Again, OS X uses this hardware all the time already. You can't relinquish control of this hardware and hand it off to VPC running on OS X unless you killed the display server, Quartz, along with every app using Quartz, which is every OS X app. Full-screen mode is completely irrelevant.
i tend to agree. i dont see how both systems could access the same hardware simultaneously.
Besides wouldnt it just be easier for MS to make just give support to apple hardware for installing windows directly and doing a dual boot? I mean it probably works natively anyway on the macintels...
i tend to agree. i dont see how both systems could access the same hardware simultaneously.
They can't. Unless the graphics card and PCI-Express both supported virtualisation, which they don't yet. They are planned but not implemented yet.
It'll be interesting to see what they do but I think if you want intensive apps dual boot will be the way to go. Not elegant but effective. The other way that springs to my mind would just be some sort of library translation. Oh well will be interesting to see what they do with VPC.
Apparently Microsoft released a new statement today about VirtualPC:
Quote:
The Mac BU recognizes the need for the product and believes it is the best virtualization solution for PowerPC users, so it is committed to providing Virtual PC to new and existing PowerPC customers. However, Microsoft is still discussing with Apple the feasibility of bringing Virtual PC for Mac to Intel-based Macs in the future and has not made any announcements about if/how the product might work on the new machines.
Hmm. That sounds very noncommittal. Compare and contrast that statement to their previous statement:
Quote:
These types of products require a dedicated team and a lot of work to rebuild them for an entirely new architecture. That said, we know that using Windows-based applications on Macs is important to our customers, and we?re working with Apple to figure out the best way to bring this technology to Intel-based Macs. We?ll have a better idea once we have the new machines and can accurately evaluate just what is required to transition the product.
Looks like Roz got slapped down by some higher-up.
Screw em. Dual-booting or some other open source or even hardware virtualization will be much better than Virtual PC anyway.
The Dock uses the Pixel Shader in OpenGL (via the Core Image API) every time you put an item in it. Say you're running VPC, which is magically allowing Vista to use the same hardware. How does the Dock perform the animation? Simply put, it can't. You would have to create some kind of context switch where the state of the hardware was saved, control handed over to whatever app is using OpenGL (namely ALL OF THEM since they all use Quartz), let the Quartz apps use the GPU for a split second (halting VPC), save the state again, switch to VPC (halting every other Quartz-using app) so Vista can use the GPU for a split second...
Of course, keep in mind that the context would include not only the pixel processor status, but also all the textures.
Also, keep in mind the only way to do this would either be to virtualize the hardware for both OpenGL and VPC, or to create some kind of über-driver which could be used by Vista drivers and also provide OpenGL (which is how Windows Vista does it by the way, and will also be why OpenGL will run like crap on Vista).
Are these reasons enough, or are you going to complain you haven't read this explanation in WIRED magazine yet?
No, I won't wait for Wired. But I will wait for someone authorative first.
You seem to have part of the solution yourself, but not all of it.
Apparently Microsoft released a new statement today about VirtualPC: Hmm. That sounds very noncommittal. Compare and contrast that statement to their previous statement: Looks like Roz got slapped down by some higher-up.
Screw em. Dual-booting or some other open source or even hardware virtualization will be much better than Virtual PC anyway.
I agree with this. I am not expecting VPC anytime soon. I am hoping VMware steps up to the plate.
I'm one of those that was only able to buy a PB because of VPC. Now I have to wait for VPC 8.0 before I can buy a MacBook Pro. (I have to demo one small Win app.)
I'm not a programmer but I have a feeling that MS has a few challenges with VPC. IIRC VPC is written in Code Warrior so that probably means that parts will have to be moved to universal binaries. Then they will have to work out VPC's interaction with the hardware, which should be a bit easier as they know a bit about Intel. Hopefully they will also address issues like limited memory allocation and capturing the PC card on the PB.
So they get VPC 8.0 and it runs FAST on a Mactel. Next problem is the fact that MS puts VPC in the top of the range Office. Are they going to have VPC 8.0 Mactel only, or are they going to include PPC functional modules, with modules selected during installation? Then what OS levels are going to be supported? XP and Vista only, or will 2000 be included?
I think it is a can of worms to some degree. I have a feeling, though, that MS has done a fair bit of work on the development Macs they have, but want normal production iMacs and MacBook Pros to get o with real world testing.
Everything that company sells is GPL software repackaged. WinTel, for example, is just Bochs.
Yawn!
BTW, my only point about Vista is MS not wanting to support VPC. Vista will undoubtedly be slow, even compared to XP. I'll keep using Win2K, which is a lot faster than XP and undoubtedly faster than Vista could ever dream of being.
Of course if MS makes VPC Vista-only...(but I shoudln't give them such evil ideas)
yes, if running legacy windows applications on your mac is what you need (that 1 or 2 stupid windows apps you just HAVE to use...) then win2000 on VPC powerpc is more than enough.
for those with an intel Mac though, at least they can use Bochs/WinTel rather than the other option -- nothing at all..!!
Why doesn't apple just put the XeN hypervisor in their OS. People are going to figure out how to do it anyway sooner or later. (Already on the xen lists there is somebody stating that grub will work on EFI bios in the context of getting xen on os x.) At least if apple does it they could offer a great solution and get it done quickly. And they could probably do a better job (than the community) of writing/modifying needed drivers -- mostly just video I believe.
Other than trying to avoid allowing OS X and windows to run simultaneously to avoid competition with windows apps, I don't see why Apple wouldn't be putting a few engineers into this effort. The effort being putting the hypervisor in OS X and having an application that launches to install windows or Linux if you supply the install CD.
Comments
Originally posted by strobe
[B]No reason? I just gave you the reason.
Again, OS X uses this hardware all the time already. You can't relinquish control of this hardware and hand it off to VPC running on OS X unless you killed the display server, Quartz, along with every app using Quartz, which is every OS X app. Full-screen mode is completely irrelevant.
i tend to agree. i dont see how both systems could access the same hardware simultaneously.
Besides wouldnt it just be easier for MS to make just give support to apple hardware for installing windows directly and doing a dual boot? I mean it probably works natively anyway on the macintels...
Originally posted by mike12309
i tend to agree. i dont see how both systems could access the same hardware simultaneously.
They can't. Unless the graphics card and PCI-Express both supported virtualisation, which they don't yet. They are planned but not implemented yet.
It'll be interesting to see what they do but I think if you want intensive apps dual boot will be the way to go. Not elegant but effective. The other way that springs to my mind would just be some sort of library translation. Oh well will be interesting to see what they do with VPC.
Originally posted by Telomar
They can't.
whoa someone agreed with me :-) kickass.
The Mac BU recognizes the need for the product and believes it is the best virtualization solution for PowerPC users, so it is committed to providing Virtual PC to new and existing PowerPC customers. However, Microsoft is still discussing with Apple the feasibility of bringing Virtual PC for Mac to Intel-based Macs in the future and has not made any announcements about if/how the product might work on the new machines.
Hmm. That sounds very noncommittal. Compare and contrast that statement to their previous statement:
These types of products require a dedicated team and a lot of work to rebuild them for an entirely new architecture. That said, we know that using Windows-based applications on Macs is important to our customers, and we?re working with Apple to figure out the best way to bring this technology to Intel-based Macs. We?ll have a better idea once we have the new machines and can accurately evaluate just what is required to transition the product.
Looks like Roz got slapped down by some higher-up.
Screw em. Dual-booting or some other open source or even hardware virtualization will be much better than Virtual PC anyway.
Originally posted by strobe
Well now you have.
Let me put it this way:
The Dock uses the Pixel Shader in OpenGL (via the Core Image API) every time you put an item in it. Say you're running VPC, which is magically allowing Vista to use the same hardware. How does the Dock perform the animation? Simply put, it can't. You would have to create some kind of context switch where the state of the hardware was saved, control handed over to whatever app is using OpenGL (namely ALL OF THEM since they all use Quartz), let the Quartz apps use the GPU for a split second (halting VPC), save the state again, switch to VPC (halting every other Quartz-using app) so Vista can use the GPU for a split second...
Of course, keep in mind that the context would include not only the pixel processor status, but also all the textures.
Also, keep in mind the only way to do this would either be to virtualize the hardware for both OpenGL and VPC, or to create some kind of über-driver which could be used by Vista drivers and also provide OpenGL (which is how Windows Vista does it by the way, and will also be why OpenGL will run like crap on Vista).
Are these reasons enough, or are you going to complain you haven't read this explanation in WIRED magazine yet?
You seem to have part of the solution yourself, but not all of it.
Originally posted by BRussell
Apparently Microsoft released a new statement today about VirtualPC: Hmm. That sounds very noncommittal. Compare and contrast that statement to their previous statement: Looks like Roz got slapped down by some higher-up.
Screw em. Dual-booting or some other open source or even hardware virtualization will be much better than Virtual PC anyway.
I agree with this. I am not expecting VPC anytime soon. I am hoping VMware steps up to the plate.
I'm not a programmer but I have a feeling that MS has a few challenges with VPC. IIRC VPC is written in Code Warrior so that probably means that parts will have to be moved to universal binaries. Then they will have to work out VPC's interaction with the hardware, which should be a bit easier as they know a bit about Intel. Hopefully they will also address issues like limited memory allocation and capturing the PC card on the PB.
So they get VPC 8.0 and it runs FAST on a Mactel. Next problem is the fact that MS puts VPC in the top of the range Office. Are they going to have VPC 8.0 Mactel only, or are they going to include PPC functional modules, with modules selected during installation? Then what OS levels are going to be supported? XP and Vista only, or will 2000 be included?
I think it is a can of worms to some degree. I have a feeling, though, that MS has done a fair bit of work on the development Macs they have, but want normal production iMacs and MacBook Pros to get o with real world testing.
Originally posted by sunilraman
http://openosx.com/wintel/ -- claims of running Windows on OS X Macintel Universal Binary..!
Doesn't appear to work.
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=281987&page=6
Originally posted by sunilraman
http://openosx.com/wintel/ -- claims of running Windows on OS X Macintel Universal Binary..!
Everything that company sells is GPL software repackaged. WinTel, for example, is just Bochs.
Yawn!
BTW, my only point about Vista is MS not wanting to support VPC. Vista will undoubtedly be slow, even compared to XP. I'll keep using Win2K, which is a lot faster than XP and undoubtedly faster than Vista could ever dream of being.
Of course if MS makes VPC Vista-only...(but I shoudln't give them such evil ideas)
for those with an intel Mac though, at least they can use Bochs/WinTel rather than the other option -- nothing at all..!!
Also, Virtual PC for Windows supports Linux just fine, so I have no idea why someone said otherwise.
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/SRG/netos/xen/
Other than trying to avoid allowing OS X and windows to run simultaneously to avoid competition with windows apps, I don't see why Apple wouldn't be putting a few engineers into this effort. The effort being putting the hypervisor in OS X and having an application that launches to install windows or Linux if you supply the install CD.