Windows Virtualization on Intel Macs

[AidenShaw]

You've clipped the context

The Mini is included Alden. Minis Get Software Virtualization That Is Almost As Fast AS Hardware V.

I didn't say Parallels won't run (at whatever reduced speed) on a Mini.

Parallels claims that "almost all" MacIntels support VT, and also admit that the Mini does not.

My point is that the statement that "almost all" MacIntels support VT is not honest. The claim that "most" support VT might be defensible (2 out of 3 do), but "almost all" is RDF-level hypel

 

[Senbei]

I'd like to see if the Intel Minis will take Meroms before buying a new one

FUGGER over at XtremeSystems (the same one who swapped out the Core Solo to a 2.16GHz Core Duo) was able to drop a 2GHz Merom into his mini. Since it isn't yet a shipping processor, there isn't much he can say but the performance increase is approximately around 20% over the 2.16GHz Core Duo. Post is towards the middle of this page.

 

[plinden]

I don't have a Windows XP disk handy, so I thought I would try installing a Linux VM using Parallel. So far it's working fine - I'm doing the Debian sarge netinstall, so it's downloading the packages as I type this (on the same iMac). The install is using 34% of one CPU.

Initial install (before package download started) was at least as fast, and probably a good deal faster, than the last Debian install I did, on a 1.8GHz P-4 (whoop-dee-doo, I hear some of you saying ... but remember, this is a second OS running while Mac OS X is).

Since I have a couple of other Linux machines handy, I'll test out e.g. code compilation performance.

 

[DVNIEL]

What I'd like to know is if anyone loaded BootCamp onto a Mac Mini Solo.

I got a mac mini solo 1.5 with 512 ram. I know bootcamp "can" be loaded on it, but with xp will the system just be a slow dog then?

cheers
tom

It was the first Mac of mine I installed it on, runs like a champ. 1.5gHz Solo Core with 512MB, my only gripe is that its booting Windows XP by default now... hahaha I guess I can laugh about that. After seeing it was successful, I installed it on the MBP. I just got done revamping my 1.83gHz MBP today too! (2 gigs of RAM, and actually had the balls to open it up and add a 120GB Hard Drive).... I can't wait to see how XP will run when i add 2GB of RAm to my Mac Mini and my soon to be arriving 2.0gHz Yonah Processor.

Wish me luck!

 

[daveschroeder]

It was the first Mac of mine I installed it on, runs like a champ. 1.5gHz Solo Core with 512MB, my only gripe is that its booting Windows XP by default now

All you have to do is boot into Mac OS X and use the Startup Disk System Preferences pane to select Mac OS X again if you want it to be the default. That's it.

 

[daveschroeder]

bla bla bla, where are the benchmarks? Thats what really matters. I wanna see some 3dMark05 scores.

Um, like all virtualization, this has no 3D support. (While 3D support is technically possible via various means, this is not generally a feature or a target for virtualization.) This is NOT a solution for gaming or any 3D application.

But *minus* the 3D video, this solution is near-native performance, period. There's a lot more things people need and want to do with Windows (and other x86 OSes) than games.

 

[dakis]

I got a mac mini solo 1.5 with 512 ram. I know bootcamp "can" be loaded on it, but with xp will the system just be a slow dog then?

cheers
tom

nope, that will be pretty fast, really. The problem with the speed and the Core Solo Mini Macs only applies to Parallels, not to Boot Camp.

 

[dakis]

nope, that will be pretty fast, really. The problem with the speed and the Core Solo Mini Macs only applies to Parallels, not to Boot Camp.

btw. I do have a Core Solo Mini Mac available but I can't try because I only have a 60 gig harddisk, 22 gigs are occupied by OS X and the standard apps. Which leaves me 38 to work with. As this is a production machine, I need that space and can't afford to waste it on an additional XP installation that I wouldn't be needing much anyway.

 

[bnash]

Anyone able to get full screen to work in Parallels Workstation?

I've tried a bunch of resolutions from both the mac (Macbook Pro) and from windows. No winning combinations, just kept getting the same error:

"Unable to switch to fullscreen mode. Primary operating system does not support screen resolution requested by guest operating system. Select another resolution for the guest operating system or review your XWindows System configuration."

I think it probably unsupported in the Parallels beta....anyone else had success with full screen?

-Nash

 

[plinden]

Installed Debian under Parallels code - compiled a Java project that takes 13 seconds under Mac OS X.

It took 14 seconds in the Linux VM.

But I think I've run into some kind of fundamental limit - that particular project never takes less than 13 seconds on any machine.

Compiling apache2 took:
./configure took 3:09 minutes compared to 0:34 on Linux standalone.
make took 4:05 minutes compared to 1:06 on Linux standalone.

super_pi took 28 seconds for 1,000,000 decimal places compared to 62 in Mac OS X on the same iMac.

 

[shooterlv]

Installing right now

and its almost done installing within parallels. My plan is to run the VM and slipstream a new Windows XP pro disk with SP2 then reinstall with bootcamp.

 

[Plantman]

Nice timing- Microsoft fumbles the ball and Dell changes its trousers!

I have to say I love the timing of this. Vista is delayed so there is little to push people to upgrade their PCs at present- other than a shovel load of viruses wrecking their old machine.
An Apple computer has to look very attractive indeed as at least you get a new computer with many new features with a modern OS.
I think people are going to buy more Macs try out XP and find it woefully inadequate then try out OS X and get hooked. I do think Apple are going to have to support this in the longer term as many people will be a bit nervous of adding such a large piece of software to their computer.
I am glad I do not have any Dell shares as this could be very bad for them!
Heck this has even got me thinking of upgrading and this iMac I am using is only 4-5 months old! My wife uses a PC for work at home a Mac mini would now be an ideal replacement!!
I wonder whether Apple will monitor how sales go in the next couple of months and then finally decide whether XP support will continue into the future. If Apple sales don't rise dramatically and software manufacturers start to mutter about not releasing Mac OS X software I suspect Boot Camp may suddenly disappear.
So unless some people start shelling out some cash I wonder how long this will all last? Enjoy it while you can!

 

[andysmith]

Just tried it out.

I can't say I'm very impressed. First time it kernal panic'd my iMac instantly when starting the VM.
XP installed fine, but I couldn't get the networking working. Then I realised I couldn't access the net through OS X either. Turns out my Linksys router had somehow crashed, which is the first time in about 2 years I've had any problems with it.

 

[reyesmac]

This must be what Apple is working on for Leopard

If Macs can run windows programs seamlessly the only native programs they would need to dominate with would be the OS, front row, mail, itunes, and safari. If they can convince a huge number of windows users that they need these programs to avoid all the virus problems with windows I think they will have a winner.
If Microsoft dumps word, they create a better alternative. Same thing with adobe and photoshop. Apple will not be dependent on software developers anymore. Remember, the not enough X excuse used against Apple is something Apple can't really control. If they double their market share I could see them come out with lower priced computers as well, like what happened with the iPod. This is looking better and better every day.

 

[WildPalms]

All of them, I believe:

"Parallels Workstation 2.1 for Mac OS X offers full support for Intel VT-x (Vanderpool) technology. From our expirience Intel VT-x is enabled by Apple on iMac and MacBook Pro and disabled for some reasons on Mac Mini. So Parallels Workstation is running in Intel VT-x mode on iMac and MacBook Pro and in software virtualization mode on Mac Mini."

Posted by a "Parallels" employee on their support forum (http://forum.parallels.com/showthread.php?p=237#post237)

.....someone wanna explain how mine is enabled after the firmware patch?

..and yes it absolutely flies along..... I have installed Bootcamp and Windows XP in Parallels is as fast as native boot.

 

[aquafina]

But over the past 24 hours I have began to reevaluate my intial reaction. I think this is an awesome solution to a problem that us mac users have always had which is running Windows apps we can never run. However, that is good for the short term. What does this mean LONG TERM? While the big Mac OS software houses will probably not change (blizzard, adobe, etc.), this is almost certainly the end of Quicken and other medium-sized software houses. I mean those companies can't help but look at this from a business perspective which day-after-day results in them barely making their return on their Mac Software Divisions. If Quicken sells 5% of their software to Mac users, it will make much more business sense to axe their Mac OS developers and require Mac users to now "Option Boot" into Windows XP, knowing that they will probably retain half of their original Mac users that will be willing to actually do that. In the end, they save money and headcount. And if key software packages like that go away, it reduces the Mac OS as a viable alternative OS to Windows XP. Why would grandma want to boot into Mac OS X at all if she has to boot into Windows XP to do her Quicken which is very important to her...just buy a Mac and run Windows XP...

I don't think your scenario will play out quite that way. Yes, I expect medium and small shops to drop their Mac product, but that opens the door for other companies that want a Mac only product to produce one. Quicken as an example is not very good on the Mac, as it suffers from being a poor port from windows. There are already competitors, and if quicken drops their Mac offering, that will be additional incentive for others to step up and fill the void. On the contrary, I believe this will actually improve the Mac only software market, not cause it to shrink.

 

[xnor]

Yes!

.....someone wanna explain how mine [VT-x on my Mac Mini] is enabled after the firmware patch? ..and yes it absolutely flies along..... I have installed Bootcamp and Windows XP in Parallels is as fast as native boot.

Thanks WildPalms - you just saved my day (and my Core Duo Mac Mini)

As soon as I get home, I'll install Windows... again.

 

[AidenShaw]

as alike as peas in a pod

And whats wrong with it being faster on a Mac than on a HP or Dell brand machine? All the more bragging rights Apple gets.

It doesn't mean anything until someone shows that Windows running on an MBP is faster than Windows running on a Thinkpad or Latitude with the same speed CPU.

Which isn't going to happen, of course, since MBP/Thinkpad/Latitude are using all the same chips, disks, RAM and other components.

The only time you'll see any real difference is if the machines aren't the same (5400RPM disk vs 7200RPM disk, for example).

 

[Sofad]

Parallel Benchmark

I used "Dr.Hardware 2006" to perform a benchmark test with Windows 98.

See the attached files for the result...

 

[AidenShaw]

Windows Firewall?

Using bridged Ethernet I cannot ping myself from the same machine. Does that answer your question? It probably can be made to work but doing a quick test that is what I get.

Is the Windows Firewall on? By default it does not respond to pings.

The third tab of the firewall control panel has a button to enable it.

 

[AidenShaw]

dynamic scheduling

Imagine when quad core chips come out...

Host OSX

One VM running windo$e
One VM running Solaris X86
One VM running Linux

You don't want to statically assign cores to tasks like VMs - it's much better to just let the host scheduler dynamically assign work to available cores.

If OSX has 3 active threads - you'd want them to run simultaneously on 3 cores rather than using 1 core.

 

[jlaylor]

connecting your parallel xp to your os x

I liked the USB drive solution, but I still don't feel it's elegant enough. I just tried this and it works:

1. run your os x on ethernet 1 (cabled)
2. set your ethernet for the parallel to ethernet 2 (airport)

two different ip addresses on the same machine. this assumes that you have airport and hard wire on the same network.

a bit convoluted still, but considerably more elegant.

- Janet

 

[vamp07]

I liked the USB drive solution, but I still don't feel it's elegant enough. I just tried this and it works:

1. run your os x on ethernet 1 (cabled)
2. set your ethernet for the parallel to ethernet 2 (airport)

two different ip addresses on the same machine. this assumes that you have airport and hard wire on the same network.

a bit convoluted still, but considerably more elegant.

- Janet

I would not worry too much about this. They already said they would fix it.

 

[tomax7]

Mac Mini running Para and Boot

Hey thanks Villa, that's the news I wanted to hear. Ironically I went ahead and got a duo anyway as I wanted the mini by next weekend when I leave town.

Keep posting, and others, how it runs, showing my students this great idea of changing over. Partially I'd like the Parallel verison so one doesn't have to dual boot, but do a WOW basically. I guess Lepoard is suppose to have something like this in it, when is that release coming?

cheers
tom

It was the first Mac of mine I installed it on, runs like a champ. 1.5gHz Solo Core with 512MB, my only gripe is that its booting Windows XP by default now...(snip)
Wish me luck!

 

[tomax7]

Ok, thanks!

Thanks, appreciate the feedback as I want to be able to tell my class to go out and get mini's as it is more affordable for them than the imacs.

nope, that will be pretty fast, really. The problem with the speed and the Core Solo Mini Macs only applies to Parallels, not to Boot Camp.