Yonah Virtualization

chicagdan

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 3, 2002
728
0
Chicago, IL
Everyone keeps talking about the dual core aspect of Yonah, but perhaps the best feature is VT, Intel's Virtualization Technology. According to this article, VThttp://www.nordichardware.com/news,2670.html is basically VMWare on a chip -- meaning that the new Intel Mac's will be fully capable of running OS X, Windows, Linux, OS/2, whatever, simultaneously in a system much like fast user switching, all with hyperthreading and dual core capability.

So everyone who keeps asking "can I dual boot?" ... "will there be a Virtual PC" ... you have no idea. This is going to be so much better. And as for the naysayers who cry "how do we know Apple will allow this?" remember Brian Croll's comment that Apple will not create any hardware to block users from installing Windows.

Finally, as for the persistent, annoying “why would you need to run both” comments, please just shut up. I have a PowerBook for 99 percent of what I do on a computer, but I also like to play Full Tilt poker, I run an Action PC Football league and play in a Diamond Mind Baseball league. These three pieces of software have required me to keep a 1998 IBM Aptiva connected (along with my PowerBook) via a KVM switch (and yes, a 7 year old computer IS better than Virtual PC) and I’m so, so sick of that ugly black box. When Mac on Intel and parallel OS’s come out, I’m going to sledge hammer the IBM.
 

zap2

macrumors 604
Mar 8, 2005
7,242
1
Washington D.C
Dual Core iBooks (please) i don't care about running Windows(i know some do) and that it will be cool as an extra but in the logn end it does little for me
 

Morn

macrumors 6502
Oct 26, 2005
398
0
They'll never be dual core ibooks :D Dual core Powerbooks, ibooks will probably be out in june or something with single core yonah....
Anyway, what this VT technology does is enable x86 to function better with a VM. There are certain things about x86 that make it very different to run 2 OS's at the same time on.... x86 will only allow the primary OS to run anything in kernel mode, when the secondary OS runs code in kernel mode it has to emulated by the VM program. So a program like vmware actuallly has to emulate some x86 instructions even when running on an x86 CPU.
 

pknz

macrumors 68020
Mar 22, 2005
2,480
1
NZ
That sounds pretty sweet and increases the idea of a dual (or trual (triple)) OS's booting on MacTels.
 

DMann

macrumors 601
Jan 13, 2002
4,002
0
10023
Switch??????

Raven VII said:
Why would you need to run both? :rolleyes:

;)
Millions and millions of switchers will have a no-brainer,
painless way to switch over to Mac! This shall complete
the pieces to the winning combination!
 

Object-X

macrumors 6502a
Aug 3, 2004
631
1
For security

Raven VII said:
Why would you need to run both? :rolleyes:

;)
A possible solution we are looking at is running OS X as our main OS and Windows for a proprietary program. This way the Windows OS could be configured not to use the internet and thus isolate it, while OS X, could be used for all other business applications (email, word, excel, ect.). Security is a huge concern where I work and my company would switch to OS X if it could run our proprietary applications. This would allow us to work around that.
 

nagromme

macrumors G5
May 2, 2002
12,551
1,186
I've always been much more interested in running Windows at the SAME time as OS X (if I have to run it)--like a new VPC or something similar, or possibly even Darwine.

I do NOT want the delay and hassle of rebooting back and forth! I DO want to be able to access ALL my apps at once--not "just the Mac ones" or "just the Windows ones."

So anything that helps run two OS's at once more easily is a good thing.

I also don't want to boot Windows for security reasons: I don't want to have to worry about Windows viruses affecting the hard disk. Something like VPC where the PC thinks a virtual hardfile IS the hard disk, removes that worry. Then Windows has no possible way to reformat the HD.

Now, THIS I don't get... sounds inefficient at first reading:

"Home users could create virtual “partitions” isolating multiple user environments such as dedicating resources to a PC game, productivity, and personal video recorder-type environments, as well as improve defenses against viruses or spy ware."

Does that mean running multiple instances of the same OS at the same time on the same CPU? I can see the virus benefit (as long as they used separate HD parititions too). But wouldn't that waste RAM and CPU cycles? How would this be better than running the OS ONE time, and letting background processes handle your PVR? Or using multiple user accounts for productivity vs. gaming?
 

dashiel

macrumors 6502a
Nov 12, 2003
876
0
Raven VII said:
Why would you need to run both? :rolleyes:

;)
anyone who develops anything cross platform.

i'd dig a "transparent" app that allows me to run windows at near full speed inside of OS X. as it stands VPC on a dual 2.0Ghz with 1.5 gigs of RAM is barely acceptable.
 

Donm

macrumors newbie
Dec 6, 2005
16
0
California
Let me add something that isn't being mentioned. Not all Yonah/Napa systems will support VT. Secondly, while VT does make it easier for the OEM to install and run multiple OSs it also allows them to PREVENT what a user does with the platform. VT could be used to prevent someone from installing an additional OS...SURPRISE!
 

Les Kern

macrumors 68040
Apr 26, 2002
3,063
76
Alabama
dashiel said:
anyone who develops anything cross platform.

i'd dig a "transparent" app that allows me to run windows at near full speed inside of OS X. as it stands VPC on a dual 2.0Ghz with 1.5 gigs of RAM is barely acceptable.
I agree... BARELY. I use VPC to check code builds on SW I develop. I DO NOT want to reboot to access WIN or Linux. That's just dumb. The news got my curiosity though... what IS the "master" plan? The possible exclusion of FW, the Forbes article saying that Apple will concentrate more on the iPod and the "Media Center Mini, the Intel switch itself, dual OS security patents. Somehow it all fits, but we don't work for Apple.
 

sluthy

macrumors regular
May 13, 2002
185
0
Bundaberg, Qld. Australia
Vt...Darwine...VT...Darwine...can't choose which is more promising. Darwine allowing Windows apps to run unmodified within OSX, or VT allowing multiple (Linux, Solaris, Windows, anything) OSs running simultaneously. Is VT similar to a hardware version of Xen for Linux?
 

strange days

macrumors regular
Nov 29, 2005
121
0
so we got :

#1 : Switchers Galore
- anyone in doubt is in the wagon, and others can follow and buy themselves a beautiful computer instead of crappy PC laptops ( and desktops )

#2 : Security
- never worry about viruses or spyware again, or at least contain them to the virtual PC environment, or the partitioned hardware

#3 : Developers Worldwide
- not only OSX or XP, but many other platforms developers swearing for the first universal machine to work with

#4 : MIGHTY GOOD for Apple market share
- Windows could be perceived as an app running under OSX, effectively accelerating its dominance position demise in the minds of users. From working environment, to just an option to access when needed.

#5 : FrontRow
- few models to start with, but a firm foot in the home entertaining market already; even more customers, whether for "cheap" ( but good looking ) simple DVR / VOD computers, or/and for power users at home who need not another anonymous box in the house when they have their Apple computer already.


WOAH, this could be some Jobs magic 101 and project his vision to reference worldwide in 2006 alone ( or to begin with ). In a few years the question won't be "are you running OSX or XP ?", but rather "are you still running Windows under OSX ?". If you got M$ shares, dump them now... :eek:

...so i hope at worst they let us do it, at best, good PC software emulation competition for those who need to run XP or Linux ( or other ) and don't want the hassle of double booting. :D
 

crispoe

macrumors member
Oct 10, 2005
31
0
Coincidence I think not!

Microsoft discontinues IE for Mac. Why? Because its going to run natively in windows mode, similar to how Apple runs X11. I mentioned this on Osnews a few days ago... It could be another partnership deal with Microsoft, or they could use more Transitive tech. Hell they could be using Xen 3.0. Don't be surprised if you see Native Office for mac go away too. :(

Though it may be weird to see on store.apple.com- you may be able to buy a "license" for windows xp with a new mac if you want to run it with OS X. MS doesn't care what hardware you run Windows on as long as you pay the bill. If its transparent like X11 and classic was, it would be simply amazing- with an option to switch to windows full-screen desktop mode.

The only thing I would be afraid of here, is some developers for mac may just ditch cocoa and program for windows since it will work on both platforms (bigger market- less work).

I would still love to see it happen though....
I am psyched to see what apple does with the yonah... the possibilites are endless! :)

Oh yeah one other thing... FINALLY WE WILL BE ABLE TO PLAY PC GAMES NO EMULATION ON OUR MACS!!
 

trose

macrumors regular
Dec 28, 2002
198
0
Now this would be cool!
Basically, with a KvM switch, I already do the same thing. Toggle to PC for games, back to Mac for other stuff. It'd be awesome to have that capability on one machine.

I wasn't too thrilled about the idea of booting into another OS. Even though that's cool, it doesn't really fit how I use my computer.