Since Apple mentions Leopard a lot here, I've been wondering - why are they tying it to Leopard so much and not just saying it is new free software (albeit in beta stage at present)?
In my opinion, clearly there are more tweaks which are only available in 10.5. Hopefully 10.5 will save burning a CD of drivers, or perhaps it is actually part of a grand plan that in 10.5 would let you have the option or running XP and OSX simultaneously. I guess we'll find out in August.
It's basically the same way Xgrid and Safari were done, first as standalone downloadables, and then as items that were shipped with the next OS revision.
This is huge but I think it's just the first step of many. I think the next step will deal with keeping and increasing the number of Mac OS X developers and it will appear at WWDC. It could be something that moves Leopard even further ahead of Vista, especially from a software developer's point of view. I'm excited just waiting to see what it will be.
Also, the thing about this is that many people will buy a new Mac but wind up never buying Windows for it. They think they will but once they start using the Mac, they will realize most of what they need is already there, and leave all their PC software running on their older PC box. They will be comforted just by having the option.
And more importantly, many companies will now allow Macs in since they have Windows site licenses. So people will use Windows when they need to (MS Access, Project) but begin to drop into the Mac OS X for other tasks.
Both of these things will cause the Mac OS X user base to grow, and developer's will see that.
Altho I have no evidence, I just think that Apple made this move from a position of confidence and strength in its future OS releases (compared to Vista and Linux), not from a position of weakness.
I'm frankly surprised that people don't see the inevitable coming.
We're eventually going to buy somewhat generic hardware and then we'll license whatever OS we need. Virtualization is going to expand throughout the computer encompassing even the I/O.
someday you may have cores in your computer dedicated to certain OS. Everything will be able to modifiable. Storage Virtualization, Hardware and software will combine to make the configuration you need a matter of mouse clicks.
Apple need not stand flat footed whilst this transmogrification occurs.
Virtualization and dual booting are two distinct duties. Virtualation is a Ferrari whereby Dual Booting is an Edsel.
THIS is one of the very few times I disagree with you hmurchison. Is dual booting kind of a hassel? Yes. Is dual booting faster than virtualization? YES!
With virtualization you are going to have the main OS have a lot of overhead... in this case OS X. The main OS has to treat the virtualization software and virtualized OS as an application. That means protected memory, restricted access to hardware, etc. This means more latency between all the devices in the computer. This means more cpu cycles... which in turn means SLOWER speed.
Does virtualization have it's place? Yes. Does dual booting have it's place? Definitely. Calling dual booting a total flop (in reference to your Edsel comment), is stretching it. Both methods have huge pros and huge cons. Dual booting IS here to stay because people need native speed. Whether that speed is needed in 3D Studio Max, Autocad, or games... Virtualization simply can't supply the same speed you would get from a dual boot.
On the other hand, what makes virtualization cool is the fact that you can use windows apps from within OS X. BUT these apps again are going to have latency... so you'll still be sticking to less performance demanding applications.
For those who need native speed, need dual booting. Leave the virtualization up to the companies that have experience with it. It will come with time.
Quote:
I'm not worried about the OS/2 effect because Apple is not guaranteeing Windows support out the box. This is purely your own endeavour and you must provide your own windows software.
Doggone it I failed to look at the two from a speed point of view. Although my car analogy would make someone think about speed.
I think there is a need for both. Hardware supported Virtualization will speed things up but I expect that booting into one OS should remain the fastest way to run an OS for the forseeable future.
Quote:
Would 95% of native be enough to offset the dual-boot hassle for you?
Hell I'd deal with the hassle for %90 of native speed
Yes, because as you can tell from the quiet little press release, this is how they chose to celebrate their 30th.
Newsflash: they *AREN'T* 'celebrating' their 30th. That was just something whipped up by the fanboi frenzy brigade, out of nothing.
If they have a 30th Anniversary anything, expect the usual hoopla.
Sheesh.
Oh, I'm sorry. I guess it's just because I am a part of the fanboi frenzy brigade that when Jobs hinted at something big for the 30th back in January to finish off the Macworld Expo... I would think that he means that Apple is going to release something big to celebrate the 30th anniversary.
I'm frankly surprised that people don't see the inevitable coming.
We're eventually going to buy somewhat generic hardware and then we'll license whatever OS we need. Virtualization is going to expand throughout the computer encompassing even the I/O.
someday you may have cores in your computer dedicated to certain OS. Everything will be able to modifiable. Storage Virtualization, Hardware and software will combine to make the configuration you need a matter of mouse clicks.
Apple need not stand flat footed whilst this transmogrification occurs.
Also disagree. Eventually there will be an OS that can do everything. M$, Apple, Linux, or someone else... I still see 1 OS running 1 system. Why have more than one if there are stricter standards? I can even eventually see someone like IEEE getting involved and making standards so there isn't craziness. Maybe not... who knows.
BUT would I want more than 1 os controlling my hardware at a time?! NOOOOOOOOO WAYYYYYYYYYYYY. Trust me, I would love virtualization to do better testing (I'm SQA). And I'll welcome it when it comes... but you won't find me virtualizing 3ds Max or Cinema 4d inside that virtualized OS.
/coils back after seeing hmurchison's reply to mah last comment... *hugs hmurchison*
Just a curious question..but regarding virtualization over dual booting..with the new mac coming out with Quad and more processor..could apple make it so that when virtualization is turned on 1/2 of the processors go to each OS..improving performance over a VPC style slowdown?
Lets face it... There are really two (nee four) distinct "Mac Users"
1. Those who love OS X but want to play the hot new games
Group 1 = Dual boot is the ONLY way to fly (game gets the most speed)
Actually, Microsoft kindly solved that problem for me After years of building my own computers from hand-picked parts, and carefully phasing out bottlenecks whenever the computer became too slow to run the newest games, i actually bought an Xbox. Like many other people of my age and background, at one point, we've had our fun tinkering with hardware, and we instead just want a plug and play gaming experience without needing to fiddle with settings (or config files) to achieve the desired resolutions at the desired frame rates. My Xbox [i'm still undecided about the 360] fulfills all my gaming needs with far less troubles.
In fact for very similar reasons i moved from Linux [and XP] to a Mac. It just works.
THIS is one of the very few times I disagree with you hmurchison. Is dual booting kind of a hassel? Yes. Is dual booting faster than virtualization? YES!
With virtualization you are going to have the main OS have a lot of overhead... in this case OS X. The main OS has to treat the virtualization software and virtualized OS as an application. That means protected memory, restricted access to hardware, etc. This means more latency between all the devices in the computer. This means more cpu cycles... which in turn means SLOWER speed.
Does virtualization have it's place? Yes. Does dual booting have it's place? Definitely. Calling dual booting a total flop (in reference to your Edsel comment), is stretching it. Both methods have huge pros and huge cons. Dual booting IS here to stay because people need native speed. Whether that speed is needed in 3D Studio Max, Autocad, or games... Virtualization simply can't supply the same speed you would get from a dual boot.
On the other hand, what makes virtualization cool is the fact that you can use windows apps from within OS X. BUT these apps again are going to have latency... so you'll still be sticking to less performance demanding applications.
For those who need native speed, need dual booting. Leave the virtualization up to the companies that have experience with it. It will come with time.
There are going to pros and cons with both. For me the advantages of virtualization will outway the performance hit IF performance hit is no more than 20%. If I have a core duo or merom for that matter that can run win xp at 80% of speed on windows box, hell I'll be more than happy.
Just a curious question..but regarding virtualization over dual booting..with the new mac coming out with Quad and more processor..could apple make it so that when virtualization is turned on 1/2 of the processors go to each OS..improving performance over a VPC style slowdown?
See my reply right above yours... would you want 2 OS's sharing a computer? That will == more complex problems... esp with malware...
There is a reason they restricted hardware to the OS recently. I don't know if you were around but back in the pre win 2k days... and pre os x days... hardware could be directly accessed by applications... which caused a lot of lock ups. No thanks, I'll stick to mah 1 OS per machine rule
I'm surprised at you... Do you REALLY think Apple didn't have this plan (even if 'on the back burner') from the beginning. Heck it was Apple that made the first public Intel-Macs not able to boot XP in the first place. The developer boxes were bios based not EFI based and it was Apple that made the new EFI setup 'just difficult enough' for them to not boot XP - well almost - the revenge of the geeks strikes again (sans accelerated video support)!
What I'd bet....
Apple had this plan all along but wanted to wait till one of the following:
1 - The Pro machines were shipping/announced
2 - The Intel iBooks were shipping
3 - Something else - WWDC perhaps (but that woulda been kinda weird)
4 - Virtualization was available on the Intel CPUs so you didn't NEED to choose what to boot in.
One think I think the 'OnMac' contest did was force Apples hand and get this out now before the other solution got a real following/foothold.
That I have no doubt about.
Dave
Man, I have posted all over the place, so many times now, that you would think that every living soul on the freaking planet would know. This certaintly isn't surprising. I have been expecting something like it for a while. check this out. Read down to the bottom, and all will become clear.
There are going to pros and cons with both. For me the advantages of virtualization will outway the performance hit IF performance hit is no more than 20%. If I have a core duo or merom for that matter that can run win xp at 80% of speed on windows box, hell I'll be more than happy.
That probably still faster than my p4 at work.
I'm not sure what work u do... but think about 3d modelers and engineers. Other things need to be accessed like the graphics card, the sound card, the ram, not just the cpu... yes the cpu may be 20% slower, but everything else will be slower as well... which adds up ...
Comments
In my opinion, clearly there are more tweaks which are only available in 10.5. Hopefully 10.5 will save burning a CD of drivers, or perhaps it is actually part of a grand plan that in 10.5 would let you have the option or running XP and OSX simultaneously. I guess we'll find out in August.
Apple releases a software update that people have already done for over a month on their own, and Apple's stock goes up 5???
Happy Birthday Apple. For your 30 year party you decide to have Windows run on a Mac? Whoopity-Doo. Just what I always wanted.
Nice way to give the finger to your dedicated base... once again.
Newsflash: they *AREN'T* 'celebrating' their 30th. That was just something whipped up by the fanboi frenzy brigade, out of nothing.
If they have a 30th Anniversary anything, expect the usual hoopla.
Sheesh.
Also, the thing about this is that many people will buy a new Mac but wind up never buying Windows for it. They think they will but once they start using the Mac, they will realize most of what they need is already there, and leave all their PC software running on their older PC box. They will be comforted just by having the option.
And more importantly, many companies will now allow Macs in since they have Windows site licenses. So people will use Windows when they need to (MS Access, Project) but begin to drop into the Mac OS X for other tasks.
Both of these things will cause the Mac OS X user base to grow, and developer's will see that.
Altho I have no evidence, I just think that Apple made this move from a position of confidence and strength in its future OS releases (compared to Vista and Linux), not from a position of weakness.
We're eventually going to buy somewhat generic hardware and then we'll license whatever OS we need. Virtualization is going to expand throughout the computer encompassing even the I/O.
someday you may have cores in your computer dedicated to certain OS. Everything will be able to modifiable. Storage Virtualization, Hardware and software will combine to make the configuration you need a matter of mouse clicks.
Apple need not stand flat footed whilst this transmogrification occurs.
Originally posted by ZO
I'd REALLY like to see drivers for that damn iSight camera for Windows..
AFAIK, the video part works, but not the Audio..
*grrrrrrrr*
Well, it did not take long for someone to bitch.
Be thankful, we could still have "the hack".
Originally posted by hmurchison
Virtualization and dual booting are two distinct duties. Virtualation is a Ferrari whereby Dual Booting is an Edsel.
THIS is one of the very few times I disagree with you hmurchison. Is dual booting kind of a hassel? Yes. Is dual booting faster than virtualization? YES!
With virtualization you are going to have the main OS have a lot of overhead... in this case OS X. The main OS has to treat the virtualization software and virtualized OS as an application. That means protected memory, restricted access to hardware, etc. This means more latency between all the devices in the computer. This means more cpu cycles... which in turn means SLOWER speed.
Does virtualization have it's place? Yes. Does dual booting have it's place? Definitely. Calling dual booting a total flop (in reference to your Edsel comment), is stretching it. Both methods have huge pros and huge cons. Dual booting IS here to stay because people need native speed. Whether that speed is needed in 3D Studio Max, Autocad, or games... Virtualization simply can't supply the same speed you would get from a dual boot.
On the other hand, what makes virtualization cool is the fact that you can use windows apps from within OS X. BUT these apps again are going to have latency... so you'll still be sticking to less performance demanding applications.
For those who need native speed, need dual booting. Leave the virtualization up to the companies that have experience with it. It will come with time.
I'm not worried about the OS/2 effect because Apple is not guaranteeing Windows support out the box. This is purely your own endeavour and you must provide your own windows software.
Originally posted by emig647
Virtualization simply can't supply the same speed you would get from a dual boot.
Would 95% of native be enough to offset the dual-boot hassle for you?
Doggone it I failed to look at the two from a speed point of view. Although my car analogy would make someone think about speed.
I think there is a need for both. Hardware supported Virtualization will speed things up but I expect that booting into one OS should remain the fastest way to run an OS for the forseeable future.
Would 95% of native be enough to offset the dual-boot hassle for you?
Hell I'd deal with the hassle for %90 of native speed
Originally posted by Kickaha
Yes, because as you can tell from the quiet little press release, this is how they chose to celebrate their 30th.
Newsflash: they *AREN'T* 'celebrating' their 30th. That was just something whipped up by the fanboi frenzy brigade, out of nothing.
If they have a 30th Anniversary anything, expect the usual hoopla.
Sheesh.
Oh, I'm sorry. I guess it's just because I am a part of the fanboi frenzy brigade that when Jobs hinted at something big for the 30th back in January to finish off the Macworld Expo... I would think that he means that Apple is going to release something big to celebrate the 30th anniversary.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I'm frankly surprised that people don't see the inevitable coming.
We're eventually going to buy somewhat generic hardware and then we'll license whatever OS we need. Virtualization is going to expand throughout the computer encompassing even the I/O.
someday you may have cores in your computer dedicated to certain OS. Everything will be able to modifiable. Storage Virtualization, Hardware and software will combine to make the configuration you need a matter of mouse clicks.
Apple need not stand flat footed whilst this transmogrification occurs.
Also disagree. Eventually there will be an OS that can do everything. M$, Apple, Linux, or someone else... I still see 1 OS running 1 system. Why have more than one if there are stricter standards? I can even eventually see someone like IEEE getting involved and making standards so there isn't craziness. Maybe not... who knows.
BUT would I want more than 1 os controlling my hardware at a time?! NOOOOOOOOO WAYYYYYYYYYYYY. Trust me, I would love virtualization to do better testing (I'm SQA). And I'll welcome it when it comes... but you won't find me virtualizing 3ds Max or Cinema 4d inside that virtualized OS.
/coils back after seeing hmurchison's reply to mah last comment... *hugs hmurchison*
Originally posted by DaveGee
Lets face it... There are really two (nee four) distinct "Mac Users"
1. Those who love OS X but want to play the hot new games
Group 1 = Dual boot is the ONLY way to fly (game gets the most speed)
Actually, Microsoft kindly solved that problem for me
In fact for very similar reasons i moved from Linux [and XP] to a Mac. It just works.
Originally posted by emig647
THIS is one of the very few times I disagree with you hmurchison. Is dual booting kind of a hassel? Yes. Is dual booting faster than virtualization? YES!
With virtualization you are going to have the main OS have a lot of overhead... in this case OS X. The main OS has to treat the virtualization software and virtualized OS as an application. That means protected memory, restricted access to hardware, etc. This means more latency between all the devices in the computer. This means more cpu cycles... which in turn means SLOWER speed.
Does virtualization have it's place? Yes. Does dual booting have it's place? Definitely. Calling dual booting a total flop (in reference to your Edsel comment), is stretching it. Both methods have huge pros and huge cons. Dual booting IS here to stay because people need native speed. Whether that speed is needed in 3D Studio Max, Autocad, or games... Virtualization simply can't supply the same speed you would get from a dual boot.
On the other hand, what makes virtualization cool is the fact that you can use windows apps from within OS X. BUT these apps again are going to have latency... so you'll still be sticking to less performance demanding applications.
For those who need native speed, need dual booting. Leave the virtualization up to the companies that have experience with it. It will come with time.
There are going to pros and cons with both. For me the advantages of virtualization will outway the performance hit IF performance hit is no more than 20%. If I have a core duo or merom for that matter that can run win xp at 80% of speed on windows box, hell I'll be more than happy.
That probably still faster than my p4 at work.
Originally posted by climber
Just a curious question..but regarding virtualization over dual booting..with the new mac coming out with Quad and more processor..could apple make it so that when virtualization is turned on 1/2 of the processors go to each OS..improving performance over a VPC style slowdown?
See my reply right above yours... would you want 2 OS's sharing a computer? That will == more complex problems... esp with malware...
There is a reason they restricted hardware to the OS recently. I don't know if you were around but back in the pre win 2k days... and pre os x days... hardware could be directly accessed by applications... which caused a lot of lock ups. No thanks, I'll stick to mah 1 OS per machine rule
Originally posted by DaveGee
Anders,
I'm surprised at you... Do you REALLY think Apple didn't have this plan (even if 'on the back burner') from the beginning. Heck it was Apple that made the first public Intel-Macs not able to boot XP in the first place. The developer boxes were bios based not EFI based and it was Apple that made the new EFI setup 'just difficult enough' for them to not boot XP - well almost - the revenge of the geeks strikes again (sans accelerated video support)!
What I'd bet....
Apple had this plan all along but wanted to wait till one of the following:
1 - The Pro machines were shipping/announced
2 - The Intel iBooks were shipping
3 - Something else - WWDC perhaps (but that woulda been kinda weird)
4 - Virtualization was available on the Intel CPUs so you didn't NEED to choose what to boot in.
One think I think the 'OnMac' contest did was force Apples hand and get this out now before the other solution got a real following/foothold.
That I have no doubt about.
Dave
Man, I have posted all over the place, so many times now, that you would think that every living soul on the freaking planet would know. This certaintly isn't surprising. I have been expecting something like it for a while. check this out. Read down to the bottom, and all will become clear.
http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.ph...esistant_code/
Originally posted by backtomac
There are going to pros and cons with both. For me the advantages of virtualization will outway the performance hit IF performance hit is no more than 20%. If I have a core duo or merom for that matter that can run win xp at 80% of speed on windows box, hell I'll be more than happy.
That probably still faster than my p4 at work.
I'm not sure what work u do... but think about 3d modelers and engineers. Other things need to be accessed like the graphics card, the sound card, the ram, not just the cpu... yes the cpu may be 20% slower, but everything else will be slower as well... which adds up
*IS HERE TO DEFEND DUAL BOOTING* *makes a stand*