Leats play the "What if" Game...
What if Apple has complete virtualization built-into Mac OS X Leopard? If they do that, they will completely blow out the need for Parellel, they will completely and utterly destroy the need for ANY software that allows you to have Windows on a Mac.
But something else: Wouldn't Microsoft throw a HUGE lawsuit Apple's way? Even if it wouldn't be illegal -- MS wouldn't like it, and they would try to stop Apple, wouldn't they?
This is why I don't even listen to the rumors of "virtualization" in Apple's OS. Unless, of course, you'd have to buy a copy of Windows to do it -- then MS would just chuckle. (but it still would kill third-party offerings -- so I still don't think it will happen).
But I just wanted to see if you guys think it would be illegal or what?
But something else: Wouldn't Microsoft throw a HUGE lawsuit Apple's way? Even if it wouldn't be illegal -- MS wouldn't like it, and they would try to stop Apple, wouldn't they?
This is why I don't even listen to the rumors of "virtualization" in Apple's OS. Unless, of course, you'd have to buy a copy of Windows to do it -- then MS would just chuckle. (but it still would kill third-party offerings -- so I still don't think it will happen).
But I just wanted to see if you guys think it would be illegal or what?
Comments
Hasn't somebody from Apple already officially confirmed there will be no built-in virtualization in OS X?
Yes.
And if by virtualization you mean the ability to run Windows software without Windows, it will never happen. It would likely destroy any desire to program for the Mac OS at all.
That said, I would love to see a Parallels type of virtualization built into OSX... unfortunately, I have a need to run a couple of items that just won't work outside of Windows. But re-booting is a lame way to do it
Yes.
And if by virtualization you mean the ability to run Windows software without Windows, it will never happen. It would likely destroy any desire to program for the Mac OS at all.
But would it be legal...
But would it be legal...
Microsoft has generally had a rather neutral position to WINE. This could change if such a technique becomes more common?
Despite the popularity of Parallels, I think most Mac users still don't need nor care for running Windows apps. Let the people who need the capability buy Parallels and let Apple concentrate on core OS X.
True.
Hasn't somebody from Apple already officially confirmed there will be no built-in virtualization in OS X?
Yes. Phil Schiller. Several times. "Boot Camp is our solution."
However, it'd sure be interesting if Apple was able to implement the ability to save your OS state into RAM and fast-user switch between multiple OSes...
Not counting on it for Leopard, though.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/31/c...-apps-in-os-x/
However, it'd sure be interesting if Apple was able to implement the ability to save your OS state into RAM and fast-user switch between multiple OSes...
This is a feature that most peope (myself included) would never use. I'd be happy for Apple to not put any effort into it.
Check CrossOver (a WINE port by VMware) out here:
CodeWeavers, not VMware.
VMware does a full virtualization package for OS X currently codenamed Fusion.