"Latest Build of Parallels Desktop now supports direct graphic card acceleration"
That is when things are going to blow up. Not just on these boards but everywhere. My prediction, the new cool thing for PC gamers will actually be a Mac.
I believe that graphics cards do not support virtualization, meaning only one kernal/OS can directly address the graphics card. This means that either the graphics card is under OSX control or Windows control, but not both. The ONLY thing I can think of that would get this to work, is that in FULL SCREEN mode you could force OSX to give up all display options. No way this could work in a window within window mode.
Anyone else want to elaborate. Connectix people were pretty savvy with virtualization and they never could offer full graphics card support. I think there is something very fundamental going on that doesn't allow it.
That just isn't going to happen any time soon. The world of PC gaming is dominated by people who build their own PC and live to squeeze small but measurable performance increases out of their systems.
You're probably right about the large picture. I didn't mean to imply that Macs would come to dominate PC gaming, only that they would enter the scene at all as a legitimate PC game machine. The majority are nerds who want to build their systems, but with the success of the iPod it might actually be 'cool' to bring your Mac Pro to the LAN party.
Also, I saw mentioned the possibility of a second graphics card. This sounds interesting. I can't honestly remember what generation of busses we are on now. But for awhile graphic cards needed an AGP port, and running a graphic card on a PCI card would mean a performance hit. But I seem to remember that the new models had a new bus system. Would the current Mac Pros be able to accommodate a second card and still get full performance out of it? I could see having the standard graphic card that comes with the mac for system purposes, then a dedicated card that could be taken over as needed.
any type of network including vpns - vmware already done
using the bootcamp volume instead of a virtual disk, VMware has in newer betas
Full hardware virtualization of the graphics card, yes full 3d acceleration will be in v1
Also VMware (not the beta released to the public) is much, faster than Parallels. The beta released to the "Public" was slow.
However VMware has much better support for USB devices, they just work like they should, and they work in both OSes, so you can plug your motorola phone into your mac, and use vmware to run a firmware update (with windows only software) because vmware actually properly shares the USB devices with hardware virtualization between the two OSes
I stopped using PCs 11 years ago, and never looked back since.
Nowerdays I don't need them for work or play. Basically never had need but now that I got a new MBP and the prospects of running Parallels makes it appealing just for the fun of it and to see what we can do with it.
How affected does windows get by viruses through Parallels? Is it as bad as on normal PS systems?
As far as I can tell, Bootcamp and Parallels will be equally susceptable to viruses as normal PCs are. Of course, they still won't touch OSX.
Wine/CrossOver is another story. That emulates the API layer of WindowsXP, which in allows you to run a good number of Windows Applications without installing Windows. While this is the least compatible and least stable option, it should be immune to Windows viruses and I've also heard that it CAN use the graphics card acceleration in full screen mode. PLUS you don't have to buy a copy of windows!!! Bonus. Down side is stability and getting programs to work using it.
What I was wondering, is what exactly does it mean that the Boot Camp volume can be used as a virtual volume?
Does that mean that you are now in Boot Camp, and Parallels is no longer available? Does that mean that now it works exactly as though you booted from Boot Camp, or are there still restrictions, such as the one from the last post, with the GPU?
I believe it means you can run Parallels as Parallels (VM) without the need to reinstall Windows. Boot up Parallels and everything is good to go, using the Windows system you already set up under Boot Camp.
So. VMWare is vaporware as far as I am concerned. Before parallels.com got sucked down with traffic I got the new beta on my C2D 24" iMac and it flies. If VMWare had any sense, they would have started on this a wee bit earlier and actually have a purchasable product out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by webmail
Wow it's really great to see that Parallels obviously got invited to the private beta testing of VMware for Mac.
EVERY SINGLE FEATURE THEY ARE LISTING here is a straight exact feature rip of what VMware is doing..
any type of network including vpns - vmware already done
using the bootcamp volume instead of a virtual disk, VMware has in newer betas
Full hardware virtualization of the graphics card, yes full 3d acceleration will be in v1
Also VMware (not the beta released to the public) is much, faster than Parallels. The beta released to the "Public" was slow.
However VMware has much better support for USB devices, they just work like they should, and they work in both OSes, so you can plug your motorola phone into your mac, and use vmware to run a firmware update (with windows only software) because vmware actually properly shares the USB devices with hardware virtualization between the two OSes
or in a Mac Pro it could have its own graphics card in another slot.
And how would that work? Which GPU gets to control the output? If it's the Mac OS GPU then we are in the same boat.
If it's the Windows/Parallel GPU then we still have no Mac screen output. That could mean a blank screen everywhere the Virtual window isn't. No control of OS X at all from the screen.
Perhaps if it were mouse dependent. When the mouse is over the virtual window, Windows takes over. Slide it off that window, and the Mac OS takes over. Very clumsy, and I'm not sure if it would work. But, you wouldn't need two GPU's for that.
any type of network including vpns - vmware already done
using the bootcamp volume instead of a virtual disk, VMware has in newer betas
Full hardware virtualization of the graphics card, yes full 3d acceleration will be in v1
Also VMware (not the beta released to the public) is much, faster than Parallels. The beta released to the "Public" was slow.
However VMware has much better support for USB devices, they just work like they should, and they work in both OSes, so you can plug your motorola phone into your mac, and use vmware to run a firmware update (with windows only software) because vmware actually properly shares the USB devices with hardware virtualization between the two OSes
How about the fact that every feature was ASKED FOR BY CUSTOMERS way before VMWare ever showed anything? MONTHS ago? Its called customer feedback. Amazing that two similar products have similar features when customers ask for the same thing.
Get off your high horse. I can use Parallels now. I can't use VMWare for how much longer now? Parallels pays my bills. VMWare doesn't.
How about the fact that every feature was ASKED FOR BY CUSTOMERS way before VMWare ever showed anything? MONTHS ago? Its called customer feedback. Amazing that two similar products have similar features when customers ask for the same thing.
Get off your high horse. I can use Parallels now. I can't use VMWare for how much longer now? Parallels pays my bills. VMWare doesn't.
A lot of what he said came in VPC as well, and even before that, in Softwindows about 15 years ago.
Anyway, VMware is a corporate solution. Few people will use it at home.
Supposedly, it is. Only one OS can have control of it at once. Makes sense when you think about it. OS X still controls the machine. The virtual machine is really just riding piggyback. Which OS should control the GPU?
If that turns out to by the piggyback OS, then none of OS X's graphics functions will work. Uh oh!
Here is my question. Lets say I launch up Doom 3. It can do all of the drawing it wants to with the graphics card (in either windowed or full screen mode). OS X can still do its drawings. So 2 different programs can control the graphics card, at the same time, and both work at full speed.
Could some sort of "quasi-driver" be written that just passed all of the graphics calls from Windows through a OpenGL OS X Driver? That way any drawing done in Parallels is using the OS X graphics system, but doing so at full speed. Does that make sense? No "graphics card virtualization" required. I am sure it wouldn't be 100% native speeds (as there would probably be a bit of overhead from passing through this way), but I bet it could work (assuming a method like this is possible) at about 75-80% of native speeds (plenty for gaming on a modern system).
I have a quick review of the new beta with a few screen shots (the most interesting of which is at the end of the article, showing Windows XP apps and Mac apps side by side using the new Coherence feature of Parallels): http://www.gigoblog.com/
Does Parallels support Linux, BSD, OpenSolaris, and other UNIX type systems?
I don't care one bit about Windows having just left the world of Windows (Viruses or not, the amount of maintenance it requires is horrendous) and I am interested in *NIX systems only at the moment. If all I have to look forward to is a way to get Windows into my life again then what's the point?
More to the point, why run Windows to begin with? I asked this question to every PC user I know and get a range of responses which all basically add up to them not caring enough to try and install Linux or they don't like Macs (I laughed at that last one)
The only valid excuse so far would be for a Job Requirement, and even that is starting to fade as Macs are more Windows compatible (outside the world of Boot Camp and Virtualization)
I disagree, unless all you do with a computer is just web stuff or simple home-office stuff. There isn't always an OS X counterpart to do a specific task to do it the way the user needs it to. For instance, I have not found an OS X DVD decrypter/ripper that rips directly to an ISO file, much less one that shrinks a dual layer disc to fit on a single layer disc. I have a Windows app that does just that. I can chose from a wider range of engineering software. My microcontroller devel environment, and third party compiler, are Windows-only. I just bought an engraving laser, none of the ones that I found were OS X compatible to the slightest degree. I am generally moving more tasks to OS X, but it is slow and I really don't see a complete changeover. I really don't think Linux is very suitable for a non-techie.
I don't think the amount of maintenance is horrendous, that work is real but the magnitude overblown. If you run decent hardware with WHQL drivers, don't run there really aren't any notable stability problems that I've found. I had more kernel halt problems with my USB scanner in OS X last year than I had BSODs in the past decade as an NT/2000/XP user.
It only took two clicks on the Parallels site to find this OS com list:
Does Parrallels support Linux, BSD, OpenSolaris, and other UNIX type systems?
More to the point, why run Windows to begin with? I asked this question to every PC user I know and get a range of responses which all basically add up to them not caring enough to try and install Linux or they don't like Macs (I laughed at that last one)
The only valid excuse so far would be for a Job Requirement, and even that is starting to fade as Macs are more Windows compatible (outside the world of Boot Camp and Virtualization)
Unfortunately, there are many applications of a technical nature that are only available in a Windows format. Some professionals need to utilize these programs from time to time, and this means we have to have a way of booting a windows machine. Wine would be a great solution, if it actually worked for these applications. But unfortunately, development is not at the stage where every program works.
I'm glad to see they support Fedora Core, but I believe the latest version is 6. Minix also isn't listed and neither is OpenBSD. Oh well, I'll wait until I see VMware's offering in full (I registered for the beta but I'm still waiting for their Email) before deciding between the 2.
It's possible that they didn't test them yet. You can download a trial copy for free to see your choices work. I think it's a very impressive list, I would be surprised if VMware's compatibility list was half as long.
Slewis, kirkjeffery and JeffDM I think have all made valid points. You gotta use what gets the job done sometimes. nVidia-chipset motherboards and GPUs are pretty rock solid, also if you have decent quality RAM, WinXPPro2 runs alright.
Nowadays in Windows-land though I do have an immense problem finding the right software -- not to mention all the adware- promiseware- and magazine-ware "full version!! (but you must register online..!!!)" stuff, and all that DVD-iso-Freeware/Shareware stuff is hella confusing, for me at least.
Whilst being a very vocal insulter of Vista; IE7 and WindowsMediaPlayer11 has made me crave for the Vista-ly user interface. Hence probably I will succumb to Vista sometime next year.
The iBook G4 933mhz's still on 10.3.9. It's running FFMPEGX right now compressing a DVDrip to XVID (best "everyday" codec out there!!)... We'll get 10.5 onto it sometime next year.
So I'll be all Vista-ed up and Leopard-ed up next year. Yeah.... I'll be a Leopard running on an endless Vista plain gobbling up n00bs. Or something. F83k I'm not making sense right now.... Woooooo
Edit: Also waiting for DirectX10 games that are decent, as well as playing some of HL2:Episode2, FEAR Extraction Point, and yeah, a DX10 GPU sometime next year that doesn't cost as much as the whole computer and makes less noise and sucks less power than a vacuum cleaner.
Comments
Man, can't wait until the headline reads
"Latest Build of Parallels Desktop now supports direct graphic card acceleration"
That is when things are going to blow up. Not just on these boards but everywhere. My prediction, the new cool thing for PC gamers will actually be a Mac.
I believe that graphics cards do not support virtualization, meaning only one kernal/OS can directly address the graphics card. This means that either the graphics card is under OSX control or Windows control, but not both. The ONLY thing I can think of that would get this to work, is that in FULL SCREEN mode you could force OSX to give up all display options. No way this could work in a window within window mode.
Anyone else want to elaborate. Connectix people were pretty savvy with virtualization and they never could offer full graphics card support. I think there is something very fundamental going on that doesn't allow it.
Mark
That just isn't going to happen any time soon. The world of PC gaming is dominated by people who build their own PC and live to squeeze small but measurable performance increases out of their systems.
You're probably right about the large picture. I didn't mean to imply that Macs would come to dominate PC gaming, only that they would enter the scene at all as a legitimate PC game machine. The majority are nerds who want to build their systems, but with the success of the iPod it might actually be 'cool' to bring your Mac Pro to the LAN party.
Also, I saw mentioned the possibility of a second graphics card. This sounds interesting. I can't honestly remember what generation of busses we are on now. But for awhile graphic cards needed an AGP port, and running a graphic card on a PCI card would mean a performance hit. But I seem to remember that the new models had a new bus system. Would the current Mac Pros be able to accommodate a second card and still get full performance out of it? I could see having the standard graphic card that comes with the mac for system purposes, then a dedicated card that could be taken over as needed.
EVERY SINGLE FEATURE THEY ARE LISTING here is a straight exact feature rip of what VMware is doing..
drag n' drop - vmware already done
resizing window - automatically changes resolution
any type of network including vpns - vmware already done
using the bootcamp volume instead of a virtual disk, VMware has in newer betas
Full hardware virtualization of the graphics card, yes full 3d acceleration will be in v1
Also VMware (not the beta released to the public) is much, faster than Parallels. The beta released to the "Public" was slow.
However VMware has much better support for USB devices, they just work like they should, and they work in both OSes, so you can plug your motorola phone into your mac, and use vmware to run a firmware update (with windows only software) because vmware actually properly shares the USB devices with hardware virtualization between the two OSes
I stopped using PCs 11 years ago, and never looked back since.
Nowerdays I don't need them for work or play. Basically never had need but now that I got a new MBP and the prospects of running Parallels makes it appealing just for the fun of it and to see what we can do with it.
How affected does windows get by viruses through Parallels? Is it as bad as on normal PS systems?
As far as I can tell, Bootcamp and Parallels will be equally susceptable to viruses as normal PCs are. Of course, they still won't touch OSX.
Wine/CrossOver is another story. That emulates the API layer of WindowsXP, which in allows you to run a good number of Windows Applications without installing Windows. While this is the least compatible and least stable option, it should be immune to Windows viruses and I've also heard that it CAN use the graphics card acceleration in full screen mode. PLUS you don't have to buy a copy of windows!!! Bonus. Down side is stability and getting programs to work using it.
What I was wondering, is what exactly does it mean that the Boot Camp volume can be used as a virtual volume?
Does that mean that you are now in Boot Camp, and Parallels is no longer available? Does that mean that now it works exactly as though you booted from Boot Camp, or are there still restrictions, such as the one from the last post, with the GPU?
I believe it means you can run Parallels as Parallels (VM) without the need to reinstall Windows. Boot up Parallels and everything is good to go, using the Windows system you already set up under Boot Camp.
Wow it's really great to see that Parallels obviously got invited to the private beta testing of VMware for Mac.
EVERY SINGLE FEATURE THEY ARE LISTING here is a straight exact feature rip of what VMware is doing..
drag n' drop - vmware already done
resizing window - automatically changes resolution
any type of network including vpns - vmware already done
using the bootcamp volume instead of a virtual disk, VMware has in newer betas
Full hardware virtualization of the graphics card, yes full 3d acceleration will be in v1
Also VMware (not the beta released to the public) is much, faster than Parallels. The beta released to the "Public" was slow.
However VMware has much better support for USB devices, they just work like they should, and they work in both OSes, so you can plug your motorola phone into your mac, and use vmware to run a firmware update (with windows only software) because vmware actually properly shares the USB devices with hardware virtualization between the two OSes
SOLUTION: Dual core GPUs!
Each OS can have it's own GPU.
or in a Mac Pro it could have its own graphics card in another slot.
And how would that work? Which GPU gets to control the output? If it's the Mac OS GPU then we are in the same boat.
If it's the Windows/Parallel GPU then we still have no Mac screen output. That could mean a blank screen everywhere the Virtual window isn't. No control of OS X at all from the screen.
Perhaps if it were mouse dependent. When the mouse is over the virtual window, Windows takes over. Slide it off that window, and the Mac OS takes over. Very clumsy, and I'm not sure if it would work. But, you wouldn't need two GPU's for that.
Wow it's really great to see that Parallels obviously got invited to the private beta testing of VMware for Mac.
EVERY SINGLE FEATURE THEY ARE LISTING here is a straight exact feature rip of what VMware is doing..
drag n' drop - vmware already done
resizing window - automatically changes resolution
any type of network including vpns - vmware already done
using the bootcamp volume instead of a virtual disk, VMware has in newer betas
Full hardware virtualization of the graphics card, yes full 3d acceleration will be in v1
Also VMware (not the beta released to the public) is much, faster than Parallels. The beta released to the "Public" was slow.
However VMware has much better support for USB devices, they just work like they should, and they work in both OSes, so you can plug your motorola phone into your mac, and use vmware to run a firmware update (with windows only software) because vmware actually properly shares the USB devices with hardware virtualization between the two OSes
How about the fact that every feature was ASKED FOR BY CUSTOMERS way before VMWare ever showed anything? MONTHS ago? Its called customer feedback. Amazing that two similar products have similar features when customers ask for the same thing.
Get off your high horse. I can use Parallels now. I can't use VMWare for how much longer now? Parallels pays my bills. VMWare doesn't.
How about the fact that every feature was ASKED FOR BY CUSTOMERS way before VMWare ever showed anything? MONTHS ago? Its called customer feedback. Amazing that two similar products have similar features when customers ask for the same thing.
Get off your high horse. I can use Parallels now. I can't use VMWare for how much longer now? Parallels pays my bills. VMWare doesn't.
A lot of what he said came in VPC as well, and even before that, in Softwindows about 15 years ago.
Anyway, VMware is a corporate solution. Few people will use it at home.
And how would that work? Which GPU gets to control the output? If it's the Mac OS GPU then we are in the same boat.
I'd be happy to go dual head and give each OS its own monitor.
Supposedly, it is. Only one OS can have control of it at once. Makes sense when you think about it. OS X still controls the machine. The virtual machine is really just riding piggyback. Which OS should control the GPU?
If that turns out to by the piggyback OS, then none of OS X's graphics functions will work. Uh oh!
Here is my question. Lets say I launch up Doom 3. It can do all of the drawing it wants to with the graphics card (in either windowed or full screen mode). OS X can still do its drawings. So 2 different programs can control the graphics card, at the same time, and both work at full speed.
Could some sort of "quasi-driver" be written that just passed all of the graphics calls from Windows through a OpenGL OS X Driver? That way any drawing done in Parallels is using the OS X graphics system, but doing so at full speed. Does that make sense? No "graphics card virtualization" required. I am sure it wouldn't be 100% native speeds (as there would probably be a bit of overhead from passing through this way), but I bet it could work (assuming a method like this is possible) at about 75-80% of native speeds (plenty for gaming on a modern system).
I have a quick review of the new beta with a few screen shots (the most interesting of which is at the end of the article, showing Windows XP apps and Mac apps side by side using the new Coherence feature of Parallels): http://www.gigoblog.com/
Whoa. Revolutionary.
Does Parallels support Linux, BSD, OpenSolaris, and other UNIX type systems?
I don't care one bit about Windows having just left the world of Windows (Viruses or not, the amount of maintenance it requires is horrendous) and I am interested in *NIX systems only at the moment. If all I have to look forward to is a way to get Windows into my life again then what's the point?
More to the point, why run Windows to begin with? I asked this question to every PC user I know and get a range of responses which all basically add up to them not caring enough to try and install Linux or they don't like Macs (I laughed at that last one)
The only valid excuse so far would be for a Job Requirement, and even that is starting to fade as Macs are more Windows compatible (outside the world of Boot Camp and Virtualization)
I disagree, unless all you do with a computer is just web stuff or simple home-office stuff. There isn't always an OS X counterpart to do a specific task to do it the way the user needs it to. For instance, I have not found an OS X DVD decrypter/ripper that rips directly to an ISO file, much less one that shrinks a dual layer disc to fit on a single layer disc. I have a Windows app that does just that. I can chose from a wider range of engineering software. My microcontroller devel environment, and third party compiler, are Windows-only. I just bought an engraving laser, none of the ones that I found were OS X compatible to the slightest degree. I am generally moving more tasks to OS X, but it is slow and I really don't see a complete changeover. I really don't think Linux is very suitable for a non-techie.
I don't think the amount of maintenance is horrendous, that work is real but the magnitude overblown. If you run decent hardware with WHQL drivers, don't run there really aren't any notable stability problems that I've found. I had more kernel halt problems with my USB scanner in OS X last year than I had BSODs in the past decade as an NT/2000/XP user.
It only took two clicks on the Parallels site to find this OS com list:
http://www.parallels.com/products/desktop/os/
Does Parrallels support Linux, BSD, OpenSolaris, and other UNIX type systems?
More to the point, why run Windows to begin with? I asked this question to every PC user I know and get a range of responses which all basically add up to them not caring enough to try and install Linux or they don't like Macs (I laughed at that last one)
The only valid excuse so far would be for a Job Requirement, and even that is starting to fade as Macs are more Windows compatible (outside the world of Boot Camp and Virtualization)
Unfortunately, there are many applications of a technical nature that are only available in a Windows format. Some professionals need to utilize these programs from time to time, and this means we have to have a way of booting a windows machine. Wine would be a great solution, if it actually worked for these applications. But unfortunately, development is not at the stage where every program works.
I'm glad to see they support Fedora Core, but I believe the latest version is 6. Minix also isn't listed and neither is OpenBSD. Oh well, I'll wait until I see VMware's offering in full (I registered for the beta but I'm still waiting for their Email) before deciding between the 2.
It's possible that they didn't test them yet. You can download a trial copy for free to see your choices work. I think it's a very impressive list, I would be surprised if VMware's compatibility list was half as long.
Nowadays in Windows-land though I do have an immense problem finding the right software -- not to mention all the adware- promiseware- and magazine-ware "full version!! (but you must register online..!!!)" stuff, and all that DVD-iso-Freeware/Shareware stuff is hella confusing, for me at least.
The iBook G4 933mhz's still on 10.3.9. It's running FFMPEGX right now compressing a DVDrip to XVID (best "everyday" codec out there!!)... We'll get 10.5 onto it sometime next year.
So I'll be all Vista-ed up and Leopard-ed up next year. Yeah.... I'll be a Leopard running on an endless Vista plain gobbling up n00bs. Or something. F83k I'm not making sense right now.... Woooooo
Edit: Also waiting for DirectX10 games that are decent, as well as playing some of HL2:Episode2, FEAR Extraction Point, and yeah, a DX10 GPU sometime next year that doesn't cost as much as the whole computer and makes less noise and sucks less power than a vacuum cleaner.