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.
Yonah Virtualization
- Thread starter chicagdan
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wow, similar online naming there huh? If your last name is Alexander that'd be really freaky.GregA2 said:
I'd say the file systems won't be an issue. More problematic is whether XP supports the Apple hardware (including possible lack of BIOS).
Please everybody read this!
Felix is right here - and makes a great point.
Please people, stop assuming what this virtualisation technology does - 'cos it doesn't actually do that much!!
All that Intel are doing is patching a stupid mistake in their instruction set. On x86, if you run an application like virtual PC, the programs running under virtual PC can't have access to all of the processor instructions - as some of those instructions if executed would upset the host operating system on which virtual PC is running.
This leads to a load of complexity if you're running a second OS on top of the first (google for VMWare to see what sort of app currently does this on x86).
ALL THAT INTEL ARE DOING is patching this problem, so that VMWare/Virtual PC can cleanly host another operating system. To run two at once you'd still need to buy an app like VPC to manage the things - Intel's technology in no way makes your machine able to support two operating systems at once from the BIOS, or any of the other whacky scenarios that people have drempt up.
As a user, you're not going to see any difference from this tech - all the fuss that's being generated is Intel's marketing selling what is essentially a bug fix.
They have white papers on their web site that you can read (I've read them) if you want more insight on this.
Felix_the_Mac said:
Felix is right here - and makes a great point.
Please people, stop assuming what this virtualisation technology does - 'cos it doesn't actually do that much!!
All that Intel are doing is patching a stupid mistake in their instruction set. On x86, if you run an application like virtual PC, the programs running under virtual PC can't have access to all of the processor instructions - as some of those instructions if executed would upset the host operating system on which virtual PC is running.
This leads to a load of complexity if you're running a second OS on top of the first (google for VMWare to see what sort of app currently does this on x86).
ALL THAT INTEL ARE DOING is patching this problem, so that VMWare/Virtual PC can cleanly host another operating system. To run two at once you'd still need to buy an app like VPC to manage the things - Intel's technology in no way makes your machine able to support two operating systems at once from the BIOS, or any of the other whacky scenarios that people have drempt up.
As a user, you're not going to see any difference from this tech - all the fuss that's being generated is Intel's marketing selling what is essentially a bug fix.
They have white papers on their web site that you can read (I've read them) if you want more insight on this.
GregA said:
That WOULD be freaky, wouldn't it?
But, no, it isn't.... My last name is Andonian. I was named after my dad, which is why I put the 2 on there.
Anyway, this whole dual-OS thing sounds really cool if it does work. I'm curious though... if a Windows system is a Wintel, and an Intel Mac is a Mactel, what do we call a dual-boot? Is that a MacWinTel?
2005: The Year of HD
2006: The Year of...WINDOWS?!
trose said:
This is a real boon to developers, who need to test their applications under multiple versions of the same OS, or under multiple OS's. I do that now using VirtualPC or the like. Especially on windows machines where you need to get current with the latest version of the .NET framework (or Avalon when it is ready), but you do not want to risk your entire machine doing it.
The ability to do that by switching between live instances of the OS running directly on a partitioned piece of your machine (CPU, memory, harddisk) is very compelling. This is the same tech that IBM has been using on their Power line for years now, but it is good to see it being brought down to the masses.
Platform said:Maybe windows is scared of Mac dominance
Not as long as Apple's the only show in town.
Morky said:
I'm glad someone is paying attention and that I don't blindly post (like many do) but read all comments so I didn't repeat you.
This was an attribute of the Power5, sadly though this means nothing as Intel is the new boss, same as the old boss.
Strange, my initial reaction is not good. Am I the only one to think that if you can run Windows on your Mac loads of software companies will think to themselves whats the point of rewriting our software for Mac OS if Mac users can run Windows.
I want to encourage software publishers to write more applications, more games etc. for OS X rather than giving them a reason to stop writing software for it.
I hate using Windows on my Mac, though I do every day through Citrix sessions. To hear the sound of annoying Windows jingles on a Mac just feels plain wrong. I bought a Mac to get away from Windows.
I want to encourage software publishers to write more applications, more games etc. for OS X rather than giving them a reason to stop writing software for it.
I hate using Windows on my Mac, though I do every day through Citrix sessions. To hear the sound of annoying Windows jingles on a Mac just feels plain wrong. I bought a Mac to get away from Windows.
SiliconAddict said:Norton AV. Problem solved.
And if you are running both, it's not like the windows viruses are going to jump off your Windows partition and into your OS X partition...it's not the clap. Some people are so paranoid. Besides this is nothing new, people have been running Windows on Macs for a long time and that have been virus problems with those systems, every here of Virtual PC? Viruses are software based only, they are not getting into you hardware, and they are platform specific. People that will be running Windows on their Macs are using it for convinience not as a main operating system...what would be the point in that, other than to be a poser at the local starbucks.
I have 2 questions about Yonah:
Its a 64bit or 32 Bit chip?
If Virtualization can be controlled so it only accepts Leopard, how i would do it?
Thanks
Its a 64bit or 32 Bit chip?
If Virtualization can be controlled so it only accepts Leopard, how i would do it?
Thanks
Thanks...
Although disappointing, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to explain the nuts and bolts of the technology's uses. It's often posts like these that go unnoticed - mostly because the other stuff is more fun to believe.
Tell me, knowing what you know, can you see any benefits to the technology for OS X users - for instance, a leap in performance for Virtual PC users (possibly explaining why Microsoft purchased the program - probably with inside info about the x86 switch.)
Even if there is no benefit - thanks for the insight!!!
Although disappointing, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to explain the nuts and bolts of the technology's uses. It's often posts like these that go unnoticed - mostly because the other stuff is more fun to believe.
Tell me, knowing what you know, can you see any benefits to the technology for OS X users - for instance, a leap in performance for Virtual PC users (possibly explaining why Microsoft purchased the program - probably with inside info about the x86 switch.)
Even if there is no benefit - thanks for the insight!!!
firestarter said:
modernpixel said:
If you really want to learn about virtualization, I wouldn't listen to someone calling it a "bug fix". Here's a Forbes article from the beginning of this year (2005) talking about IBMs plans to move virtualization technology down into the 970 series. At the time, there was no "Intel switch" planned, so the article references Apple as a big customer of this. The bottom line is that hardware virtualization has been around for years, but was reserved for big iron running some variation of Unix. It is a technology that more and more companies are looking towards to reduce costs and improve the flexibility of their offerings.
Up until now, consumers wouldn't even have access to the tech, but if IBM moves it down into their dual-core 970 line, and Intel puts it in theirs, that all will change. Short term it will be a niche thing, maybe even a bit of a novelty. Long term, it may mean that some PC you purchase (down the road) could double as a dedicated device of some type (e.g. real-time video capture) which would not interfere at all with the applications you are running in your primary hardware partition.
The possibility of convergence devices - a PC that doubles as another dedicated hardware device - are limitless, and this is actually a pretty cool development.
let's wait...
This is so cool! I hope we can feel much more horsepower on Mactels than now... Not that today they don't have enough, but macs just don't like to show off...
This is so cool! I hope we can feel much more horsepower on Mactels than now... Not that today they don't have enough, but macs just don't like to show off...
maya said:At present accessing HD content (if you can actually do so) via Front Row is a PITA. Having multiple apps running in in a Virtual Environment will give instant access to the other applications via switching. Pretty much all the Front Row applications will be buffed to be run instantly at startup.
There seems to be a misconception that having virtualization means all environments run at full speed. This is not multiple cores, the CPU has to switch back and forth to run both just like it always did.
Front Row apps will not run instantly because of this, any more than if you preloaded them on today's iMac. MacOS X already has priority scheduling, and any apps such as PVRs can get more CPU time if they need it today.
Unless this virtualization has real-time scheduling features, it's not going to matter. And if it does have real-time scheduling features, the rest of your MacOS X apps are going to suffer for it.
The only advantage I see in this is to be able to run two OSes at the same time without a hardware abstraction layer such as vmware or VirtualPC. Aside from that, it's really a non-feature.
firestarter said:
I agree that INTEL's support is just patching the problem, but this does not mean that APPLE's BIOS won't be able to support this kind of feature at the hardwre level, or Mac OS X in the OS level. The idea is that now, you can run an "emulator" in actual true speed using all avaliable resources of the system (processor, GPU, motherboard, PCI-X cards, USB etc.). Apple could very easily implement this "emulator" right in the OS so you wouldn't even know you're running it as a emulator. Kinda like a cross between how they supported Mac OS 9 & Rossetta. Allowing full access to the proccesor's instruction set WILL improve performence to a great extent.
Plus, let us not forget that this is a DUAL-CORE CPU. in VT mode, the system can give EACH OS ITS OWN CORE TO WORK WITH.
hayesk said:
You guys really don't get hardware virtualization. Both OSs run on the hardware directly. There is no emulation, context switching, any of that stuff. One CPU (or core) is used by one OS, the other is used by the other. You are partitioning your system. The trick is virtualizing your ethernet, firewire, etc. But that is all stuff that they figured out long ago on their "big iron" systems where this tech was pioneered.
Its just cool news in my view, why would anyone still want a ppc machine now is beyond me. PPC is going the way of the dinosaur in my view as far as Apple is concerned. I bet all Macs will be Intel by the end of next year. Man i would love to have the the Mac OS and still be able to run(yuk) windows when i want to game on the same Machine! long live the Mac, PPC get your@#$%^&* out of here!
