Intel virtualization is what is needed. Just switch betwen Mac OS X, Linux and Windows in real time. Freedom. Then millions will switch to Mac OS X for most of their taks.
On the other hand, M$ stuff is just shit. Office is shit. And Windows is shit. They have not gone out of business because of inertia (95% market share).
With the new Mactels things may change, once people taste Mac OS X.
Having said that, we need tons of triple-boot machines (best with Intel virtualization).
Intel virtualization is what is needed. Just switch betwen Mac OS X, Linux and Windows in real time. Freedom. Then millions will switch to Mac OS X for most of their taks.
On the other hand, M$ stuff is just shit. Office is shit. And Windows is shit. They have not gone out of business because of inertia (95% market share).
With the new Mactels things may change, once people taste Mac OS X.
Having said that, we need tons of triple-boot machines (best with Intel virtualization).
Uhh, if everyone switches to Mac hardware and runs VPC with Windows, guess what? MS is selling everyone XP or Vista, maybe the Office apps for Windows and of course VPC. Yeah, they would go out of business.
MS doesn't get paid by the hourly usage of their apps. They get paid for sales. No matter how you or most of us around here feel about MS, they aren't going out of business anytime soon. Probably not in your lifetime. The sooner you start to enjoy what you use and quit worrying about the other stuff, the more satisfied with life you will be.
Actually, there is every reason to believe it will.
VPC's lack of support for video cards was because it was emulating a very basic PC. Translating code for Mac hardware was too difficult to do for anything more than the most basic tasks. Therefore it emulates a PC video card in software - very slow.
On an Intel Mac, none of this needs to be done. On a PC using VPC, Linux and the hardware supported by the native system works at about full speed. There is no reason to believe that it would work any differently here.
Windows will see a PC when it is running. It will have the drivers for the hardware, and will use them. It's possible that a few percent will be lost, but that's all. Playing PC games should work fine.
why bother? they are just gonna port or rewrite it for universal binary. making it use the video card, direct x etc... would take effort and money and like most things, MS couldnt give a shit. People arnt buying it for games, people are spending 350 for business programs.
But even if they did, your still going to have preformance lose... and i wouldnt characterize it as "few percent"... if that was the case then why does the current VPC run so shitty? Its not because its for PPC, its because its windows. Windows sucks. Running windows in another OS sucks worse. Running windows in another OS to run a game, sucks really bad.
He did say an iBook with an Intel chip which shouldn't be too bad.
Correct.
I run AutoCad 2005 LT on my 1.2 GHz iBook now. Although it is just for emergencies when I travel, but it does fine in a pinch as long as you don't get carried away.
If I had a 12" iBook with intel chip and rewritten VPC, no doubt it would run "well."
why bother? they are just gonna port or rewrite it for universal binary. making it use the video card, direct x etc... would take effort and money and like most things, MS couldnt give a shit. People arnt buying it for games, people are spending 350 for business programs.
But even if they did, your still going to have preformance lose... and i wouldnt characterize it as "few percent"... if that was the case then why does the current VPC run so shitty? Its not because its for PPC, its because its windows. Windows sucks. Running windows in another OS sucks worse. Running windows in another OS to run a game, sucks really bad.
I don't think they would do a Universal Binary of it. The underlying code is completely different. This is software that is tied closely to the architecture of the machine. That's why it won't even work in Rosetta.
I think they will allow the PPC version to molder, while they do a completely new one for x86, as they said they would have to.
Anyway, you don't know why people would buy this. On PPC, people couldn't use it for games, so they didn't. On x68, it's a different story.
I run AutoCad 2005 LT on my 1.2 GHz iBook now. Although it is just for emergencies when I travel, but it does fine in a pinch as long as you don't get carried away.
If I had a 12" iBook with intel chip and rewritten VPC, no doubt it would run "well."
Well, as I said, you've got balls.
I don't even like doing it with a 20" display. My 24 is fine.
I don't think they would do a Universal Binary of it. The underlying code is completely different. This is software that is tied closely to the architecture of the machine. That's why it won't even work in Rosetta.
I think they will allow the PPC version to molder, while they do a completely new one for x86, as they said they would have to.
Anyway, you don't know why people would buy this. On PPC, people couldn't use it for games, so they didn't. On x68, it's a different story.
if your right, its still an OS in another OS. and its still $350, so yes i can summarize few would buy this for games. Now whether people who buy it for business will use it for games as well, thats a given, knowing business people.
The only people i know that spend 350 for a single component to help play games are people like me... and for an expensive video card for their PC.
Darwine will have limited usefulness. Wine is not trivial to install, or use.
Crossover (which is built on top of Wine), puts a GUI onto it, eases the installing of the program itself, as well as the programs you will want to run. It is a long way off as well.
Wine doesn't run all programs either. If what you need is supported, fine. Otherwise, it won't help.
Intel virtualization is what is needed. Just switch betwen Mac OS X, Linux and Windows in real time. Freedom. Then millions will switch to Mac OS X for most of their taks.
On the other hand, M$ stuff is just shit. Office is shit. And Windows is shit. They have not gone out of business because of inertia (95% market share).
With the new Mactels things may change, once people taste Mac OS X.
Having said that, we need tons of triple-boot machines (best with Intel virtualization).
well, that's the *promise* of virtualization. will it be that easy to switch around OSes? i hope so, but i doubt it for 1st half of this year.
well, that's the *promise* of virtualization. will it be that easy to switch around OSes? i hope so, but i doubt it for 1st half of this year.
It's more than a promise. VMware does it flawlessly. My concern with VPC is that MS will limit it to running only MS products. What would be cool is a Rosetta like product that executes Windows programs. This would eliminate the need to run Windows in a virtual environment.
It's more than a promise. VMware does it flawlessly. My concern with VPC is that MS will limit it to running only MS products. What would be cool is a Rosetta like product that executes Windows programs. This would eliminate the need to run Windows in a virtual environment.
well, VPC for PPC lets you run linux at this stage. it would be weird (or maybe not so weird!) for MS to suddenly change tact to force you to only run MS OSes -- but if VPC for macintel requires "a complete rewrite" then they could very well do it.
heh. i guess i meant that's the *promise* wrt. the intel macs. i've played around with vmware, it's quite slick and we do see software virtualization in action.
of course, the next step:
1. "hardware virtualization" -- intel and amd are starting to tout the benefits of this in future products, afaik no one has really demonstrated how hardware virtualization really works.
2. a vmware-like application for intel macs that will run windows and linux operating systems (virtual pc? vmware for mac os x intel? iEmulator?)
dammnit!! so close to One Mac To Rule Them All* yet so far....
*Imagine if your Mac could run Os X AND Windows AND Linux. Play Mac games or PC games. Whenever, however you wanted. Open Microsoft Office documents. Exchange(pun intended) these documents with friends and coworkers. Seamlessly, transparently, efficiently. That would be the Mac that truly "freed" the Intel chip from its dull little tasks. A Mac that not only "just works", but OWNS too.
if your right, its still an OS in another OS. and its still $350, so yes i can summarize few would buy this for games. Now whether people who buy it for business will use it for games as well, thats a given, knowing business people.
The only people i know that spend 350 for a single component to help play games are people like me... and for an expensive video card for their PC.
I don't know. A lot of people buy it now, and that's without being able to play games.
Besides, PC games players buy these decked out AlienWare machines for over $3,000. I don't think that even $350 would faze them.
well, that's the *promise* of virtualization. will it be that easy to switch around OSes? i hope so, but i doubt it for 1st half of this year.
The other question that needs answering is just how this works. Supposedly, it make a space within the cpu somewhat like a drive partition.
How does this affect performance? Will having two OS's on the machine at once limit each to the performance of one cpu? What about the overhead?
VPC does the same thing for servers. What is the practical difference in performance? There each instance of the OS resides on one cpu, or portion thereof.
An iBook (or MacBook) might have one low power core. AutoCad requires far more than that.
It will also have a smaller, lower rez screen. Have you ever run a heavy duty CAD program with a low rez screen? It ain't pretty. It's hard to get much work done.
AutoCad does not require that much processor power in 2d. I draw on a 19" flat panel that is more than adequate for our drawings.
One low power core would be plenty for me. Again, this isn't to draw on every day, just when I am out of town and a product drawing has to get done.
Which card is better, an ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 or an ATI Radeon X800 Pro?
The X800 Pro is more powerful for sure... (if you're taking Desktop card.. not mobility)
Regarding the name "VirtualPC", just to be pedantic, will it still be the case? I mean, its not gonna be emulating anything... it'll (hopefully) just run it transparently. There is no actual Emulation needed anymore!
They just have to figure out how to be able to copy/paste stuff between the environments, share network connections, etc.. etc...
AutoCad does not require that much processor power in 2d. I draw on a 19" flat panel that is more than adequate for our drawings.
One low power core would be plenty for me. Again, this isn't to draw on every day, just when I am out of town and a product drawing has to get done.
I don't recall you saying 2 or 3D. Sure, 2D isn't much of a cpu problem. I usually assume 3D these days. The only time I've used 2D the last four years was when I was remodeling my home, and was just doing floor plans. For other work, I seem to be always using 3D modules.
The Rez of the screen is still a killer. But if it's just for occasional work.. But 1024 x 768!!!
I don't recall you saying 2 or 3D. Sure, 2D isn't much of a cpu problem. I usually assume 3D these days. The only time I've used 2D the last four years was when I was remodeling my home, and was just doing floor plans. For other work, I seem to be always using 3D modules.
The Rez of the screen is still a killer. But if it's just for occasional work.. But 1024 x 768!!!
melgrossYou use it daily?
I didn't specify 2d or 3d. I rarely do 3d and hate to do it when I have too.
Zo I agree with you but I bet they keep the name the same. Stop dropping French bombs on me. I want to learn French so bad it is killing me!! Maybe another trip coming up in June. My wife heads back in March, again without me!
Regarding the name "VirtualPC", just to be pedantic, will it still be the case? I mean, its not gonna be emulating anything... it'll (hopefully) just run it transparently. There is no actual Emulation needed anymore!
Even the PC version of VirtualPC is called VirtualPC. They'd definitely keep the same name.
But I hope the Vanderpool virtualization technology in Yonah makes VirtualPC obsolete. I admit that I don't fully understand what's possible with it, but I'd hope that you could run Windows easily without the need for something like VirtualPC.
Comments
On the other hand, M$ stuff is just shit. Office is shit. And Windows is shit. They have not gone out of business because of inertia (95% market share).
With the new Mactels things may change, once people taste Mac OS X.
Having said that, we need tons of triple-boot machines (best with Intel virtualization).
Originally posted by zunx
Intel virtualization is what is needed. Just switch betwen Mac OS X, Linux and Windows in real time. Freedom. Then millions will switch to Mac OS X for most of their taks.
On the other hand, M$ stuff is just shit. Office is shit. And Windows is shit. They have not gone out of business because of inertia (95% market share).
With the new Mactels things may change, once people taste Mac OS X.
Having said that, we need tons of triple-boot machines (best with Intel virtualization).
Uhh, if everyone switches to Mac hardware and runs VPC with Windows, guess what? MS is selling everyone XP or Vista, maybe the Office apps for Windows and of course VPC. Yeah, they would go out of business.
MS doesn't get paid by the hourly usage of their apps. They get paid for sales. No matter how you or most of us around here feel about MS, they aren't going out of business anytime soon. Probably not in your lifetime. The sooner you start to enjoy what you use and quit worrying about the other stuff, the more satisfied with life you will be.
Originally posted by melgross
Actually, there is every reason to believe it will.
VPC's lack of support for video cards was because it was emulating a very basic PC. Translating code for Mac hardware was too difficult to do for anything more than the most basic tasks. Therefore it emulates a PC video card in software - very slow.
On an Intel Mac, none of this needs to be done. On a PC using VPC, Linux and the hardware supported by the native system works at about full speed. There is no reason to believe that it would work any differently here.
Windows will see a PC when it is running. It will have the drivers for the hardware, and will use them. It's possible that a few percent will be lost, but that's all. Playing PC games should work fine.
why bother? they are just gonna port or rewrite it for universal binary. making it use the video card, direct x etc... would take effort and money and like most things, MS couldnt give a shit. People arnt buying it for games, people are spending 350 for business programs.
But even if they did, your still going to have preformance lose... and i wouldnt characterize it as "few percent"... if that was the case then why does the current VPC run so shitty? Its not because its for PPC, its because its windows. Windows sucks. Running windows in another OS sucks worse. Running windows in another OS to run a game, sucks really bad.
Originally posted by ThinkingDifferent
He did say an iBook with an Intel chip which shouldn't be too bad.
Correct.
I run AutoCad 2005 LT on my 1.2 GHz iBook now. Although it is just for emergencies when I travel, but it does fine in a pinch as long as you don't get carried away.
If I had a 12" iBook with intel chip and rewritten VPC, no doubt it would run "well."
Originally posted by mike12309
why bother? they are just gonna port or rewrite it for universal binary. making it use the video card, direct x etc... would take effort and money and like most things, MS couldnt give a shit. People arnt buying it for games, people are spending 350 for business programs.
But even if they did, your still going to have preformance lose... and i wouldnt characterize it as "few percent"... if that was the case then why does the current VPC run so shitty? Its not because its for PPC, its because its windows. Windows sucks. Running windows in another OS sucks worse. Running windows in another OS to run a game, sucks really bad.
I don't think they would do a Universal Binary of it. The underlying code is completely different. This is software that is tied closely to the architecture of the machine. That's why it won't even work in Rosetta.
I think they will allow the PPC version to molder, while they do a completely new one for x86, as they said they would have to.
Anyway, you don't know why people would buy this. On PPC, people couldn't use it for games, so they didn't. On x68, it's a different story.
Originally posted by aplnub
Correct.
I run AutoCad 2005 LT on my 1.2 GHz iBook now. Although it is just for emergencies when I travel, but it does fine in a pinch as long as you don't get carried away.
If I had a 12" iBook with intel chip and rewritten VPC, no doubt it would run "well."
Well, as I said, you've got balls.
I don't even like doing it with a 20" display. My 24 is fine.
Originally posted by melgross
I don't think they would do a Universal Binary of it. The underlying code is completely different. This is software that is tied closely to the architecture of the machine. That's why it won't even work in Rosetta.
I think they will allow the PPC version to molder, while they do a completely new one for x86, as they said they would have to.
Anyway, you don't know why people would buy this. On PPC, people couldn't use it for games, so they didn't. On x68, it's a different story.
if your right, its still an OS in another OS. and its still $350, so yes i can summarize few would buy this for games. Now whether people who buy it for business will use it for games as well, thats a given, knowing business people.
The only people i know that spend 350 for a single component to help play games are people like me... and for an expensive video card for their PC.
Originally posted by melgross
Darwine will have limited usefulness. Wine is not trivial to install, or use.
Crossover (which is built on top of Wine), puts a GUI onto it, eases the installing of the program itself, as well as the programs you will want to run. It is a long way off as well.
Wine doesn't run all programs either. If what you need is supported, fine. Otherwise, it won't help.
deja vu again
Originally posted by zunx
Intel virtualization is what is needed. Just switch betwen Mac OS X, Linux and Windows in real time. Freedom. Then millions will switch to Mac OS X for most of their taks.
On the other hand, M$ stuff is just shit. Office is shit. And Windows is shit. They have not gone out of business because of inertia (95% market share).
With the new Mactels things may change, once people taste Mac OS X.
Having said that, we need tons of triple-boot machines (best with Intel virtualization).
well, that's the *promise* of virtualization. will it be that easy to switch around OSes? i hope so, but i doubt it for 1st half of this year.
Originally posted by sunilraman
well, that's the *promise* of virtualization. will it be that easy to switch around OSes? i hope so, but i doubt it for 1st half of this year.
It's more than a promise. VMware does it flawlessly. My concern with VPC is that MS will limit it to running only MS products. What would be cool is a Rosetta like product that executes Windows programs. This would eliminate the need to run Windows in a virtual environment.
It's more than a promise. VMware does it flawlessly. My concern with VPC is that MS will limit it to running only MS products. What would be cool is a Rosetta like product that executes Windows programs. This would eliminate the need to run Windows in a virtual environment.
well, VPC for PPC lets you run linux at this stage. it would be weird (or maybe not so weird!) for MS to suddenly change tact to force you to only run MS OSes -- but if VPC for macintel requires "a complete rewrite" then they could very well do it.
heh. i guess i meant that's the *promise* wrt. the intel macs. i've played around with vmware, it's quite slick and we do see software virtualization in action.
of course, the next step:
1. "hardware virtualization" -- intel and amd are starting to tout the benefits of this in future products, afaik no one has really demonstrated how hardware virtualization really works.
2. a vmware-like application for intel macs that will run windows and linux operating systems (virtual pc? vmware for mac os x intel? iEmulator?)
dammnit!! so close to One Mac To Rule Them All* yet so far....
*Imagine if your Mac could run Os X AND Windows AND Linux. Play Mac games or PC games. Whenever, however you wanted. Open Microsoft Office documents. Exchange(pun intended) these documents with friends and coworkers. Seamlessly, transparently, efficiently. That would be the Mac that truly "freed" the Intel chip from its dull little tasks. A Mac that not only "just works", but OWNS too.
Originally posted by mike12309
if your right, its still an OS in another OS. and its still $350, so yes i can summarize few would buy this for games. Now whether people who buy it for business will use it for games as well, thats a given, knowing business people.
The only people i know that spend 350 for a single component to help play games are people like me... and for an expensive video card for their PC.
I don't know. A lot of people buy it now, and that's without being able to play games.
Besides, PC games players buy these decked out AlienWare machines for over $3,000. I don't think that even $350 would faze them.
Originally posted by sunilraman
deja vu again
Where have you been hiding lately?
Yeah, it's the same old thing, but with different people. Facts are facts, though. We can't get away from them no matter where we hide.
Originally posted by sunilraman
well, that's the *promise* of virtualization. will it be that easy to switch around OSes? i hope so, but i doubt it for 1st half of this year.
The other question that needs answering is just how this works. Supposedly, it make a space within the cpu somewhat like a drive partition.
How does this affect performance? Will having two OS's on the machine at once limit each to the performance of one cpu? What about the overhead?
VPC does the same thing for servers. What is the practical difference in performance? There each instance of the OS resides on one cpu, or portion thereof.
A lot of questions here.
Originally posted by melgross
An iBook (or MacBook) might have one low power core. AutoCad requires far more than that.
It will also have a smaller, lower rez screen. Have you ever run a heavy duty CAD program with a low rez screen? It ain't pretty. It's hard to get much work done.
AutoCad does not require that much processor power in 2d. I draw on a 19" flat panel that is more than adequate for our drawings.
One low power core would be plenty for me. Again, this isn't to draw on every day, just when I am out of town and a product drawing has to get done.
Originally posted by Animal Farm
One more thing:
Which card is better, an ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 or an ATI Radeon X800 Pro?
The X800 Pro is more powerful for sure... (if you're taking Desktop card.. not mobility)
Regarding the name "VirtualPC", just to be pedantic, will it still be the case? I mean, its not gonna be emulating anything... it'll (hopefully) just run it transparently. There is no actual Emulation needed anymore!
They just have to figure out how to be able to copy/paste stuff between the environments, share network connections, etc.. etc...
n'est-ce pas?
Originally posted by aplnub
AutoCad does not require that much processor power in 2d. I draw on a 19" flat panel that is more than adequate for our drawings.
One low power core would be plenty for me. Again, this isn't to draw on every day, just when I am out of town and a product drawing has to get done.
I don't recall you saying 2 or 3D. Sure, 2D isn't much of a cpu problem. I usually assume 3D these days. The only time I've used 2D the last four years was when I was remodeling my home, and was just doing floor plans. For other work, I seem to be always using 3D modules.
The Rez of the screen is still a killer. But if it's just for occasional work.. But 1024 x 768!!!
Originally posted by melgross
I don't recall you saying 2 or 3D. Sure, 2D isn't much of a cpu problem. I usually assume 3D these days. The only time I've used 2D the last four years was when I was remodeling my home, and was just doing floor plans. For other work, I seem to be always using 3D modules.
The Rez of the screen is still a killer. But if it's just for occasional work.. But 1024 x 768!!!
melgrossYou use it daily?
I didn't specify 2d or 3d. I rarely do 3d and hate to do it when I have too.
Zo I agree with you but I bet they keep the name the same. Stop dropping French bombs on me. I want to learn French so bad it is killing me!! Maybe another trip coming up in June. My wife heads back in March, again without me!
Originally posted by aplnub
[B]melgrossYou use it daily?
I didn't specify 2d or 3d. I rarely do 3d and hate to do it when I have too.
Thank god, no!
Originally posted by ZO
Regarding the name "VirtualPC", just to be pedantic, will it still be the case? I mean, its not gonna be emulating anything... it'll (hopefully) just run it transparently. There is no actual Emulation needed anymore!
Even the PC version of VirtualPC is called VirtualPC. They'd definitely keep the same name.
But I hope the Vanderpool virtualization technology in Yonah makes VirtualPC obsolete. I admit that I don't fully understand what's possible with it, but I'd hope that you could run Windows easily without the need for something like VirtualPC.