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.
Yep. To me it actually doesn't matter what speed VirtualPC runs at either. Even if it ran at 1/3rd the speed of the PPC version (which I'm sure it won't) having it run in a window alongside my Mac OS toolset is much more important than any other consideration. All it has to do is run IE6.
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.
hi aegis,
1.the promise of wine, crossover, darwine,is that the file system is seamless. a pc file say notepad.exe is right there, you can see it in the mac os finder, drag it anywhere you like, etc. so, better than virtual pc in the sense that there is only one primary file system (your mac hard disk) to worry about, unlike virtual pc where you have your different guest file systems for each guest virtual machine
2.yes, with that aspect VPC and also vmware (for linux and windows) offers a superior experience in that regard because that is a case where you *do* want to completely simulate various operating system environments -- the only hit is that you have to assign separate memory spaces to each guest OS. wow, we could be 5-10 years out from this, but imagine if virtualisation tech gets sophisticated enough that it would split memory spaces on the fly really intelligently
so anyway i think what melgross said a while back is relevant. there are a lot of good options opening up now for windows and mac osX86 harmony:
1. dual booting
eg. best for gaming
2. crossover/wine/darwine/etc
eg. best for running windows applications seamlessly alongside mac applications in os X environment
3. virtual pc for mac os x(86)
eg. best for testing and simulating guest windoze environments, also handy where darwine support for an app is incomplete
1.the promise of xen, wine, crossover, darwine,is that the file system is seamless. a pc file say notepad.exe is right there, you can see it in the mac os finder, drag it anywhere you like, etc. so, better than virtual pc in the sense that there is only one primary file system (your mac hard disk) to worry about, unlike virtual pc where you have your different guest file systems for each guest virtual machine
2.yes, with that aspect VPC and also vmware (for linux and windows) offers a superior experience in that regard because that is a case where you *do* want to completely simulate various operating system environments -- the only hit is that you have to assign separate memory spaces to each guest OS. wow, we could be 5-10 years out from this, but imagine if virtualisation tech gets sophisticated enough that it would split memory spaces on the fly really intelligently
so anyway i think what melgross said a while back is relevant. there are a lot of good options opening up now for windows and mac osX86 harmony:
1. dual booting
eg. best for gaming
2. crossover/wine/xen/darwine/etc
eg. best for running windows applications seamlessly alongside mac applications in os X environment
3. virtual pc for mac os x(86)
eg. best for testing and simulating guest windoze environments, also handy where darwine support for an app is incomplete
4. intel CPU virtualisation technology?????
Well said.
#4 is a real question, isn't it? The chip itself is supposed to be partitioned off in this scheme, just like disk partitions. Whatever happens in one should not affect the other. Still, there will be performance losses for each OS running. Just how much remains to be seen. It both are being used at the same time we will see that is just can't be helped.
yeah, you know, something like this virtualisation deal is where intel needs someone like apple to really apply it well... i am wondering if this is something iSteve saw that he really liked 8)
edit: say this 5 times fast: apple applies applications absolutely applicably .. apple applies applications absolutely applicably .. apple applies applications absolutely applicably .. apple applies applications absolutely applicably .. apple applies applications absolutely applicably .. apple applies applications absolutely applicably ..
Wouldn't this work just as well as dual booting, now that we're on Intel?
No. VPC lets you drag and drop between OSs whilst both are running, share networking, hardware and it's much easier to create virtual partitions without having to mess about with actual real hard disk partitions.
For instance, I've a backup copy of a clean Win2000 install whoch I use whenever my current VPC win2000 install goes bad.
I think it's also quite sad that we're talking about Intel's new virtualization technology when IBM have been doing it for decades (at least since I used it back in 1986) and the POWER chips for quite some time too. Ah well.
No. VPC lets you drag and drop between OSs whilst both are running, share networking, hardware and it's much easier to create virtual partitions without having to mess about with actual real hard disk partitions.
For instance, I've a backup copy of a clean Win2000 install whoch I use whenever my current VPC win2000 install goes bad.
I think it's also quite sad that we're talking about Intel's new virtualization technology when IBM have been doing it for decades (at least since I used it back in 1986) and the POWER chips for quite some time too. Ah well.
That's true, but IBM only had it for it's own OS's.
1.the promise of xen, wine, crossover, darwine,is that the file system is seamless. a pc file say notepad.exe is right there, you can see it in the mac os finder, drag it anywhere you like, etc. so, better than virtual pc in the sense that there is only one primary file system (your mac hard disk) to worry about, unlike virtual pc where you have your different guest file systems for each guest virtual machine
This is true for WINE and its derivatives, but Xen really shouldn't be on that list.
It was thought by analysts and those in the industry that IBM might offer OS X on POWER or PPC servers.
IBM is OS neutral. That's why it was thought that they would be interested in reselling an OS from its longtime partner, as it offers them from it's longtime (first partner) rival MS.
Don't forget that Apple and IBM had combined to produce an OS before, and while that project didn't result in the planned OS, both companies have used technologies from that project.
You know what I mean. I said that they have their own. They sell other OS;s other than their own as well. Novell, Windows, Linux. Others over the years as well.
IBM is a solutions company. They reccomend products to their customers even if it means that they resell another companies product other than their own.
They've sold Oracle's database to customers who were buying their machines rather than Db2 when the customer preferred that.
You know what I mean. I said that they have their own. They sell other OS;s other than their own as well. Novell, Windows, Linux. Others over the years as well.
That only really applies to xSeries, for which there's no IBM proprietary OS anyway (well, none that still breathes, so OS/2 doesn't count). i-, p- and zSeries machines AFAIK are only offered with IBM proprietary operating systems or Linux (or both when using LPAR).
That only really applies to xSeries, for which there's no IBM proprietary OS anyway (well, none that still breathes, so OS/2 doesn't count). i-, p- and zSeries machines AFAIK are only offered with IBM proprietary operating systems or Linux (or both when using LPAR).
That's true, but IBM has other product lines, and is even expanding them. The longevity of the old 400 series surprised even them.
Comments
Originally posted by melgross
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.
Yep. To me it actually doesn't matter what speed VirtualPC runs at either. Even if it ran at 1/3rd the speed of the PPC version (which I'm sure it won't) having it run in a window alongside my Mac OS toolset is much more important than any other consideration. All it has to do is run IE6.
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.
hi aegis,
1.the promise of wine, crossover, darwine,is that the file system is seamless. a pc file say notepad.exe is right there, you can see it in the mac os finder, drag it anywhere you like, etc. so, better than virtual pc in the sense that there is only one primary file system (your mac hard disk) to worry about, unlike virtual pc where you have your different guest file systems for each guest virtual machine
2.yes, with that aspect VPC and also vmware (for linux and windows) offers a superior experience in that regard because that is a case where you *do* want to completely simulate various operating system environments -- the only hit is that you have to assign separate memory spaces to each guest OS. wow, we could be 5-10 years out from this, but imagine if virtualisation tech gets sophisticated enough that it would split memory spaces on the fly really intelligently
so anyway i think what melgross said a while back is relevant. there are a lot of good options opening up now for windows and mac osX86 harmony:
1. dual booting
eg. best for gaming
2. crossover/wine/darwine/etc
eg. best for running windows applications seamlessly alongside mac applications in os X environment
3. virtual pc for mac os x(86)
eg. best for testing and simulating guest windoze environments, also handy where darwine support for an app is incomplete
4. intel CPU virtualisation technology?????
Originally posted by sunilraman
hi aegis,
1.the promise of xen, wine, crossover, darwine,is that the file system is seamless. a pc file say notepad.exe is right there, you can see it in the mac os finder, drag it anywhere you like, etc. so, better than virtual pc in the sense that there is only one primary file system (your mac hard disk) to worry about, unlike virtual pc where you have your different guest file systems for each guest virtual machine
2.yes, with that aspect VPC and also vmware (for linux and windows) offers a superior experience in that regard because that is a case where you *do* want to completely simulate various operating system environments -- the only hit is that you have to assign separate memory spaces to each guest OS. wow, we could be 5-10 years out from this, but imagine if virtualisation tech gets sophisticated enough that it would split memory spaces on the fly really intelligently
so anyway i think what melgross said a while back is relevant. there are a lot of good options opening up now for windows and mac osX86 harmony:
1. dual booting
eg. best for gaming
2. crossover/wine/xen/darwine/etc
eg. best for running windows applications seamlessly alongside mac applications in os X environment
3. virtual pc for mac os x(86)
eg. best for testing and simulating guest windoze environments, also handy where darwine support for an app is incomplete
4. intel CPU virtualisation technology?????
Well said.
#4 is a real question, isn't it? The chip itself is supposed to be partitioned off in this scheme, just like disk partitions. Whatever happens in one should not affect the other. Still, there will be performance losses for each OS running. Just how much remains to be seen. It both are being used at the same time we will see that is just can't be helped.
edit: say this 5 times fast: apple applies applications absolutely applicably .. apple applies applications absolutely applicably .. apple applies applications absolutely applicably .. apple applies applications absolutely applicably .. apple applies applications absolutely applicably .. apple applies applications absolutely applicably ..
Originally posted by sunilraman
3. virtual pc for mac os x(86)
eg. best for testing and simulating guest windoze environments, also handy where darwine support for an app is incomplete
Wouldn't this work just as well as dual booting, now that we're on Intel?
Originally posted by mynamehere
Wouldn't this work just as well as dual booting, now that we're on Intel?
Ha! Read back about fifteen twenty posts.
This discussion just goes round and round.
Originally posted by mynamehere
Wouldn't this work just as well as dual booting, now that we're on Intel?
No. VPC lets you drag and drop between OSs whilst both are running, share networking, hardware and it's much easier to create virtual partitions without having to mess about with actual real hard disk partitions.
For instance, I've a backup copy of a clean Win2000 install whoch I use whenever my current VPC win2000 install goes bad.
I think it's also quite sad that we're talking about Intel's new virtualization technology when IBM have been doing it for decades (at least since I used it back in 1986) and the POWER chips for quite some time too. Ah well.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
No. VPC lets you drag and drop between OSs whilst both are running, share networking, hardware and it's much easier to create virtual partitions without having to mess about with actual real hard disk partitions.
For instance, I've a backup copy of a clean Win2000 install whoch I use whenever my current VPC win2000 install goes bad.
I think it's also quite sad that we're talking about Intel's new virtualization technology when IBM have been doing it for decades (at least since I used it back in 1986) and the POWER chips for quite some time too. Ah well.
That's true, but IBM only had it for it's own OS's.
And now it's affordable.
Originally posted by sunilraman
1.the promise of xen, wine, crossover, darwine,is that the file system is seamless. a pc file say notepad.exe is right there, you can see it in the mac os finder, drag it anywhere you like, etc. so, better than virtual pc in the sense that there is only one primary file system (your mac hard disk) to worry about, unlike virtual pc where you have your different guest file systems for each guest virtual machine
This is true for WINE and its derivatives, but Xen really shouldn't be on that list.
Originally posted by melgross
That's true, but IBM only had it for it's own OS's.
Of course it only works for operating systems that actually run on their hardware, but that should include Linux as well.
Originally posted by RazzFazz
Of course it only works for operating systems that actually run on their hardware, but that should include Linux as well.
Yes, with IBM being a big supplier of Linux these days.
Remember when it was hoped that they would be a big supplier of OS X as well?
Originally posted by RazzFazz
This is true for WINE and its derivatives, but Xen really shouldn't be on that list.
fair enough mate. i'll edit tha post.
...Remember when it was hoped that they would be a big supplier of OS X as well?
actually, i think i missed that one for some reason.... well, looks like it hasn't worked out as hoped
Originally posted by melgross
Remember when it was hoped that they would be a big supplier of OS X as well?
Hoped by whom?
Just ill-informed rumour-merchants, I'd suspect.
Originally posted by krispie
Hoped by whom?
Just ill-informed rumour-merchants, I'd suspect.
Not ill informed at all.
It was thought by analysts and those in the industry that IBM might offer OS X on POWER or PPC servers.
IBM is OS neutral. That's why it was thought that they would be interested in reselling an OS from its longtime partner, as it offers them from it's longtime (first partner) rival MS.
Don't forget that Apple and IBM had combined to produce an OS before, and while that project didn't result in the planned OS, both companies have used technologies from that project.
Originally posted by melgross
IBM is OS neutral.
Uh, ever heard of i5/OS, AIX or z/OS?
Originally posted by RazzFazz
Uh, ever heard of i5/OS, AIX or z/OS?
Exactly IBM want to control the server market, and you can't do that if you don't control the OS, especially if you sell services.
Originally posted by RazzFazz
Uh, ever heard of i5/OS, AIX or z/OS?
You know what I mean. I said that they have their own. They sell other OS;s other than their own as well. Novell, Windows, Linux. Others over the years as well.
IBM is a solutions company. They reccomend products to their customers even if it means that they resell another companies product other than their own.
They've sold Oracle's database to customers who were buying their machines rather than Db2 when the customer preferred that.
Originally posted by melgross
You know what I mean. I said that they have their own. They sell other OS;s other than their own as well. Novell, Windows, Linux. Others over the years as well.
That only really applies to xSeries, for which there's no IBM proprietary OS anyway (well, none that still breathes, so OS/2 doesn't count). i-, p- and zSeries machines AFAIK are only offered with IBM proprietary operating systems or Linux (or both when using LPAR).
Originally posted by RazzFazz
That only really applies to xSeries, for which there's no IBM proprietary OS anyway (well, none that still breathes, so OS/2 doesn't count). i-, p- and zSeries machines AFAIK are only offered with IBM proprietary operating systems or Linux (or both when using LPAR).
That's true, but IBM has other product lines, and is even expanding them. The longevity of the old 400 series surprised even them.