find what "photography" software MaximumPC wrote on but since you said it is common to both OSes I am guessing Photoshop. In that case, Photoshop also has to run under rosetta, thus doesn't run at full steam on an Intel chip. As a result, they are not comparing Apples-to-Windows correctly. So NOT weird at all, and it has nothing to do with a change in 10.5. It will have everything to do with comparing one piece of software running natively on both systems.

I'm looking at the magazine now, and they had 4 tests: Windows XP vs. Mac OS X universal apps, winxp vs. rosetta, os x universal vs. rosetta and winxp vs. winxp under parallels on an Intel iMac.

For the WinXP vs. Universal binaries, they had Doom 3, Bibble Pro 4.7, and Noise Ninja beta. For WinXP vs. rosetta, they had Photoshop CS2. Under universal binary vs. rosetta, they had bibble pro 4.7 and Doom 3 while the native WinXP vs. WinXP under parallels had Photoshop.

In the article, Windows XP beat Mac OS X in each case. However, they said

We updated OS X to the latest version (10.4.5)

At www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/ the requirements of bootcamp are 10.4.6. Check out the magazine at your local public library if they have it. It's the July, 2006 issue of MaximumPC

 

[Evangelion]

This probably clutching at straws a bit. Is there a way that they can improve Boot Camp so that it is nearer to Fast User Switching? I know that parallels can do this with virtualisation. Is there a way that Boot Camp can do it that Phil Schiller would not describe as "virtualisation"?

Only thing they could do is to add a "Reboot in to Windows"-thingy, that will the shut down OS X, and reboot in to Windows.

Ideally the two OS's would need to work as if they were connected on a network. I am not sure that this is possible as only one OS would be running at a time.

You need virtualization for that.

I am guessing that Apple are planning on improving Boot Camp in some ways when it is out of Beta and incorporated into Leopard. In what other ways, can it be improved?

See my first comment in this message . But that's about it. Boot Camp is just dual-booting. It runs one OS at a time, and there's not much room for improvement there.

 

[Mac Rules]

So, will the codeweavers technology discussed earlier, allow basic windows programs to be used in OSX? Cause all I'm really interested in is Live Messenger and a few chemical modeling programs, but I think these are available on mac anyways...

EDIT: I personally feel that a dual-boot isd the best way forwards, considering the requirements of something like Vista, if your mac has gotta keep vista and OSX loaded, you might turn grey before anything actually happens!

Cheers

 

[cloud 9]

i like the way apple doesn't support virtualization, you can do everything with a mac you can do with a pc. if you want to run windows for a video game, just restart, if you have time to play one, you have time to restart.

i would only consider windows on my mac if the computer is not connected to the internet, and even then it would probably mess with something.

 

[frigginjoe]

Well, at least I feel better about buying Parallels, and I hope those guys do real good with it. Excellent product and the once-and-for-all riddance of a real PC box. My iMac is now an amazing productivity powerhouse.
Apple supporting dual-booting is good enough for me, IMO. I don't want Xp getting THAT close to OSX, where Apple themselves strive to make it stronger.

 

[JackSYi]

I'll be happy as long as Boot Camp is around.

 

[drtyrell]

This is really sad

I remember the big YellowBox pitch back in 2001 about how this virtualization was intended from the very beginning. The dual-boot will leave Apple behind the competition in terms of tsunami level migration from Windows based users. I know at least half a dozen friends who are going to go ahead with their DELL purchases the second Steve confirms this isn't going to happen in Leopard. :-(

 

[dernhelm]

I remember the big YellowBox pitch back in 2001 about how this virtualization was intended from the very beginning. The dual-boot will leave Apple behind the competition in terms of tsunami level migration from Windows based users. I know at least half a dozen friends who are going to go ahead with their DELL purchases the second Steve confirms this isn't going to happen in Leopard. :-(

Even if it doesn't happen in the OS, it doesn't mean that Parallels or (the impending) VMware solutions that do (or will) run on OS/X will somehow be inferior. Quite the contrary - and Parallels is only ~$50US. So it is hardly a deal-breaker.

Windows does not have built in virtualization tech now, but most of the people who develop code on it that I know use it extensively. Third party can fill the gap here quite well and reasonably cost efficiently.

 

[Willis]

Also, Macrumors keeps refering to me as a "Newbie" but I've been posting here for awhile. When will I
be a "regular"?

when you post 20-30 posts, you become a member... over 100 you're a regular (i think, i cant remember)

 

[glassbathroom]

Even if it doesn't happen in the OS, it doesn't mean that Parallels or (the impending) VMware solutions that do (or will) run on OS/X will somehow be inferior. Quite the contrary - and Parallels is only ~$50US. So it is hardly a deal-breaker.

Windows does not have built in virtualization tech now, but most of the people who develop code on it that I know use it extensively. Third party can fill the gap here quite well and reasonably cost efficiently.

I agree that third party applications are sometimes better because there is complete focus on that specialisation. For this reason I am quite taken with Parallels and what they say and do. The products so far look great.

I guess I would also like to see a virtualisation option which is more integrated into the OS, so you can run Windows apps without loading up Windows everytime. Something like Rosetta but for Windows. I know this is what Wine is trying to do, but not there yet. It's all a bit of a pipe dream I think. I can completely understand that Apple may not want to go down this route. Transitive were making great claims that they would be able to do these kind of things. I know that they were some of the brains behind Rosetta. What are they up to now, I wonder? Do you think they are still working with Apple on this sort of thing?

 

[willybNL]

I'll be happy as long as Boot Camp is around.

If they are going to support it yeah... because failures with partitioning in bootcamp (probably) have distroyed some mac's (not only the os) already... (see other item about kernel panic on the forum). And no-one there to help you is a real hard job getting you mac to say hello again then.