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.
Running Mac OS X on Generic PCs with Parallels/VMWare? [Update]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For the technically astute and interested. Less so for the disinterested and technically unastute.
There was a point to my pointing out these qualifiers.
The problem as others have noted though is that it isn't all about marketshare. Apple could double or triple their marketshare but still find themselves in a much more precarious position if the sales of Mac hardware declined too much.
Aside from that, it could dramatically increase the development costs of OS X, while also interfering with its reliability (one of the things you lose when you don't control the specific hardware that your computers ship with).
There's a lot of issues that would have to be dealt with; and that isn't even counting how Microsoft would react to Apple taking them head on.
-Zadillo
What are you waiting for though? Why not make the jump now? But why bother running OS X on it? Just get Vista too, and maybe Linux. Not sure why you'd even worry about jumping through the hoops to run OS X on 3rd party hardware.
It doesn't seem like the midrange tower is going to be coming out anytime soon from Apple, and the Mac Pro is presumably more than you want/need, so I don't see a reason to continue waiting.
-Zadillo
P.S. Re: the Mac mini; Give me a break. Just because it doesn't have those things doesn't make it a "toy", any more than any other super-small factor PC's are. The Mac mini is designed to be the smallest possible PC in a very small enclosure. That doesn't make it a "toy" though.
A lot of the people who do buy those cheapo minitowers from Gateway, HP, etc. though typically aren't doing any sort of upgrades on them. They buy them cheap, use them for a year or two and then move on to the next thing. In the end, the actual "use" by the kinds of people who buy those systems isn't that different.
Well as tot he 2000% growth. FCP Studio's market is not all computer users. Its high end video producers/editors. Which, in this market, probably 80% (lowballing) use Macs. So.... in actuality opening it up would result in a 25% increase in market.
The BIGGEST sticking point is the video card which have often been subpar compared to the pc offerings.
Yes, although Apple has gotten better about that since the Intel switch. Better graphics card options on the higher end iMac and the Mac Pro, and the X1600 in the C2D MacBook Pro is one of the better performers in 15" laptops right now (even the latest X1700 and GeForce 7700 cards don't perform all that much better). Granted, the iMac also uses laptop components (hence laptop-class GPU's), but most of the PC's I see in the iMac's price range usually don't use really high-end GPU's, more often than not.
Not sure how relevant graphics card performance is on the Mac side anyway though, as they are still more than adequate for non-gaming tasks, and for gaming tasks, Macs aren't the first choice anyway.
Ummm.... some of the support for legacy hardware is gone in Vista but not legacy software. They had originally planned to start from scratch but they went back and used 2003 Server code which was complied from 2000 which used 98 which fell on the back of 95 and was largely based on 3.
And only Aero which is graphically intensive doesnt really work on legacy hardware.
Yeah... cause Apple who innovated such little things as LED charger, hot swapping illuminated keyboards, two finger trackpad. Which are pretty old things.
Unlike companies that are coming and have wi-fi finders built in for when the computer is off. Dual screens for listening/watching media while the computer is off. A simple linux distro to watch DVD more efficiently and faster boot up. Spill proof keyboard. TABLETS.
These are all cool little innovations and there are more that Apple hasnt done in years while Windows computers are churning them out. So you are completely wrong.
I want spill proof I like the linux idea. Love the wi-fi finder. It could be just as simple as the battery meter. A button on the bottom checks for internet signals, gives a bar strength and a icon if its there is an unlocked one or not. That would be VERY NICE.
I see innovation on the other side in computers, Apple is to busy revolutionizing their Ipods... wait now its phones.
Even the iPod are becoming slack and outdated.
Yes, Apple is a hardware company and that were it makes its profits.
OSX is value added, almost.
OSX is value added, almost.
Yeah... cause Apple who innovated such little things as LED charger, hot swapping illuminated keyboards, two finger trackpad. Which are pretty old things.
Unlike companies that are coming and have wi-fi finders built in for when the computer is off. Dual screens for listening/watching media while the computer is off. A simple linux distro to watch DVD more efficiently and faster boot up. Spill proof keyboard. TABLETS.
These are all cool little innovations and there are more that Apple hasnt done in years while Windows computers are churning them out. So you are completely wrong.
I want spill proof I like the linux idea. Love the wi-fi finder. It could be just as simple as the battery meter. A button on the bottom checks for internet signals, gives a bar strength and a icon if its there is an unlocked one or not. That would be VERY NICE.
I see innovation on the other side in computers, Apple is to busy revolutionizing their Ipods... wait now its phones.
You're bring really selective here. Apple has been doing a lot to push computing forward; who was the first company to actually use trackpads? Who was the first to switch to USB? WHo was the first to actually build wi-fi and wi-fi antennas into their laptops?
And we've already seen the future of the iPod (the iPhone touchscreen interface). Slack and outdated? Give me a break.
The SideShow stuff you mentioned is largely a gimmick; these are tiny little screens; who is going to sit there watching videos on those SideShow displays while the computer is off?
And the future of the Tablet platform remains to be seen; a lot of those "innovations" are things that they have been trying to push on a market that isn't asking for them. Tablet PC sales are still pretty abysmal, and UMPC is another product trying to find a market.
If there is any future in tablets, I think it will be a lot more like the iPhone interface (the phones that you dismissed), and a lot less like just sticking the regular Windows OS on a tablet.
-Zadillo
Tablets? Why on earth would anyone want a tablet?
And from saying that Apple don't offer one, you want a hackintosh tablet? The OS isn't made for touching so how would it work?
Err, have you seen iPhone?
Thats probably how any Apple tablet would work - that kind of gesture based interface.
And "why on earth would anyone want a tablet" statement - open your eyes and think a little. People have different needs than YOU!!
The graphics card in the iMacs maybe OK now - but your missing a point - you can't upgrade it in two years time when the games / other graphic intensive software makes the G/C sluggish.
Graphic cards don't out last the life time of a computer. GCs are dated sooner.
This is the freedom you get from non Apple hardware and of course PowerMacs. The freedom to replace hardware - its a great option to have.
Virtualization and Remote use
Thank you for very good round-up and analysis.
I think Apple does see a lot of pressure to allow virtualization, even if they do not like it. It is a new big popular thing. They can benefit from it a big way if they sell big fat server that costs a lot by itself, plus a dozen OS X server licenses for $1000 each - a profit from it will add up to more than profit from 12 current xserves.
If they end up cooperating with VMWare on something like ESX server (rather than GSX) it would be a very good capable product.
They want us to buy more of their hardware and software and they think that the best way to sell it to have people happy with their products and for that software has to be married to hardware. Virtualization helps to keep software married to vhardware, thus customers will be happy, and software will be sold, but hardware will not. Yet growing use of Mac OS X will prompt more developers to offer more products, thus wider user base will lead to more mac sales. They know that, that is why they will let it go slowly first and see how it goes. So as long as they can keep customers happy with Mac experience they can let some old blocks go. After all they made iPod to work with Windows and made BootCamp.
But a big negative indicator against all this happening is a lack of good remote use of Mac right now. Timbuktu, VNC, ARD, PCAnywhere are ok for some administration but not good for production use. Microsoft's RDC/TS is. So if the idea of people using a mac with out buying a hardware box was ok with Apple we could see more of RDC kind of applications around, yet we don't.
VMWare console provides very good remote control for it's clients and it might be the first thing that allow users to use a Mac OS X without buying a hardware box.
Thank you for very good round-up and analysis.
I think Apple does see a lot of pressure to allow virtualization, even if they do not like it. It is a new big popular thing. They can benefit from it a big way if they sell big fat server that costs a lot by itself, plus a dozen OS X server licenses for $1000 each - a profit from it will add up to more than profit from 12 current xserves.
If they end up cooperating with VMWare on something like ESX server (rather than GSX) it would be a very good capable product.
They want us to buy more of their hardware and software and they think that the best way to sell it to have people happy with their products and for that software has to be married to hardware. Virtualization helps to keep software married to vhardware, thus customers will be happy, and software will be sold, but hardware will not. Yet growing use of Mac OS X will prompt more developers to offer more products, thus wider user base will lead to more mac sales. They know that, that is why they will let it go slowly first and see how it goes. So as long as they can keep customers happy with Mac experience they can let some old blocks go. After all they made iPod to work with Windows and made BootCamp.
But a big negative indicator against all this happening is a lack of good remote use of Mac right now. Timbuktu, VNC, ARD, PCAnywhere are ok for some administration but not good for production use. Microsoft's RDC/TS is. So if the idea of people using a mac with out buying a hardware box was ok with Apple we could see more of RDC kind of applications around, yet we don't.
VMWare console provides very good remote control for it's clients and it might be the first thing that allow users to use a Mac OS X without buying a hardware box.
I do understand the point (I should mention that I don't currently own a Mac, I have a PC that I built myself). Of course, upgrading the GPU in my hand-built PC is basically a non-factor now (it has an AGP 6800GT and a socket 754 Athlon 64; at this point it does me no good that I have upgradeable graphics; my only real option is buying a completely new motherboard, RAM, video card, etc. etc.)
But my point is that the kinds of people who buy iMacs don't upgrade components; and most of the people buying those cheap Gateway and HP towers usually don't upgrade them either, even though many of them have PCI Express slots and can take GPU upgrades, etc.).
Seriously, what kind of stuff do people do with iMacs that gets hampered because of the GPU? Heck, what kind of stuff do people do with PC's for that matter? Even PC's shipping with integrated graphics like the GeForce 6100 do most everything the kinds of people buying them need, and aren't even really hampered by something like Vista.
The vast majority of people who actually buy GPU upgrades (as opposed to just buying a newer PC) are usually the enthusiast market, and people who actually need to upgrade their GPU's. But the iMac isn't part of that target market.
The iMac's primary market is not that different from the primary market for those $600-1200 Gateway and HP minitowers; they are people who buy a PC and do home and home office kind of stuff with them, and then usually buy a newer computer in 2-3 years.
For WHO?
Gaming is a good, viable segment of the market. BUt it is NOT the entire market.
This is the problem with many posters here. They have no concept of the various components of the market. They think a company HAS to appeal to ALL segments of the market. And that they have to do it with ALL or most products of their line.
They keep on ignoring what the real world is like. And what companies actually do in that real world.
Video cards are a valid thing to worry about---for SOME segments of the market. It's OK for a company to choose to not pursue certain segments.
No, YOU'RE the one missing the point.
For large segments of the potential market, your points are irrelevant--they don't use graphic intensive software and they don't game. They can retain older technology for longer periods than technically astute people can because their needs are being taken care of by the machine they bought---and by the time it CAN'T take care of their needs, they buy a new machine---and it's at a time where it's quite, quite economically sound.
Your needs are valid...but not for everyone.
As an example what razor thin margins do to a company, have a look at Gateway. The still sell (slightly) more units than Apple does. They make about one dollar profit per PC sold in a good quarter, and lose three dollars per PC in a bad quarter. Market caps is about $720mil. In other words, Apple could buy Gateway using about six percent of its cash, and double the number of computers sold, if they were mad enough to do this.
gwangung, I agree. Also, if someone wants to be upgrading something all the time, shouldn't they buy the best to begin with (ie. Mac Pro), which can be upraded anyway. For everyone else, RAM and HDD upgrades suffice.
Hehe, seems Stella needs to take his own advice:gwangung said:
Stella said:
Dell spends (apparently) more money on research and development than Apple. Could it be that it is cheaper to develop new versions of MacOS X, plus Mac hardware, plus a few other bits like iPods and phones than to develop PCs and get Windows running on them?
Well so would I but you are forgetting the biggest drawback...price. Building your own pc is alot cheaper than buying a Macpro. Looks are secondary to functionality and if the uglier pc could run osx then ill be in that camp with no hesitation
To be fair, building a PC with the specs of the Mac Pro wouldn't be that much cheaper, given the costs of the components involved. But I would assume your point would be a lower cost custom PC that doesn't have an equivalent in the Mac product line.
Either way, people have already explained why this won't work for Apple; if Apple gets into the realm where people are just buying (or pirating) OS X and not buying Apple hardware, it could be problematic for the Mac product line as a whole (not to mention peripheral issues such as the Apple/MS relationship, how Apple would support all that non-Apple hardware, etc.).
-Zadillo
What customers want are more options. They can keep selling what they have, but they need to allow more options (at realistic prices) for those that want to upgrade. Obviously Mac isn't a real choice for games, but it is a chicken and egg thing. If you don't have the horsepower, you end up with Warcraft 3 and The Sims. When it comes to graphics though, we can't just limit it to games. There is alot of work out there to be done. Some of us want to use these machines in various fields like research. Where having the extra technology will be a benefit to what can be done. The entire market is not just home users who want to use iPhoto and iLife or Final Cut
gwangung, I agree. Also, if someone wants to be upgrading something all the time, shouldn't they buy the best to begin with (ie. Mac Pro), which can be upraded anyway. For everyone else, RAM and HDD upgrades suffice.
Hehe, seems Stella needs to take his own advice:
Umm..... not everyone has the cash for a Mac Pro of needs 4 cores of destruction. I suggest people buy used G4 (Pre-metal cases). Those go for generally less than $500. Can be VERY fast and have all the expandability you could need. Only problem is no warranty, but generally the PowerMac are the least of your worry with warranties. It either works or it doesnt. They dont break.
Maybe they should sell some Refurbished Sawtooth/Digital Audio computers with Airport Extreme and BT. But drop in a Conroe. That would make for a very interesting computer. Plus everyone would love the nostalgia/speed.
I love how the CEO of VMware bragged about their software being used to run illegal hacked versions of Mac OS X.
I've run it, and boy, is it a pain in the ass. Just to update, you must enter 6,000 damn commands, wait for a hacked patch, and even though the patch is hacked, it doesnt have the actual kernel, I believe they're still using 10.4.4 as the hacked OSX86 kernel. Once you do get it running, and it takes a very long time and certain hardware, it can be as fast as a new Mac, but its still a pain.
I hope
works on the protection in Leopard final more. Because I've seen beta versions running on regular PCs. o.o
Its all been done at www.insanelymac.com.
Though, some people that ran the hacked versions went out and bought a real mac, seeing how great the OS is.
Besides, the hacked versions can be buggy, due to the fact that some drivers for hardware was created by teams of rather smart people, but isnt sactioned offically by Apple. Remember kitties, when you take OSX, open it up for any hardware to work on it, it'll suck just as bad as Windows does when it comes to hardware. Buggy drivers = Crashy compy.
I've run it, and boy, is it a pain in the ass. Just to update, you must enter 6,000 damn commands, wait for a hacked patch, and even though the patch is hacked, it doesnt have the actual kernel, I believe they're still using 10.4.4 as the hacked OSX86 kernel. Once you do get it running, and it takes a very long time and certain hardware, it can be as fast as a new Mac, but its still a pain.
I hope
works on the protection in Leopard final more. Because I've seen beta versions running on regular PCs. o.oIts all been done at www.insanelymac.com.
Though, some people that ran the hacked versions went out and bought a real mac, seeing how great the OS is.
Besides, the hacked versions can be buggy, due to the fact that some drivers for hardware was created by teams of rather smart people, but isnt sactioned offically by Apple. Remember kitties, when you take OSX, open it up for any hardware to work on it, it'll suck just as bad as Windows does when it comes to hardware. Buggy drivers = Crashy compy.
It appears that the server market, and to a lesser extent the workstation market, will be one of the big areas where virtualization is applied in the business world. M$ bought the virtualization technology for that specific reason. With the arrival of commonly available mult-core processors various cores can be assigned various OSes (and applications) to handle whatever the company needs run. As the power (and number of cores) grows I would expect virtualization will become more mainstream. Just imagine a server that could run a finite element analysis program that has not been updated since DOS, but still fills a need, simultaneously with Vista or whatever M$ is then pushing, along with Linux and OS X for those so inclined. Each independent of the other and able to assign additional corese to one or the other depending upon demand.