I don't, however, think that Apple will bring virtualization to Leopard. I see this as a very sneaky one-way migration path tool, and nothing more at this point.]
Exactly. It's a one-way security blanket (plus, at long last, a way to be a Mac user and a gamer w/o a separate PC.)
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
Don't get me wrong, I'd *LOVE* to have VPC-esque capabilities for a couple of apps (grudgingly), when I really can't see rebooting just to run them, but I also don't see Apple providing that by default in the OS.
I've been wondering just this... is Boot Camp just a first step? I'm not sure Apple itself knows. They're watching to see how this plays out.
The next step -- if they don't just leave it as a third-party opportunity -- is for Apple to build hooks to use virtualization into the OS.... really, a much better solution for people who are looking for a soft transition from Windows, and/or need to use the occasional Windows app. This is something Apple can easily do, at least technically.
The question is whether they want to stategically. I'm not sure, but if demand is strong, then as long as it requires (a) installing Windows yourself and (b) they make sure that running a virtualized app is a (modestly) inferior experience to using a native app, I think they can do it (two-way as it is) without danger of harming OS X development.
The plus for Apple, I think, is how it puts OS X in the role of "superior" host OS, able to run a collection of guest OSes -- a situation which is hard to switch from if you want to run OS X.
Once you have OS X as the host OS, Windows looks more and more like Classic, as Daring Fireball nicely sums up...
The next step -- if they don't just leave it as a third-party opportunity -- is for Apple to build hooks to use virtualization into the OS.... really, a much better solution for people who are looking for a soft transition from Windows, and/or need to use the occasional Windows app. This is something Apple can easily do, at least technically.
The question is whether they want to stategically. I'm not sure, but if demand is strong, then as long as it requires (a) installing Windows yourself and (b) they make sure that running a virtualized app is a (modestly) inferior experience to using a native app, I think they can do it (two-way as it is) without danger of harming OS X development.
Personally I believe Apple will provide virutual functionally for no other reason than to maintain a quality product. One problem Microsoft faces is being blamed for problems that are out of their control. (3rdparty device drivers or other kernel code that is written badly.) We are already seeing this with Parallels. Kernel Panics.(Yes I know it's Beta)
Comments
Originally posted by Anders
I´m old.
But you were once young...
Originally posted by Kickaha
I don't, however, think that Apple will bring virtualization to Leopard. I see this as a very sneaky one-way migration path tool, and nothing more at this point.]
Exactly. It's a one-way security blanket (plus, at long last, a way to be a Mac user and a gamer w/o a separate PC.)
Originally posted by Kickaha
Don't get me wrong, I'd *LOVE* to have VPC-esque capabilities for a couple of apps (grudgingly), when I really can't see rebooting just to run them, but I also don't see Apple providing that by default in the OS.
I've been wondering just this... is Boot Camp just a first step? I'm not sure Apple itself knows. They're watching to see how this plays out.
The next step -- if they don't just leave it as a third-party opportunity -- is for Apple to build hooks to use virtualization into the OS.... really, a much better solution for people who are looking for a soft transition from Windows, and/or need to use the occasional Windows app. This is something Apple can easily do, at least technically.
The question is whether they want to stategically. I'm not sure, but if demand is strong, then as long as it requires (a) installing Windows yourself and (b) they make sure that running a virtualized app is a (modestly) inferior experience to using a native app, I think they can do it (two-way as it is) without danger of harming OS X development.
The plus for Apple, I think, is how it puts OS X in the role of "superior" host OS, able to run a collection of guest OSes -- a situation which is hard to switch from if you want to run OS X.
Once you have OS X as the host OS, Windows looks more and more like Classic, as Daring Fireball nicely sums up...
The question then: what would the next step be?
Originally posted by Hobbes
The next step -- if they don't just leave it as a third-party opportunity -- is for Apple to build hooks to use virtualization into the OS.... really, a much better solution for people who are looking for a soft transition from Windows, and/or need to use the occasional Windows app. This is something Apple can easily do, at least technically.
The question is whether they want to stategically. I'm not sure, but if demand is strong, then as long as it requires (a) installing Windows yourself and (b) they make sure that running a virtualized app is a (modestly) inferior experience to using a native app, I think they can do it (two-way as it is) without danger of harming OS X development.
Personally I believe Apple will provide virutual functionally for no other reason than to maintain a quality product. One problem Microsoft faces is being blamed for problems that are out of their control. (3rdparty device drivers or other kernel code that is written badly.) We are already seeing this with Parallels. Kernel Panics.(Yes I know it's Beta)
boot what..?
what for..?
yak!