or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Parallels preps major update to Windows virtualization software
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Parallels preps major update to Windows virtualization software - Page 2

post #41 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by mini.boss

Getting viruses are just as easy regardless of which method you use to run windows. Thats because obtaining viruses are 100% user error.

As both a windows and mac user then I have to say that viruses are NOT the problem that mac fanatics like to play them up to be. Yes, its better to not have to worry about them, but if you've got any common sense then its easy to avoid. The last virus Ive ever had on ANY of my systems is almost a decade ago when a friend used his virus-laden floppy drive. Other than that our entire family knows what to open and what not to.

actually they are still a problem. if it was "common" sense then viruses wouldn't be so widespread. perhaps viruses and spyware aren't an issue for you on your windows machine, but they are an issue at large. my father has viruses all over his damn windows computer and he has a doctorate in physics. most people are just not diligent about how they run their computers. only very technologically savvy users ever say that it's "common" sense to avoid viruses on windows. the fact that so many computers are infected proves that wrong outright.
post #42 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by blue2kdave

Man, can't wait until the headline reads

"Latest Build of Parallels Desktop now supports direct graphic card acceleration"

That is when things are going to blow up. Not just on these boards but everywhere. My prediction, the new cool thing for PC gamers will actually be a Mac.


I believe that graphics cards do not support virtualization, meaning only one kernal/OS can directly address the graphics card. This means that either the graphics card is under OSX control or Windows control, but not both. The ONLY thing I can think of that would get this to work, is that in FULL SCREEN mode you could force OSX to give up all display options. No way this could work in a window within window mode.

Anyone else want to elaborate. Connectix people were pretty savvy with virtualization and they never could offer full graphics card support. I think there is something very fundamental going on that doesn't allow it.

Mark
post #43 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad

That just isn't going to happen any time soon. The world of PC gaming is dominated by people who build their own PC and live to squeeze small but measurable performance increases out of their systems.


You're probably right about the large picture. I didn't mean to imply that Macs would come to dominate PC gaming, only that they would enter the scene at all as a legitimate PC game machine. The majority are nerds who want to build their systems, but with the success of the iPod it might actually be 'cool' to bring your Mac Pro to the LAN party.

Also, I saw mentioned the possibility of a second graphics card. This sounds interesting. I can't honestly remember what generation of busses we are on now. But for awhile graphic cards needed an AGP port, and running a graphic card on a PCI card would mean a performance hit. But I seem to remember that the new models had a new bus system. Would the current Mac Pros be able to accommodate a second card and still get full performance out of it? I could see having the standard graphic card that comes with the mac for system purposes, then a dedicated card that could be taken over as needed.
"I'm learning how to meditate, so far so good."
Donald Fagen and Walter Becker
Reply
"I'm learning how to meditate, so far so good."
Donald Fagen and Walter Becker
Reply
post #44 of 99
Wow it's really great to see that Parallels obviously got invited to the private beta testing of VMware for Mac.

EVERY SINGLE FEATURE THEY ARE LISTING here is a straight exact feature rip of what VMware is doing..

drag n' drop - vmware already done
resizing window - automatically changes resolution
any type of network including vpns - vmware already done
using the bootcamp volume instead of a virtual disk, VMware has in newer betas
Full hardware virtualization of the graphics card, yes full 3d acceleration will be in v1

Also VMware (not the beta released to the public) is much, faster than Parallels. The beta released to the "Public" was slow.

However VMware has much better support for USB devices, they just work like they should, and they work in both OSes, so you can plug your motorola phone into your mac, and use vmware to run a firmware update (with windows only software) because vmware actually properly shares the USB devices with hardware virtualization between the two OSes
post #45 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steiner

I stopped using PCs 11 years ago, and never looked back since.

Nowerdays I don't need them for work or play. Basically never had need but now that I got a new MBP and the prospects of running Parallels makes it appealing just for the fun of it and to see what we can do with it.

How affected does windows get by viruses through Parallels? Is it as bad as on normal PS systems?

As far as I can tell, Bootcamp and Parallels will be equally susceptable to viruses as normal PCs are. Of course, they still won't touch OSX.

Wine/CrossOver is another story. That emulates the API layer of WindowsXP, which in allows you to run a good number of Windows Applications without installing Windows. While this is the least compatible and least stable option, it should be immune to Windows viruses and I've also heard that it CAN use the graphics card acceleration in full screen mode. PLUS you don't have to buy a copy of windows!!! Bonus. Down side is stability and getting programs to work using it.
post #46 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

What I was wondering, is what exactly does it mean that the Boot Camp volume can be used as a virtual volume?

Does that mean that you are now in Boot Camp, and Parallels is no longer available? Does that mean that now it works exactly as though you booted from Boot Camp, or are there still restrictions, such as the one from the last post, with the GPU?


I believe it means you can run Parallels as Parallels (VM) without the need to reinstall Windows. Boot up Parallels and everything is good to go, using the Windows system you already set up under Boot Camp.
There are many more cockroaches in this
world than human beings, but it doesn't
make them a higher life form.
Reply
There are many more cockroaches in this
world than human beings, but it doesn't
make them a higher life form.
Reply
post #47 of 99
So. VMWare is vaporware as far as I am concerned. Before parallels.com got sucked down with traffic I got the new beta on my C2D 24" iMac and it flies. If VMWare had any sense, they would have started on this a wee bit earlier and actually have a purchasable product out.




Quote:
Originally Posted by webmail

Wow it's really great to see that Parallels obviously got invited to the private beta testing of VMware for Mac.

EVERY SINGLE FEATURE THEY ARE LISTING here is a straight exact feature rip of what VMware is doing..

drag n' drop - vmware already done
resizing window - automatically changes resolution
any type of network including vpns - vmware already done
using the bootcamp volume instead of a virtual disk, VMware has in newer betas
Full hardware virtualization of the graphics card, yes full 3d acceleration will be in v1

Also VMware (not the beta released to the public) is much, faster than Parallels. The beta released to the "Public" was slow.

However VMware has much better support for USB devices, they just work like they should, and they work in both OSes, so you can plug your motorola phone into your mac, and use vmware to run a firmware update (with windows only software) because vmware actually properly shares the USB devices with hardware virtualization between the two OSes
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #48 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella

SOLUTION: Dual core GPUs!
Each OS can have it's own GPU.
or in a Mac Pro it could have its own graphics card in another slot.

And how would that work? Which GPU gets to control the output? If it's the Mac OS GPU then we are in the same boat.

If it's the Windows/Parallel GPU then we still have no Mac screen output. That could mean a blank screen everywhere the Virtual window isn't. No control of OS X at all from the screen.

Perhaps if it were mouse dependent. When the mouse is over the virtual window, Windows takes over. Slide it off that window, and the Mac OS takes over. Very clumsy, and I'm not sure if it would work. But, you wouldn't need two GPU's for that.
post #49 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by webmail

Wow it's really great to see that Parallels obviously got invited to the private beta testing of VMware for Mac.

EVERY SINGLE FEATURE THEY ARE LISTING here is a straight exact feature rip of what VMware is doing..

drag n' drop - vmware already done
resizing window - automatically changes resolution
any type of network including vpns - vmware already done
using the bootcamp volume instead of a virtual disk, VMware has in newer betas
Full hardware virtualization of the graphics card, yes full 3d acceleration will be in v1

Also VMware (not the beta released to the public) is much, faster than Parallels. The beta released to the "Public" was slow.

However VMware has much better support for USB devices, they just work like they should, and they work in both OSes, so you can plug your motorola phone into your mac, and use vmware to run a firmware update (with windows only software) because vmware actually properly shares the USB devices with hardware virtualization between the two OSes

How about the fact that every feature was ASKED FOR BY CUSTOMERS way before VMWare ever showed anything? MONTHS ago? Its called customer feedback. Amazing that two similar products have similar features when customers ask for the same thing.

Get off your high horse. I can use Parallels now. I can't use VMWare for how much longer now? Parallels pays my bills. VMWare doesn't.
post #50 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akac

How about the fact that every feature was ASKED FOR BY CUSTOMERS way before VMWare ever showed anything? MONTHS ago? Its called customer feedback. Amazing that two similar products have similar features when customers ask for the same thing.

Get off your high horse. I can use Parallels now. I can't use VMWare for how much longer now? Parallels pays my bills. VMWare doesn't.

A lot of what he said came in VPC as well, and even before that, in Softwindows about 15 years ago.

Anyway, VMware is a corporate solution. Few people will use it at home.
post #51 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

And how would that work? Which GPU gets to control the output? If it's the Mac OS GPU then we are in the same boat.

I'd be happy to go dual head and give each OS its own monitor.
post #52 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

Supposedly, it is. Only one OS can have control of it at once. Makes sense when you think about it. OS X still controls the machine. The virtual machine is really just riding piggyback. Which OS should control the GPU?

If that turns out to by the piggyback OS, then none of OS X's graphics functions will work. Uh oh!

Here is my question. Lets say I launch up Doom 3. It can do all of the drawing it wants to with the graphics card (in either windowed or full screen mode). OS X can still do its drawings. So 2 different programs can control the graphics card, at the same time, and both work at full speed.

Could some sort of "quasi-driver" be written that just passed all of the graphics calls from Windows through a OpenGL OS X Driver? That way any drawing done in Parallels is using the OS X graphics system, but doing so at full speed. Does that make sense? No "graphics card virtualization" required. I am sure it wouldn't be 100% native speeds (as there would probably be a bit of overhead from passing through this way), but I bet it could work (assuming a method like this is possible) at about 75-80% of native speeds (plenty for gaming on a modern system).
post #53 of 99
Null.
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
post #54 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by godrifle

I have a quick review of the new beta with a few screen shots (the most interesting of which is at the end of the article, showing Windows XP apps and Mac apps side by side using the new Coherence feature of Parallels): http://www.gigoblog.com/

Whoa. Revolutionary.
post #55 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewis

Does Parallels support Linux, BSD, OpenSolaris, and other UNIX type systems?

I don't care one bit about Windows having just left the world of Windows (Viruses or not, the amount of maintenance it requires is horrendous) and I am interested in *NIX systems only at the moment. If all I have to look forward to is a way to get Windows into my life again then what's the point?

More to the point, why run Windows to begin with? I asked this question to every PC user I know and get a range of responses which all basically add up to them not caring enough to try and install Linux or they don't like Macs (I laughed at that last one)

The only valid excuse so far would be for a Job Requirement, and even that is starting to fade as Macs are more Windows compatible (outside the world of Boot Camp and Virtualization)

I disagree, unless all you do with a computer is just web stuff or simple home-office stuff. There isn't always an OS X counterpart to do a specific task to do it the way the user needs it to. For instance, I have not found an OS X DVD decrypter/ripper that rips directly to an ISO file, much less one that shrinks a dual layer disc to fit on a single layer disc. I have a Windows app that does just that. I can chose from a wider range of engineering software. My microcontroller devel environment, and third party compiler, are Windows-only. I just bought an engraving laser, none of the ones that I found were OS X compatible to the slightest degree. I am generally moving more tasks to OS X, but it is slow and I really don't see a complete changeover. I really don't think Linux is very suitable for a non-techie.

I don't think the amount of maintenance is horrendous, that work is real but the magnitude overblown. If you run decent hardware with WHQL drivers, don't run there really aren't any notable stability problems that I've found. I had more kernel halt problems with my USB scanner in OS X last year than I had BSODs in the past decade as an NT/2000/XP user.

It only took two clicks on the Parallels site to find this OS com list:
http://www.parallels.com/products/desktop/os/
post #56 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewis

Does Parrallels support Linux, BSD, OpenSolaris, and other UNIX type systems?

More to the point, why run Windows to begin with? I asked this question to every PC user I know and get a range of responses which all basically add up to them not caring enough to try and install Linux or they don't like Macs (I laughed at that last one)

The only valid excuse so far would be for a Job Requirement, and even that is starting to fade as Macs are more Windows compatible (outside the world of Boot Camp and Virtualization)

Unfortunately, there are many applications of a technical nature that are only available in a Windows format. Some professionals need to utilize these programs from time to time, and this means we have to have a way of booting a windows machine. Wine would be a great solution, if it actually worked for these applications. But unfortunately, development is not at the stage where every program works.
post #57 of 99
Null.
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
post #58 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewis

I'm glad to see they support Fedora Core, but I believe the latest version is 6. Minix also isn't listed and neither is OpenBSD. Oh well, I'll wait until I see VMware's offering in full (I registered for the beta but I'm still waiting for their Email) before deciding between the 2.

It's possible that they didn't test them yet. You can download a trial copy for free to see your choices work. I think it's a very impressive list, I would be surprised if VMware's compatibility list was half as long.
post #59 of 99
Null.
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
post #60 of 99
Slewis, kirkjeffery and JeffDM I think have all made valid points. You gotta use what gets the job done sometimes. nVidia-chipset motherboards and GPUs are pretty rock solid, also if you have decent quality RAM, WinXPPro2 runs alright.

Nowadays in Windows-land though I do have an immense problem finding the right software -- not to mention all the adware- promiseware- and magazine-ware "full version!! (but you must register online..!!!)" stuff, and all that DVD-iso-Freeware/Shareware stuff is hella confusing, for me at least.
post #61 of 99
Whilst being a very vocal insulter of Vista; IE7 and WindowsMediaPlayer11 has made me crave for the Vista-ly user interface. Hence probably I will succumb to Vista sometime next year.

The iBook G4 933mhz's still on 10.3.9. It's running FFMPEGX right now compressing a DVDrip to XVID (best "everyday" codec out there!!)... We'll get 10.5 onto it sometime next year.

So I'll be all Vista-ed up and Leopard-ed up next year. Yeah.... I'll be a Leopard running on an endless Vista plain gobbling up n00bs. Or something. F83k I'm not making sense right now.... Woooooo

Edit: Also waiting for DirectX10 games that are decent, as well as playing some of HL2:Episode2, FEAR Extraction Point, and yeah, a DX10 GPU sometime next year that doesn't cost as much as the whole computer and makes less noise and sucks less power than a vacuum cleaner.
post #62 of 99
H.264 CPU encoding is really a bit too processor-intensive, isn't it....? But if you have a decent machine and your target platform is iPod video then that's cool. But otherwise DVDripping to XVID is IMO the best way to go. ....Will check out iSquint, thanks for tip.
post #63 of 99
Null.
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
post #64 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM

I'd be happy to go dual head and give each OS its own monitor.

That would be great, if it would work.
post #65 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by kupan787

Here is my question. Lets say I launch up Doom 3. It can do all of the drawing it wants to with the graphics card (in either windowed or full screen mode). OS X can still do its drawings. So 2 different programs can control the graphics card, at the same time, and both work at full speed.

I'm assuming that you are talking about Doom running from within Windows, within the virtualized environment.

In that case, only OS X controls the graphics. Everything else uses commands that have to be translated into Apple's own graphics landscape. That's what slows it down. Also remember that Apple doesn't have Direct X, So those commands also have to be translated to something that might not completely correspond.

Quote:
Could some sort of "quasi-driver" be written that just passed all of the graphics calls from Windows through a OpenGL OS X Driver? That way any drawing done in Parallels is using the OS X graphics system, but doing so at full speed. Does that make sense? No "graphics card virtualization" required. I am sure it wouldn't be 100% native speeds (as there would probably be a bit of overhead from passing through this way), but I bet it could work (assuming a method like this is possible) at about 75-80% of native speeds (plenty for gaming on a modern system).

I really don't know. someone who does that kind of programming would have to answer that. Perhaps that's what they do now.

The new beta claims a 50% increase in graphics performance, so they must have found something out.
post #66 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

I'm assuming that you are talking about Doom running from within Windows, within the virtualized environment.

In that case, only OS X controls the graphics. Everything else uses commands that have to be translated into Apple's own graphics landscape. That's what slows it down. Also remember that Apple doesn't have Direct X, So those commands also have to be translated to something that might not completely correspond.[/b]

No. What I was saying that I can play a game on OS X (native) and run the graphics layer of OS X at the same time. So it is possible for two programs to be using the GPU at the same time. And if Parallels is a program (forget what's inside of it for a moment), then couldn't it use the GPU just like Doom could (ie, use the full capabilities of the graphics card)? So what I am wondering is if a driver could be written that would translate the video calls from within Windows to OpenGL calls in OS X. Actually, I think I recall Programmer (a member of the boards here) was talking about a similar solution for VirtualPC. Some kind of a quasi driver that would pass the calls to the OS X side, or something like that.

Now, on the other hand, how hard would it be for Parallels, when switching to full screen mode, to just take control of the graphics card completely. Hey, if we are full screen in Parallels, why does OS X need the graphics card? This might be an easier solution than the above. But then again, this might not be possible without having to unload WindowServer or something, which would probably be hard to get back from on Parallels exit...
post #67 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by kupan787

No. What I was saying that I can play a game on OS X (native) and run the graphics layer of OS X at the same time. So it is possible for two programs to be using the GPU at the same time. And if Parallels is a program (forget what's inside of it for a moment), then couldn't it use the GPU just like Doom could (ie, use the full capabilities of the graphics card)? So what I am wondering is if a driver could be written that would translate the video calls from within Windows to OpenGL calls in OS X. Actually, I think I recall Programmer (a member of the boards here) was talking about a similar solution for VirtualPC. Some kind of a quasi driver that would pass the calls to the OS X side, or something like that.

Now, on the other hand, how hard would it be for Parallels, when switching to full screen mode, to just take control of the graphics card completely. Hey, if we are full screen in Parallels, why does OS X need the graphics card? This might be an easier solution than the above. But then again, this might not be possible without having to unload WindowServer or something, which would probably be hard to get back from on Parallels exit...

The games don't run the graphics board. they output to Apples' graphics software. That outputs to the board.

We would need someone who works on that software to say for certain. We are just going to be guessing. But, I don't think the OS will just gives up control that easily. All modern OS's keep the programs as far away from the hardware as possible.
post #68 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

The games don't run the graphics board. they output to Apples' graphics software. That outputs to the board.

We would need someone who works on that software to say for certain. We are just going to be guessing. But, I don't think the OS will just gives up control that easily. All modern OS's keep the programs as far away from the hardware as possible.

Ya, getting the graphics card away from the OS might be impossible. Everything is abstracted now-a-days, so that direct hardware access is pretty hard without some kind of ugly hacks (if not impossible). I just took an Operating Systems class last semester, and we talked about this some what.

I wish I could find that post by Programmer from a year or so ago. What he said made a lot of sense, and he said it was very feasible to do. All I can remember was his suggestion involved a quasi-driver in Windows that pumped graphics calls to OS X...or something like that (I am probably not doing any justice to his post).
post #69 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad

That just isn't going to happen any time soon. The world of PC gaming is dominated by people who build their own PC and live to squeeze small but measurable performance increases out of their systems.

Apple has only one box you can configure for gaming and it's way too expensive as a base box. Gamers and other PC enthusiasts want to be able to customize everything whereas Apple doesn't let you fiddle with anything. It makes for a great out-of-box experience, but it's never going to satisfy the hard core, trend setting PC users who experiment with voltages and bus speeds to drive every component just below the point of failure. They demand choice in every component and Apple just doesn't offer much of anything.

Here's a quick comparison:

Apple: logic board offers zero configuration, no optimization
PC: 20 different brands, fine tune to your heart's content, overclock anything

Apple: Xeon processors (designed and priced for servers)
PC: Core2 Duo Conroe and Athlon64 X2 (designed and priced for home PCs)

Apple: dual channel, high latency FB-DIMMs
PC: dual channel PC2-6400 - faster and cheaper than Mac Pro

Apple: AMD x1900 video card with lower specs than PC version
PC: Full catalog of AMD and nVidia cards including bleeding edge performance and SLI

If Apple put out a mid-range box utilizing the most optimized price/performance ratios for CPU and RAM, offer SLI support and work with AMD and nVidia to get support for a wider range of video cards, maybe then the gamers would realize that the hours spent building and modding their boxes with neon tubes and color changing LEDs, and the further hours wasted squeezing out a 4% performance improvement could be spent actually playing their games.


That is not always true. I have been what you might call hardcore PCer/gamer(been building them for ever, I disliked macs in the past). I always liked building my own PCs, picking custom parts etc... but this year I switched to the Pro tower/23inch cinema HD. Why, it is the nicest looking system I have laid my eyes on. real nice and clean interior, high geek factor "You can finally get your free lunch of Unix and day to day applications" and it has "Intel inside" which means If I want for the occasional gaming sessions I can switch to the metal, and for everything else I stay with OS X and use parallels for virtualization which covers everything else.

One thing I did not like is the Apple keyboard. But I bought a PS/2-USB adapter and slapped on my IBM M keyboard on the Mac.

My wife is happy cause she has a fast windows desktop as well (She is not ready to switch yet) so to her the Mac is a fast PC. For me, she has her own virtual PC seperate from mines and easy to back up. All I got to do is hit ALT-ENTER when she is done using it and I can get back to messing with the OS X side.

A final thing, Working with Audio applications is such a breese compared to futsing around on my PC with ASIO driver issues, etc.. lockups.
post #70 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewis

IE7 and WMP11 are 2 of the worst apps Microsoft has come out with in the past 3 months. Windows Defender was the worst for proving useless at all times... IE7 is essentially IE6 with Firefox features and a screwed interface. Windows Media Player 11 is a pretty skin for Windows Media Player 10 and an URGE to suck. They both suck, although WMP11 had promise, Beta 1 was more stable then the final release...

Heh. I just like the look. Someone made a nice skin for VLC, and I use that in Windows. Gawds forbid I would ever *actually* use IE7 or WMP11 on a daily basis. It's Firefox2.0 and VLC for me. And Winamp, with iTunes-like skin, and iTunes7 and QT7Pro. I don't know why people mess around with rubbish like Windows Defender, and even Symantec and TrendMicro can be a huge pain in the a55. AVAST is all one needs to play safe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewis

You're either Drunk or Windows is begining to destroy you from the inside out..

I'm not drunk, so it's the latter. It's been 2 years since I had my own Mac. Windows has its claws around my heart now ...Also being so pro-Mac was pushing me into an ever-more-niche job opportunities scenario, here in South East Asia and Australia Pacific parts of the world.

But I'd sell my soul for HL2 and HL2:Episode 1, and UT2004 online multiplayer, and F.E.A.R (somewhat) and NFS:Most Wanted(somewhat) and LOTR:BattleforMiddleEarth2(yes), and StarWars:KnightsOldRepublic2 (first RPG I finished, ever.)......... It's good though that one can play PC games on a Mac, though only an iMac, MacPro, or MacBookPro, with no configuration tinkering-y stuff like with one's own tower.
post #71 of 99
Nintendo's Wii is released in Australia Dec 7. Maybe that will free us from the slavery of PC gaming and GPU obsession.
post #72 of 99
"Try it and enjoy best of both worlds truly at the same time," Parallels told testers in a set of release notes accompanying the beta build. "No more switching between Windows to Mac OS. "

In that world, Apple will win. Hands down. Better hardware, software integration and the ability to 'do those other things' that you need windows for. Apple is giving the "boot camp" partition for 3rd party pickings. It's plausible denability for Microsoft "no Bill, we didn't mean to wreck your OEM business model/strangle hold on "PCs" ". Which, will allow Apple to sell more hardware, gain market share and transition people over to OS X et al. (see AI's next story "Apple reiterates: no interest in virtualization for Leopard" for the plausible denial....)

They killed two birds and didn't even have to throw the stone!
Good for <del>wiki</del>OpenLeaks
<del>wiki</del>OpenLeaks for Good
Reply
Good for <del>wiki</del>OpenLeaks
<del>wiki</del>OpenLeaks for Good
Reply
post #73 of 99
Null.
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
post #74 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by vocaro

Yes. If the license prevents running Vista in a virtual machine, and you're running Vista under Parallels, then you're running it in a virtual machine and thus violating the license. It doesn't matter whether Vista was installed on a separate partition or as an image on the Mac partition. It's still running virtually.

All the more reason to stay away from Vista.

There is significant doubt as to whether or not that license restriction is legally valid. There are limits as to what can go in a license and there are more than a few industry legal types that don't see how that can actually be enforceable.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #75 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

The games don't run the graphics board. they output to Apples' graphics software. That outputs to the board.

Not always true. GPU's consume OpenGL code directly, you don't have to go through the OS's interface to do this. Apple's new OGL twist is actually a step in the right direction though, making it more valuable to let the OS handle the OGL calls rather than just leaving them all as driver trap calls.

Quote:
We would need someone who works on that software to say for certain. We are just going to be guessing. But, I don't think the OS will just gives up control that easily. All modern OS's keep the programs as far away from the hardware as possible.

Yes, it is a difficult problem and was categorically impossible several years ago. I am waiting to see what Parallels does with the modern GPU hardware, there may be new firmware wrinkles that allow some level of hardware virtualization which did not exist before.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #76 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM

For instance, I have not found an OS X DVD decrypter/ripper that rips directly to an ISO file, much less one that shrinks a dual layer disc to fit on a single layer disc. I have a Windows app that does just that.

YadeX can rip DVDs to a disc image and MactheRipper rips to video_ts, which can be converted to an image using DVDimager or possibly ffmpegx. ffmpegx also has a DVD requantizer to convert a dual layer to a single layer. I prefer DVD2one though because it compresses while maintaining all the menus and chapters.

I rip with MactheRipper to video_ts and compress using DVD2one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM

I can chose from a wider range of engineering software. My microcontroller devel environment, and third party compiler, are Windows-only. I just bought an engraving laser, none of the ones that I found were OS X compatible to the slightest degree. I am generally moving more tasks to OS X, but it is slow and I really don't see a complete changeover. I really don't think Linux is very suitable for a non-techie.

I don't know about dedicated hardware solutions but I would imagine most are Windows-only. One I know of from rendering is Nvidia Gelato. Most annoyingly, they say that if they see enough demand for OS X, they will port it and yet they already have a Linux port. Houdini is also only available on Windows.

This is not Apple's fault but that of short-sighted developers who don't seem to realise that if the software is available then users will switch and instead just say they won't port the software because of a lack of users. It's a catch-22. Further dependence on Windows only makes the problem worse because developers still won't care enough to make a change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewis

PC gaming may not be dead yet but it really does need to get it over with and R.I.P.

To an extent I agree but what would be really nice is if Apple made a console component a BTO option. The PS2 is so small, I bet they could fit the components required into an iMac. Then there could be a gaming section to Front Row and this would allow PS2 gamers the ability to play console games with the keyboard and mouse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunilraman

It's good though that one can play PC games on a Mac, though only an iMac, MacPro, or MacBookPro

I'm playing HL2 on my Mac Mini via Crossover. Episode 1 has some graphics glitches but HL2 was fine. It has to be on lower settings but the game is still very enjoyable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kupan787

Now, on the other hand, how hard would it be for Parallels, when switching to full screen mode, to just take control of the graphics card completely.

I'd say pretty hard. The Parallels interface will be drawn using Mac APIs. If the Mac video driver gets offloaded, so does the Parallels window, whether it's full-screen or not. It would then have to load the DirectX driver from Windows and start drawing itself using that and reverse the process to switch back. The biggest problem I'd see is instability. If Parallels crashes, what is left to turn your Mac display driver back on? Perhap they could have a separate daemon running to do this but it's still pretty complicated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

The new beta claims a 50% increase in graphics performance, so they must have found something out.

They don't mean hardware accelerated graphics though, they've just optimized what was there already. Virtual PC had similar claims.

Concerning Parallels vs VMWare, I want Parallels to come out on top. I don't like that VMWare is taking so long to come to market. Parallels was there from the beginning.
post #77 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin

YadeX can rip DVDs to a disc image and MactheRipper rips to video_ts, which can be converted to an image using DVDimager or possibly ffmpegx. ffmpegx also has a DVD requantizer to convert a dual layer to a single layer. I prefer DVD2one though because it compresses while maintaining all the menus and chapters.

I rip with MactheRipper to video_ts and compress using DVD2one.

I'm not really seeing good alternatives there. DVDshrink decrypted, saved directly to an ISO, maintains the menus, titles and chapters and offers re-compression all in one stage and one program that was free. The only down side is that it was C&D'd out of existence, so I'm using a copy that I downloaded before then, and I have a backup of the original program installer. While one can always cobble together alternatives to work on an alternative operating system, but it's not necessarily as nice.

I wouldn't call a developer sticking to one platform short sighted, its simply pragmatic from a business perspective, with the same investment, one can make one good program or one acceptable program with a mediocre port to another operating system. I think it's better for some other developer to make similar software for another platform.
post #78 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepp5

That means the user is running unsafe software such as IE, Outlook, Windows Messenger or some other malware carrier...

What if your iPod for Windows installs the malware (it happens!)?
post #79 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

I'm assuming that you are talking about Doom running from within Windows, within the virtualized environment.

In that case, only OS X controls the graphics. Everything else uses commands that have to be translated into Apple's own graphics landscape. That's what slows it down. Also remember that Apple doesn't have Direct X, So those commands also have to be translated to something that might not completely correspond.



I really don't know. someone who does that kind of programming would have to answer that. Perhaps that's what they do now.

The new beta claims a 50% increase in graphics performance, so they must have found something out.


Well, normally emulators/virtual machines act as the display device by providing a memory buffer and compositing it together and sending it to the host OS as a bitmap to display. Obviously, if you composite the graphics (vectors, alpha layers, bitmaps, fonts, etc) in hardware its faster.

So what the general method (simplified for discussion) is:
Windows has a set of functions all display drivers must have. They are usually very similar to a large chunk of your GDI APIs, as the function calls translate into accelerated graphics functions. The method used generally takes those calls, and isntead of compositing it together into a bitmap for the host OS, sends the host OS its equivilent function. Then the host OS can send it to the real GPU for acceleration.

Quite simplely put, its a function call translation layer.
Its faster because it bypasses software based compositing; but its not as fast as having a dedicated GPU directly attached, and never will be. Until GPUs support this (and they won't, not enough people use it to make it worth their while), you will never have 100% speed in graphics, but this is close enough for most people.
post #80 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by dguisinger

So what the general method (simplified for discussion) is:
Windows has a set of functions all display drivers must have. They are usually very similar to a large chunk of your GDI APIs, as the function calls translate into accelerated graphics functions. The method used generally takes those calls, and isntead of compositing it together into a bitmap for the host OS, sends the host OS its equivilent function. Then the host OS can send it to the real GPU for acceleration.

Quite simplely put, its a function call translation layer.
Its faster because it bypasses software based compositing; but its not as fast as having a dedicated GPU directly attached, and never will be. Until GPUs support this (and they won't, not enough people use it to make it worth their while), you will never have 100% speed in graphics, but this is close enough for most people.

So are you saying that Parallels does something like the first paragraph, and if they did the second paragraph, things would be faster (sort of like what I was getting at)? Not 100% but maybe 75-80% native speed?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Parallels preps major update to Windows virtualization software