Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I'm looking forward to seeing/trying this product. I've thought about dual-booting, but it's really not what I want. I want to have apps running in both OSes at the same time.

If it's truly a virtualization, performance should be pretty good. I hope it has some of the add-on conveniences that Virtual PC has, but if they're not there yet, that's fine too. If these people have come up with a good solution for me, I'll be glad to support them. 🙂

I see that in the article it says more details are coming later this week -- not the product. The product might be coming Q4 '06 or something. 😉
 
Are we still kicking this dead horse!?!?!

People,... Please, WHY do we need to clutter our Macs with that worm, virus & legacy-code bloated beast that is Windows? It's a total freaking mess of an OS.

Instead of all these lame hopes & dreams of dual-booting MacOS X and Windows, even Linux, why not just the apps? Why can't we have emulation and/or virtualisation software that allows us to run most post-Win2K-era Windows apps.

Not sure why I'd want even that flotsam, but there are some apps that would be possible success stories on the Mac. Top-end 3D & CAD packages come to mind, as well as the huge cache of games we'll never see on our Macs.

Heck, Apple could even provide Windows developers with an SDK and short compiler (whatever) that enables them to write small "front desk" applets designed to do no more (or less) than making sure the Windows apps "behave" and follow MacOS X UI guidelines...

Just a counterthought to all that gAdawful, stench-talk of running Windows alongside MacOS X...
 
Why does everyone keep saying that QEMU doesn't run on OS X? There are two products I have seen now that are cocoa ports of QEMU:

http://openosx.com/wintel/
and
http://www.kberg.ch/q/

And they recently added a universial binary which allows it to run much much faster on the intels.

Now I haven't tried either of the above, but they look like the work to me....I'll try them out when I get a macbook pro
 
Norse Son said:
Why can't we have emulation and/or virtualisation software that allows us to run most post-Win2K-era Windows apps.
We already do. http://darwine.opendarwin.org. It works failry well for me to run a couple of apps that I can't simply port over myself as they are GUI intensive or I don't have the source code.

Of course Wine Is Not an Emulator, it is more like the compiler kit you describe. A set of libraries that translate the windows API calls to X11 or Quartz.

This will only get better when Codeweavers releases their Mac version of Crossover Office which generally extends this support to more complicated apps.

B
 
Jesus said:
I cant wait, I would love to be able to run C&C Generals at a reasonable speed. This will be awesome. Any word on the price??😕 😕


uhmmm...C&C Generals is available for OSX
 
serffa said:
Why does everyone keep saying that QEMU doesn't run on OS X? There are two products I have seen now that are cocoa ports of QEMU:

http://openosx.com/wintel/
and
http://www.kberg.ch/q/

And they recently added a universial binary which allows it to run much much faster on the intels.

No. It runs *slightly* faster on Intels. This isn't Universal in the sense that x86 native calls are getting passed to the CPU. It's just that the Q "wrapper" around QEMU is Universal. Internally, QEMU is still emulating almost everything in software.

No one said QEMU/Q doesn't work on Mac OS X.

It's just EXTREMELY SLOW.

The fact that a Universal Binary exists for Q doesn't mean the underlying emulation code is somehow magically running native. It's still emulating the x86 ISA in software, and gets almost no benefit from being Universal.

In order for QEMU/Q to be fast on Intel-based Macs, Darwin kernel extensions for "virtualization" - modules that pass and return x86 calls directly to and from the CPU - need to be made in order for QEMU (and thus Q) to be anywhere remotely near the performance of a virtual machine solution like Parallels. They're not even in the same performance class by an order of magnitude or more.

Q, in its current state right now, is basically a software emulator. Now, when/if virtualization support gets added to QEMU, it will be a product a lot more worthwhile looking at for support of *modern* OSes. Don't get me wrong: lightweight Linux distributions, DOS, and earlier versions of Windows (e.g., 98) work great in Q, even now.

Now I haven't tried either of the above, but they look like the work to me....I'll try them out when I get a macbook pro

Why don't you try it out now? If you have a reasonably fast PowerPC, you're going to get a pretty darned good idea of just how fast Q is, in its current state, on Intel-based Macs.

---
Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu
 
AidenShaw said:
Can you explain what the lengthy articles that you copied have to do with the topic?

Soo you put all this technical stuff in your posts, but you don't UNDERSTAND IT DO YOU -- I thought so 😱

¡¡¡ VIRTUALIZATION IS NOT EMULATION !!! It is MUCH leaner !

Those lengthy articles aren't all that long or hard to understand but these quotes are the part I wanted YOU to see.

They indicate that it is VERY LIKELY that Apple will use a NEW type of virtualization THAT IS VERY FAST !!!

If you look at the link to the last article there is a benchmark graph in it.

"By requiring operating systems to be ported to run over Xen, machine virtualization can be achieved considerably more efficiently than schemes that rely on trapping faulting instructions or use an interpreter or JIT compiler emulating privileged operating system code. Of course, the downside is you have to do the OS port, but our experience indicates that this usually isn't too time consuming or difficult."

AND THIS WILL ALLOW APPLE TO SELL THEIR PROPRIETARY VERSIONS OF WINDOWS 😱 😱 😱 Waaaa HOOO !!! Apple is going to make a LOT of money off of this one ! 😀

"Rather than attempting to emulate some existing hardware device, Xen exports specially designed block device and network interface abstractions to guest operating systems, requiring a specially written driver. The advantage of this approach is that guest I/O performance is excellent: we typically get the same performance on Gigabit Ethernet links running over Xen as we do with the native operating system." 😀 😀 😀
 
Welcome Dave Schroeder!

daveschroeder said:
Yes, both of you are exactly right.

A Windows environment running in VM is the same as any other Windows environment, and can be subject to the same vulnerabilities.

However, it's much less likely to be problematic for the following reasons:

- The entire environment is "sandboxed", network-wise, within the host OS's networking. Most Windows XP installations will now be behind the integrated software firewall anyway, but this is just another layer of protection: it's essentially like being behind a NAT router.

- A virtual machine environment, being secondary to the primary environment, is typically only used for targeted tasks, not routinely used for things like web browsing, email, and downloading - the major vectors of infection for much spyware/malware

- Since the virtual machine's disk is just a file on the host OS's drive, it can be immediately trashed and restored from a known-good pristine backup in seconds

- If no filesystem sharing is done via the VM between the Windows environment and the host (Mac OS X) environment, there is no[1] way that even severe malware within the Windows environment can cause any damage to the Mac OS X environment

- If filesystems are shared, e.g., a folder on the Mac side is shared as a drive letter on the Windows side, any malware that alters filesystems could theoretically alter the shared filesystem. If a virus, for example, attempted to delete all files on drives other than C:, that would be affected. But, 1.) Most malware doesn't just arbitrarily delete files, because its goal is to spread itself, and 2.) ONLY files that are shared could even theoretically be affected. Also, Windows malware will typically target Windows OS features and filesystem elements. But if you really are paranoid and want to be safe, you probably wouldn't want to, say, share your entire Mac OS X volume as a drive letter into the PC environment.

The bottom line is that from a technical and practical usage standpoint, running Windows in a VM is probably the safest possible way to run Windows, and there aren't really any ways, except for very specific ways via the explicit filesystem sharing, that anything that happens in the Windows environment can even touch your Mac OS X installation. And even if something went horribly wrong in your Windows environment, you can just trash the file that represents it on the Mac side of things, and replace it with your most recent and/or pristine backup of that file.

You guys, and many, many others, are going to *love* virtualization on Mac OS X on Intel-based Macs: running other x86 OSes - Linux, Windows, FreeBSD, etc., at near-native speed of the hardware - right along side Mac OS X, instantly able to switch back and forth.

[1] Sure, you could argue that someone could make Windows malware that specifically also targets an unknown vulnerability in a particular piece of virtual machine software, thereby somehow gaining access to the host side. But that is *extremely* unlikely to the point that it's not even worth mentioning.

---
Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu
Thank you Dave Schroeder. Your analysis is the best I've read on this string thus far. This means that millions of Must Use Windows users are going to want to switch to MacIntels just to gain the kind of increased security and protection from viral attacks that their IP Managers lose sleep over every night. 😀 🙂
 
MacYoda said:
Soo you put all this technical stuff in your posts, but you don't UNDERSTAND IT DO YOU -- I thought so 😱

¡¡¡ VIRTUALIZATION IS NOT EMULATION !!! It is MUCH leaner !
That must be why Microsoft sells "Virtual PC for Mac", and not "Emulated PC for Mac". 😱

Virtualization is a technology of running an OS or application in an emulated environment that isolates the os/app from other OS or app instances.

If the CPU on the host has a different ISA than the emulated guest environment, the virtualization layer must do ISA emulation of all of the guest CPU instructions.

For transparent x86 on x86 virtual environments, only some of the guest x86 instructions must be emulated by the host - but there is still some ISA emulation in this case.


MacYoda said:
AND THIS WILL ALLOW APPLE TO SELL THEIR PROPRIETARY VERSIONS OF WINDOWS 😱
Call the Clueless Patrol, we have a winner for the day's "Doesn't have any idea of what he's talking about" award.

I am very familiar with Xen.

The released version of Xen doesn't run Windows. Apple probably won't buy the Windows sources from Microsoft in order to rebuild their own versions of Windows, on their own proprietary version of Xen.

'nuff said.
 
Doctor Q said:
Dual booting has its own advantages, particularly speed and compatibility. When you virtualize, you are adding another layer of software, which can do you favors (letting you switch OSes on the fly) or do you in.

I want to see reviews and performance results before jumping to a new software package.

Virtualization also somehow sounds like as if you can only use one core per OS? But that's just a guess..
 
The emulation/virtualization debate is interesting, but as an end user, it's what I see on my monitor that counts. I occasionally use Virtual PC to run a few Windows apps on my dual PPC Macs. They're dog slow, but they get the job done and, overall, save me time and effort.

So the prospect of running Windows apps at "only" 75% of native Intel speed on a Mac is huge. I'll be much more impressed by a shipping product than a press report, though. 🙂
 
Well, any VM software not made by Apple is going to be worthless for me. It WILL NOT be able to run OS X along OS X. Only Linux, Windows, *BSD, Solaris, etc, etc. But I would want it for testing OS X. Wasn't there a rumor that said 10.5 Server will have VM support (using Intel VT)? Now that would be useful since you can probably run multiple OS X at once.
 
Nice

This is pretty cool. Nice to see a well established company announcing some plans. I'm sure their website will be updated in time, in regards to no news appearing within.

AidenShaw. While I find your discussions informative and at the very least thought provoking, I don't quite understand why you hang out here. I'm sure you use a Mac somewhere in your life, but you never seem to have much nice to say about Apple or MacOS.

Don't get me wrong. I'm happy you're here. (Always give nice long threads to read. Dave Schroeder too.) But Aiden, please enlighten me to why you hang out here?

barstard.
 
Apple's BOOTCAMP beta!

Now how cool is this...

http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/

Check out what apple has to say...

EFI and BIOS
Macs use an ultra-modern industry standard technology called EFI to handle booting. Sadly, Windows XP, and even the upcoming Vista, are stuck in the 1980s with old-fashioned BIOS. But with Boot Camp, the Mac can operate smoothly in both centuries.

Word to the Wise
Windows running on a Mac is like Windows running on a PC. That means it’ll be subject to the same attacks that plague the Windows world. So be sure to keep it updated with the latest Microsoft Windows security fixes.
 
Wow

Xacto said:
Now how cool is this...

http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/

Check out what apple has to say...

EFI and BIOS
Macs use an ultra-modern industry standard technology called EFI to handle booting. Sadly, Windows XP, and even the upcoming Vista, are stuck in the 1980s with old-fashioned BIOS. But with Boot Camp, the Mac can operate smoothly in both centuries.

I think I just pee'd myself!😀 Checking it out.

Better be true.

barstard.
 
To learn, to teach

barstard said:
Don't get me wrong. I'm happy you're here. (Always give nice long threads to read. Dave Schroeder too.) But Aiden, please enlighten me to why you hang out here?
First, to learn.

Second, if possible, to teach.

I learn from some the other posts, and when I have to do research for one of my own posts I often come across info that I didn't know (or knew, but gain additional clarification).

When I see posts that I think are wrong or misleading, I try to point that out.

In this thread, there are some claims that XP in a VM on OSX will run faster than XP on native Intel hardware. Patently absurd, but somehow some people have that belief.

On the emulation/virtualization debate, if you compare VPC/Mac and VPC/Windows you'll see that they are 99% the same. (The 1% difference is important for performance, but it's otherwise minor.) Why insist that the two nearly identical products be called by different names?

Build on the commonality, don't emphasize the differences. All of these fancy virtualization products are almost identical to the VPC/Mac that many people understand. They're just faster, because of that 1% difference - no need to do full ISA emulation when running x86 on x86.

[I don't want to reopen the debate - enough has been said already.]
 
Boot Camp. So Apple just couldn't watch all of us trying to get thousands of different drivers working. This means GFX will be fully accelerated. I think. Hurry up download. Damn. have to go to bed. will be trying this tomorrow night for sure. Already have XP installed and running, but graphics drivers would be awesome. Can't wait. No XOM.efi. Cool.

barstard.

AidenShaw said:
First, to learn.

Second, if possible, to teach.

Cool. Sounds fair.

barstard.

From the info on their page:

The Macintosh Drivers CD includes drivers to support these within Windows XP:

Intel Chip Set Software (6.2.1)
ATI Graphics (8.24.0.0)
Intel Integrated Graphics (6.14.10.4512)
Marvel Yukon Ethernet (8.49.2.3)
SigmaTel Audio (1.0.4889.0 nd375 cp1)
SigmaTel Audio proto_A2 (1.0.4889.0 nd375 cp1)
Atheros 802.11 wireless (AirPort) (4.2.2.4)
Broadcom Wireless (4.10.40.0)
Apple Bluetooth module (1.0.0.1)
Apple Keyboard Eject Key (1.0.0.1)
Apple Keyboard Brightness (for computers with built-in displays) (1.0.0.1)
Startup Disk Control Panel for Windows XP (1.0.0.1)

Sick. So Graphics DOES have drivers. Now I need a game to test!😀
 
I believe it's called "Boot Camp" and was announced this morning.

Macrumors said:


Techworld.com reports that a company called Parallels will be announcing their virtualization product for Intel-based Macs later this week.

According to a company representative, "We will enable users to run multiple operating systems (like Linux and Windows) simultaneously with Mac OS X".

This is distinct from the dual-boot solutions that have been previously described. Instead, users can run these alternative operating systems in a window under Mac OS X.

Several have suggested that this functionality could increase Apple's marketshare with businesses and consumers alike. WSJ Online notes that Japan's Aozora Bank Ltd. is already making the move to all Mac. They are planning to switch all 2,300 of their personal computers to Mac. The bank cites the strength of Mac OS X alone as the reason for their switch. Other surveys, however, have suggested that a large number of consumers would switch to Mac if also given the ability to run Windows easily.

More details on Parellels' solution should be available later this week. Microsoft has been said to be working on an Intel-version of Virtual PC as well, but no timeframe has been given.
 
I saw that. It appears that it is being perceived as an Apple product.

In fact, it was announced by Apple and can be downloaded form the Apple website. It will be built in Leopard when it releases. I guess I didn't realize that this would be an Apple offering. No wonder the stock is moving!
 
yac_moda said:
Yah, right, and Dell bought Alien because Apple is bought to kick their butt into the weeds and Dell is shaking in his boots !!!

Your arguments have NOT convinced me, persuaded me, or told me anything NEW although did not previously know Dell's chart looked so sickly.

Some guy was telling me about Dell support the other day, and he now HATES Dell, and would do ANYTHING to get away from them !!!

If your argument were true, today's release of Boot Camp should have directly affected Dell's stock. You contend that Apple's market strategy directly affects Dell's strategy, thereby FORCING them to buy Alienware. Well, it's 12:38PM EST, and since the announcement of Boot Camp, there's only been a $0.09 drop in price, a 0.23% movement in Dell's price. Apple's market strategy of releasing a new software that directly places the company in competition with other Windows manufacturers didn't even phase Dell's stock.

When it comes down to it, Dell is not significantly affected - stock price or market startegy - by Apple. When Apple has a 20% market share, then we'll talk.
 
esaleris said:
If your argument were true, today's release of Boot Camp should have directly affected Dell's stock. You contend that Apple's market strategy directly affects Dell's strategy, thereby FORCING them to buy Alienware. Well, it's 12:38PM EST, and since the announcement of Boot Camp, there's only been a $0.09 drop in price, a 0.23% movement in Dell's price. Apple's market strategy of releasing a new software that directly places the company in competition with other Windows manufacturers didn't even phase Dell's stock.

When it comes down to it, Dell is not significantly affected - stock price or market startegy - by Apple. When Apple has a 20% market share, then we'll talk.

For example Dell could already be down for other reason like the fact that THEY HAD TO BUY ALIEN JUST TO STAY COMPETITIVE in the first place.

So the recent move by Apple is just keeping Dell from rebounding.

Expecting direct cause and effect on the stockmarket is VERY IGNORANT, but SURPRISE, SURPRISE it does seem to be here 😱 😱 😱


OK on March 16th the solution to get WinXP on Macs was posted. Some could see this as a CONFIRMATION that Windows is KING and buy Dell on this news. And if YOU look at the chart YOU will see Dell had a GOOD rally on this new, from severe doldrums.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=DELL&t=3m&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=

Then in the afternoon of the 21st the benchmarks of XP on Mac are POSTED and TO EVERYONES SURPRISE APPLE IS CURRENTLY BUILDING THE FASTEST INTEL MACHINE YOU CAN BUY ...
posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 3:40 PM
Windows XP on Macs: Tested, Benchmarked
http://gearlog.com/blogs/gearlog/archive/2006/03/21/8212.aspx

And if YOU look at the stock chart again on the 22nd there is A VERY SHARP TURN AROUND in Dell's RAPID RALLY !!!

Ever since the 21nd there have LOTS of rumors about virtualization on the Mac.

Apparently APPLE GAINS A BIG ADVANTAGE NOW IN THIS GAME BECAUSE MACS ARE NOW VIRTUALLY GUARANTEED TO COMPATIBLE WITH VISTA WHERE AS AN INTEL MACHINE BOUGHT TODAY COULD END UP LACKING 😱

Notice also from the chart Dell tried to rally and failed 😱

Man Dell is HURTING better DUMP THAT TURKEY 😱 😱 😱
 
Is boot camp it or not?

The wording on the boot camp page is quite awkward, as has been pointed out by others. So is dual booting all that the technology that will be in 10.5 or will it be virtualization?

Here's a thought:

What if 10.5 will include a way to do both. Virtualize the installed version of XP while booted to OS X AND still allow you to boot directly to the same install of XP, if you need a slight performance boost.

Since Apple would control/distrubute the relevant hardware drivers, as they are already doing through boot camp, is this so far-fetched? (i.e. the drivers would talk directly to the hardware when dual booted, or talk to the virtualizer if detected.)

B
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.