Would it be as good as running under a VM?
I remember Windows apps running under OS/2 would run much faster when run in full screen mode. Those "advantages of integration with its host OS" come at a significant cost.
Yeah, I agree that #1 (dual boot) is pretty much a geek/gamer solution. Your average Joe or Mary won't really care for that at all. It's so inconvenient. It's like shutting down your stove so you can use your oven.
#4 (multiple independent VMs) is probably more useful than you think. I don't know the technical details of how Intel and Apple might implement it, but I'd guess you would be able to use the same networking and see the same hard drives (via networking). Yeah,...
In my earlier post, where I was saying that running Virtual PC on a G3/G4/G5 is very different from running a Windows VM on an Intel Mac, I was referring to your point #4 as the VM technology. That's why it's so different--it's partly hardware based (the CPU supports VMs, as opposed to Virtual PC where the G3/G4/G5 doesn't support VMs directlly) and there are no CPU instruction translations because both Windows and OS X/Intel run natively on Intel.
Here's an interesting...
OK, maybe I'm using the terminology wrong or I'm misunderstanding something, but...
Windows running in a VM on a dual-core Intel machine is a very different beast from Virtual PC running on a G3/G4/G5 Mac.
In a dual-core Intel machine, one core could be assigned to OS X and one core could be assigned to Windows. There is no hardware instruction translation, since both OSes run *natively* on Intel. Both run essentially at full speed on their individual cores.
Ah, but whos pro apps aren't ready? Apple's should be. FCP, DVD SP, Motion, Aperture . . . they should all be ready, no? Wouldn't Apple be thrilled with Aperture running full speed on a dual core PowerBook, while Photoshop runs in emulation mode?
And Microsoft's apps aren't really 'pro'. I mean, a word processor is just a commodity nowadays. Word works fine on even fairly slow processors.
Then look at recent releases. People have been impressed with recent iMac and Power...
It turns out the 10.4.3 update quite literally killed my wife's machine!
But then she had one of those 2003 iBooks with the logic board problem. I brought it in to an Apple store to be fixed, 3 years and a day after we bought it. Luckily, Apple acquiesed and ignored the 1-day-late problem, and we should be getting a fixed machine in a few days.
Thank you, Apple. (I wonder if they even stock a 3-year-old 800 MHz G3 board?)
Ah, can you say "OS/2"?
IBM made OS/2 run Windows 3.x apps natively under OS/2 2.x in the early-to-mid 1990's. Nobody wrote OS/2 apps, since Windows apps ran just fine under OS/2. It's this very case that is probably prompting many people to warn about running Windows apps too conveniently.
The huge difference here, though, is that IBM never wrote any OS/2 software--not consumer software, in any case.
Apple, on the other hand, makes most of the software that users have on...