downloading it now will PM you kids if i ever get it up and running on my overclocked venice as i am in the far flung reaches of civilisation, it'll take about a week of bittorrent to get tha goods.
downloading it now will PM you kids if i ever get it up and running on my overclocked venice as i am in the far flung reaches of civilisation, it'll take about a week of bittorrent to get tha goods.
Better do it quick. Bit Torrent just agreed to take down ALL pointers to, uh, less than squeeky clean material.
It's a silly article anyway. I mean this is complete bullshit:
"... to remove Web links to pirated versions of movies from his Web site, bittorrent.com, effectively frustrating people who search for illegal copies of films."
Sure, very frustrating, because I always go to bittorrent.com--oh wait--I've NEVER gone to bittorrent.com!
It's a silly article anyway. I mean this is complete bullshit:
"... to remove Web links to pirated versions of movies from his Web site, bittorrent.com, effectively frustrating people who search for illegal copies of films."
Sure, very frustrating, because I always go to bittorrent.com--oh wait--I've NEVER gone to bittorrent.com!
Stupid journalist.
I pulled the link directly from their page, strange.
I'm not. I would never direct people to use WINE. I would first try to get them to get Mac versions, if at all possible.
If that wasn't possible, and Crossover was available, I'd suggest that. If they NEEDED Windows (and some do), I'd suggest that they dual boot - if it can be done. We don't know that yet.
If it was an occasional program, and they didn't NEED power, then I'd suggest a VM, if available.
Lastly, I'd suggest that they find someone to install WINE and their program for them.
EDIT:
Just reread your post. Crossover will, hopefully, be running under Aqua on the x86 machines.
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.
OTOH, with Virtual PC, Windows is running on an *emulated* Intel processor with an *emulated* video card, etc. There is a *tremendous* slowdown doing it this way.
So I just don't see the need for dual booting on a dual-core Intel with OS X Intel. You'd just have a separate VM for Windows. It would run at near-real speed, and you wouldn't have to reboot just to run QuickBooks or a game.
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.
Correct.
Quote:
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.
You'd need some sort of a hypervisor (e.g. Xen), though. For purely compute-bound tasks, you'd essentially see native speed; however, there is some overhead for access to virtualized I/O and such.
Quote:
OTOH, with Virtual PC, Windows is running on an *emulated* Intel processor with an *emulated* video card, etc. There is a *tremendous* slowdown doing it this way.
When you say "VM", are you talking about somethig like VMWare, or something like Xen?
VMWare (and Virtual PC on x86) only differ from VPC/Mac in that there is no need to translate code from PPC to x86; the guest systems still use emulated graphics, sound and other I/O devices.
But even for a true hypervisor, you can't just let multiple VMs use the same video card (or any other shared I/O device) simultaneously. Graphics drivers for OS X and Windows are designed to take full, exclusive control of the graphics card, i.e. they expect to be able to access the entire VRAM, the cards config registers, etc. without any external restrictions. Allowing multiple drivers to access the hardware at will simultaneously would result in chaos, so you'd either have to provide a dedicated graphics card for each VM, or some kind of virtualization would have to take place (resulting in additional overhead).
Quote:
So I just don't see the need for dual booting on a dual-core Intel with OS X Intel. You'd just have a separate VM for Windows. It would run at near-real speed, and you wouldn't have to reboot just to run QuickBooks or a game.
Am I misunderstanding something?
I guess that would depend on whether a sufficiently sophisticated virtualization solution will be available for the Intel-based Macs. VMWare would certainly not be a very good choice for games.
All NeXT computers rans variations of the Motorola 68030 and 68040. There may have been an after market 68060, but I think I'm confusing that with the Nitro board (66 MHz 68040?). Long time ago.
After NeXT abandoned hardware, it ran on a small subset of generic Intel hardware, then HP-PA RISC workstations, then SPARCstations, and finally, Apple PowerPC. Next year, it'll come back to Intel.
I find it interesting that this all could have been done back when NeXT became os X . It's painfully obvious that os X is a good deal NeXT (home icon, window sidebar etc. etc.)... although it is color. (yes, I tried one of the cludgy betas- quite an interesting trip to see OpenStep on an apple)
The thing that intrigues me is back when everyone felt this should mean a move towards OS multiplatform compatibility, Apple wasn't biting. And now, they find themselves having to backpeddle and rework code, when this could have been done from the beginning when Jobs came in with *X (and a few rumors say it was "working" on intel in house). Mind you, I understand the hardware/software link... let's face it, Apple is a hardware company... they make their money there, and for the most part, their hardware is beautiful (minus the cluster of dead pixels in the left hand center of my 15" streaky high-res powerbook just purchased). So, they would have lost a lot by going multi-platform (we all remember the PPC compatibles, eh?)... This os could be running on every darned box on the market, if Apple wished it to be so. Obviously Apple doesn't, so it's not. However, they now have more work cut out for themselves that they could have been working on since X was first implemented.
Although, perhaps it's not important to have Apple on every piece of hardware imaginable to mankind: Where's the keyboard?
One intriguing question I have: how will the new intel DRM be utilized what with the thumb-screws being applied to Jobs as of late. [Kudos for him for making this work, but now he must fight back the zombies with sticks if he's going to keep it moving strong... for an almost cost-free distribution system, they should be happy with $1/song... especially with the DRM and lack of physical artwork.]
Alright, I rambled... I'm sorry... _Ducking from throwing stones here_
The fact still remains- from the old Apple ][e, I'm still here... guess I prefer the light flogging to the heavy flogging in the PC world.
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.
OTOH, with Virtual PC, Windows is running on an *emulated* Intel processor with an *emulated* video card, etc. There is a *tremendous* slowdown doing it this way.
So I just don't see the need for dual booting on a dual-core Intel with OS X Intel. You'd just have a separate VM for Windows. It would run at near-real speed, and you wouldn't have to reboot just to run QuickBooks or a game.
Am I misunderstanding something?
RazzFazz is correct. But beyond that is the fact that you will still be running two OS's at the same time. As OS X, Windows, and at least most Linux distro's are symmetrical in their use of cpu's the OS will span both cpu's.
OS X works much better with two slower cpu's than it does with one faster one. It also splits services.
Now this is not inherently a bad thing when running a virtual service such as VMware or Xen (which I've never used). But you are not getting the entire computing power of the machine for either of the OS's in use. Even if you are not running any OS X user based program at the time, the OS is still doing it's own work. If you are not sure of what that would mean for usage rates, check the Activity monitor. Remember you are still using the services of X to run VM ware or Xen. That is overhead not incurred when running a dual booted OS.
Again, though, we don't know for sure whether Apple will let us dual boot. I think they will, from what it says in their patent. But, it might not be possible, so this may be moot.
Crossover, when it works, will not have this problem to the same extent, and WINE is truly a pain.
I've not played with VMware, Xen, WINE or Crossover so perhaps someone could answer this.
The advantage I see with running VirtualPC over dual booting, apart from the obvious ability to run two OSs at the same time, is that you can drag and drop files between Explorer and Finder and cut and paste between the two OSs. That IME is worth the price of VirtualPC.
For me it's secondary advantage is I've got three VPC sessions, each with a different browser installed. It's the best way to test IE compatibility.
I've not played with VMware, Xen, WINE or Crossover so perhaps someone could answer this.
The advantage I see with running VirtualPC over dual booting, apart from the obvious ability to run two OSs at the same time, is that you can drag and drop files between Explorer and Finder and cut and paste between the two OSs. That IME is worth the price of VirtualPC.
For me it's secondary advantage is I've got three VPC sessions, each with a different browser installed. It's the best way to test IE compatibility.
This is why I've been saying that the best solution will vary with each persons needs.
There is no best solution that will be the same for everyone.
Comments
Originally posted by melgross
That's true, if they did that they wouldn't need a quartz driver. But the Darwine team strobe is working on one anyway.
There, fixed that for you. Hope the cluemobile didn't clip you as it sped over your head.
Originally posted by strobe
Hope the cluemobile didn't clip me as it sped over my head.
T, FTFY.
Forget one too.
/LANAED?
Originally posted by strobe
I Learn a new acronym every day.
I Forget one too.
T, FTFY.
Originally posted by strobe
There, fixed that for you. Hope the cluemobile didn't clip you as it sped over your head.
Your cluemobile hit a bump and went off the road.
A lot of people claim a lot of things.
If true, this is a big one:
http://www.osx86project.org/index.ph...id=68&Itemid=2
It could be the reason why Apple MIGHT be able to intro a machine in January.
Originally posted by sunilraman
downloading it now
Better do it quick. Bit Torrent just agreed to take down ALL pointers to, uh, less than squeeky clean material.
Originally posted by melgross
Better do it quick. Bit Torrent just agreed to take down ALL pointers to, uh, less than squeeky clean material.
Haven't they just agreed to remove movie-related material?
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Haven't they just agreed to remove movie-related material?
Yes, they have. I was putting it succinctly.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051123/...NlYwN5bmNhdA--
AltiVec emulation of some operators will be slow (like permute) so I hope there is an option to revert to G3 emulation.
Originally posted by melgross
Yes, they have. I was putting it succinctly.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051123/...NlYwN5bmNhdA--
They agreed to not provide search functions for movies, and OSXonX86 does not qualify.
Originally posted by melgross
Yes, they have. I was putting it succinctly.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051123/...NlYwN5bmNhdA--
Here's a link to that article that will actually work:
clicky
It's a silly article anyway. I mean this is complete bullshit:
"... to remove Web links to pirated versions of movies from his Web site, bittorrent.com, effectively frustrating people who search for illegal copies of films."
Sure, very frustrating, because I always go to bittorrent.com--oh wait--I've NEVER gone to bittorrent.com!
Stupid journalist.
Originally posted by strobe
Here's a link to that article that will actually work:
clicky
It's a silly article anyway. I mean this is complete bullshit:
"... to remove Web links to pirated versions of movies from his Web site, bittorrent.com, effectively frustrating people who search for illegal copies of films."
Sure, very frustrating, because I always go to bittorrent.com--oh wait--I've NEVER gone to bittorrent.com!
Stupid journalist.
I pulled the link directly from their page, strange.
Well, millions do.
Originally posted by melgross
I'm not. I would never direct people to use WINE. I would first try to get them to get Mac versions, if at all possible.
If that wasn't possible, and Crossover was available, I'd suggest that. If they NEEDED Windows (and some do), I'd suggest that they dual boot - if it can be done. We don't know that yet.
If it was an occasional program, and they didn't NEED power, then I'd suggest a VM, if available.
Lastly, I'd suggest that they find someone to install WINE and their program for them.
EDIT:
Just reread your post. Crossover will, hopefully, be running under Aqua on the x86 machines.
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.
OTOH, with Virtual PC, Windows is running on an *emulated* Intel processor with an *emulated* video card, etc. There is a *tremendous* slowdown doing it this way.
So I just don't see the need for dual booting on a dual-core Intel with OS X Intel. You'd just have a separate VM for Windows. It would run at near-real speed, and you wouldn't have to reboot just to run QuickBooks or a game.
Am I misunderstanding something?
Originally posted by bikertwin
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.
Correct.
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.
You'd need some sort of a hypervisor (e.g. Xen), though. For purely compute-bound tasks, you'd essentially see native speed; however, there is some overhead for access to virtualized I/O and such.
OTOH, with Virtual PC, Windows is running on an *emulated* Intel processor with an *emulated* video card, etc. There is a *tremendous* slowdown doing it this way.
When you say "VM", are you talking about somethig like VMWare, or something like Xen?
VMWare (and Virtual PC on x86) only differ from VPC/Mac in that there is no need to translate code from PPC to x86; the guest systems still use emulated graphics, sound and other I/O devices.
But even for a true hypervisor, you can't just let multiple VMs use the same video card (or any other shared I/O device) simultaneously. Graphics drivers for OS X and Windows are designed to take full, exclusive control of the graphics card, i.e. they expect to be able to access the entire VRAM, the cards config registers, etc. without any external restrictions. Allowing multiple drivers to access the hardware at will simultaneously would result in chaos, so you'd either have to provide a dedicated graphics card for each VM, or some kind of virtualization would have to take place (resulting in additional overhead).
So I just don't see the need for dual booting on a dual-core Intel with OS X Intel. You'd just have a separate VM for Windows. It would run at near-real speed, and you wouldn't have to reboot just to run QuickBooks or a game.
Am I misunderstanding something?
I guess that would depend on whether a sufficiently sophisticated virtualization solution will be available for the Intel-based Macs. VMWare would certainly not be a very good choice for games.
Originally posted by THT
All NeXT computers rans variations of the Motorola 68030 and 68040. There may have been an after market 68060, but I think I'm confusing that with the Nitro board (66 MHz 68040?). Long time ago.
After NeXT abandoned hardware, it ran on a small subset of generic Intel hardware, then HP-PA RISC workstations, then SPARCstations, and finally, Apple PowerPC. Next year, it'll come back to Intel.
I find it interesting that this all could have been done back when NeXT became os X . It's painfully obvious that os X is a good deal NeXT (home icon, window sidebar etc. etc.)... although it is color.
The thing that intrigues me is back when everyone felt this should mean a move towards OS multiplatform compatibility, Apple wasn't biting. And now, they find themselves having to backpeddle and rework code, when this could have been done from the beginning when Jobs came in with *X (and a few rumors say it was "working" on intel in house). Mind you, I understand the hardware/software link... let's face it, Apple is a hardware company... they make their money there, and for the most part, their hardware is beautiful (minus the cluster of dead pixels in the left hand center of my 15" streaky high-res powerbook just purchased). So, they would have lost a lot by going multi-platform (we all remember the PPC compatibles, eh?)... This os could be running on every darned box on the market, if Apple wished it to be so. Obviously Apple doesn't, so it's not. However, they now have more work cut out for themselves that they could have been working on since X was first implemented.
Although, perhaps it's not important to have Apple on every piece of hardware imaginable to mankind: Where's the keyboard?
One intriguing question I have: how will the new intel DRM be utilized what with the thumb-screws being applied to Jobs as of late. [Kudos for him for making this work, but now he must fight back the zombies with sticks if he's going to keep it moving strong... for an almost cost-free distribution system, they should be happy with $1/song... especially with the DRM and lack of physical artwork.]
Alright, I rambled... I'm sorry...
The fact still remains- from the old Apple ][e, I'm still here... guess I prefer the light flogging to the heavy flogging in the PC world.
Originally posted by bikertwin
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.
OTOH, with Virtual PC, Windows is running on an *emulated* Intel processor with an *emulated* video card, etc. There is a *tremendous* slowdown doing it this way.
So I just don't see the need for dual booting on a dual-core Intel with OS X Intel. You'd just have a separate VM for Windows. It would run at near-real speed, and you wouldn't have to reboot just to run QuickBooks or a game.
Am I misunderstanding something?
RazzFazz is correct. But beyond that is the fact that you will still be running two OS's at the same time. As OS X, Windows, and at least most Linux distro's are symmetrical in their use of cpu's the OS will span both cpu's.
OS X works much better with two slower cpu's than it does with one faster one. It also splits services.
Now this is not inherently a bad thing when running a virtual service such as VMware or Xen (which I've never used). But you are not getting the entire computing power of the machine for either of the OS's in use. Even if you are not running any OS X user based program at the time, the OS is still doing it's own work. If you are not sure of what that would mean for usage rates, check the Activity monitor. Remember you are still using the services of X to run VM ware or Xen. That is overhead not incurred when running a dual booted OS.
Again, though, we don't know for sure whether Apple will let us dual boot. I think they will, from what it says in their patent. But, it might not be possible, so this may be moot.
Crossover, when it works, will not have this problem to the same extent, and WINE is truly a pain.
The advantage I see with running VirtualPC over dual booting, apart from the obvious ability to run two OSs at the same time, is that you can drag and drop files between Explorer and Finder and cut and paste between the two OSs. That IME is worth the price of VirtualPC.
For me it's secondary advantage is I've got three VPC sessions, each with a different browser installed. It's the best way to test IE compatibility.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
I've not played with VMware, Xen, WINE or Crossover so perhaps someone could answer this.
The advantage I see with running VirtualPC over dual booting, apart from the obvious ability to run two OSs at the same time, is that you can drag and drop files between Explorer and Finder and cut and paste between the two OSs. That IME is worth the price of VirtualPC.
For me it's secondary advantage is I've got three VPC sessions, each with a different browser installed. It's the best way to test IE compatibility.
This is why I've been saying that the best solution will vary with each persons needs.
There is no best solution that will be the same for everyone.