I havent had much first hand experience with Parrells, but so far i think bootcamp has taken parrells place. Except with bootcamp you cannot switch between OS's easily with the click of the mouse. And I dont think bootcamp will ever have that ability to easily switch because it would have to run both OS X and windows at the same time and it only does this in their native state. I dont think that is possible. Anyone, please correct me if I'm wrong.
If I recall correctly, at WWDC Jobs said that Parallels was great and that he didn't plan to replace it as it worked well and he saw no need to compete with that. Please correct my if I'm wrong.
I havent had much first hand experience with Parrells, but so far i think bootcamp has taken parrells place. Except with bootcamp you cannot switch between OS's easily with the click of the mouse. And I dont think bootcamp will ever have that ability to easily switch because it would have to run both OS X and windows at the same time and it only does this in their native state. I dont think that is possible. Anyone, please correct me if I'm wrong.
-all4design
It should be possible to run multiple OSs simultaneously with some new hardware virtualization that's coming in future Intel products. If Bootcamp used this, it could affect Parallels but some people still prefer the idea of running systems inside a disk image. Plus Bootcamp isn't an app that runs or even helps to run Windows so it would be a different program altogether.
I personally don't use Parallels at all now and I switched over to native Windows simply because the read/write partition is much easier to deal with. Plus running a VM puts a lot of strain on your system.
Parallels is still there if I ever need to boot my Bootcamp partition on the Mac side but that situation hasn't arisen at all.
"Future hardware virtualization" is great for CPUs and some chipsets, but it doesn't cover everything that a computer is: graphics, I/O, storage, and so on. Bootcamp is simply a BIOS with a utility. Far from anything for VM use.
Will Leopard's Bootcamp take the place of Parrells?
No. Apple have categorically said so many times now. Parallels (and VMware Fusion) use virtualisation to allow Windows to run at the same time as OS X. The computer is booted into OS X, then Parallels or VMware Fusion is used to get Windows running at the same time.
Macs use EFI firmware, Intel's long overdue replacement for BIOS. However, Microsoft still only support BIOS. So, Boot Camp is an EFI patch that enables it to simulate being a BIOS, allowing an Intel Mac to natively boot Windows. OS X is not involved in any way. Boot Camp also provides Windows drivers for various bits of Apple Hardware, such as a trackpad driver to enable two-finger scrolling and right-clicking, wireless drivers, iSight drivers, etc. etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
It should be possible to run multiple OSs simultaneously with some new hardware virtualization that's coming in future Intel products.
Are you talking about virtualisation for chips other that the CPU? Such as the GPU? Because all Intel Macs already have processors with virtualisation capabilities.
i'm loving parallels right now! so very slick! if i can an imac i might be tempted to do a proper xp installation in order to play the odd game, but otherwise parallels more than does the job
Are you talking about virtualisation for chips other that the CPU? Such as the GPU? Because all Intel Macs already have processors with virtualisation capabilities.
Yeah, GPU virtualisation, I remember there was an article talking about some future Intel technology that would allow this to happen. I don't know if it's just related to Intel graphics hardware though, which would make it less useful.
Yeah, GPU virtualisation, I remember there was an article talking about some future Intel technology that would allow this to happen. I don't know if it's just related to Intel graphics hardware though, which would make it less useful.
Virtualisation happens at the hardware level, so yes, Intel developments would apply to Intel graphics chips only. However, I guess Nvidia and ATI are working on this too.
Even if all the hardware had hardware virtualization support, Bootcamp is as near to providing virtualization support as the sandwich I had for lunch would. So you'd still need a Parallels or VMWare to virtualize.
It should be possible to run multiple OSs simultaneously with some new hardware virtualization that's coming in future Intel products. If Bootcamp used this, it could affect Parallels but some people still prefer the idea of running systems inside a disk image. Plus Bootcamp isn't an app that runs or even helps to run Windows so it would be a different program altogether.
I personally don't use Parallels at all now and I switched over to native Windows simply because the read/write partition is much easier to deal with. Plus running a VM puts a lot of strain on your system.
Parallels is still there if I ever need to boot my Bootcamp partition on the Mac side but that situation hasn't arisen at all.
True true true. As i asked, correct me if i was wrong. thats cool, i've learned something.
Pardon my lack of tech savvy, but what's the difference between emulation and virtualization?
Emulation is where you support a different hardware architecture. Virtualization is where you run another system but one that runs natively on the same hardware i.e it is binary compatible with the architecture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sequitur
Also, what is the term for something like CrossOver which doesn't need a Windows OS?
Is anyone here using CrossOver and what is your opinion of it?
Crossover is a program that uses components which have been built to act like Windows but not using the actual Windows source code - I don't think there's really a term for it. It's like if there was someone speaking a foreign language and you had two translators. Windows (translator 1) has all the manuals and knows how to interpret the language exactly because he has all the correct APIs used to construct the language in the first place but the second is only guessing based on the results translator 1 gets. The Windows guy gets the interpretation correct but the Crossover guy might come up with some mistakes.
This means that because they are not using the same APIs used in building the programs (Crossover uses its own version of them), it's likely that compatibility problems arise and this happens quite a lot. Crossover in practice supports very few Windows programs and it's really been designed to support the most popular ones like Office and Half-Life 2.
It's not any faster than the virtualization products except possibly in graphics because you have to wait ages to initialize each program whereas say Parallels just has to boot once and if you use fast resume then you hardly have to wait any time at all. Crossover's major benefit IMO is being able to write directly to your Mac drive but that could be a security risk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akac
Even if all the hardware had hardware virtualization support, Bootcamp is as near to providing virtualization support as the sandwich I had for lunch would. So you'd still need a Parallels or VMWare to virtualize.
Yeah, that's right but it would be possible to have something where you're not actually running Windows inside OS X. It would be kind of an OS switching feature and it wouldn't even require hardware virtualization. So you'd suspend OS X and pass over control of the hardware to Windows entirely but without rebooting. Then similarly when going back to OS X. It would just need a hibernate feature on both sides and I'm sure that would affect Parallels etc.
Virtualisation happens at the hardware level, so yes, Intel developments would apply to Intel graphics chips only. However, I guess Nvidia and ATI are working on this too.
PCIe2 supports hardware virtualization. No Macs currently use PCIe2. In fact, only high-end gaming MoBos even offer it at this stage.
With PCIe2, a GPU with virtualization tech could be virtualized, but it would require hardware on the motherboard and the GPU.
I think it would more apply to software like Cider from transgaming but possibly Crossover (they are both based on similar technology). The likes of Parallels and VMWare run the original OSs so the OSs still need to exist. In the case of Cider, apps are simply linked against the equivalent parts of the system needed to run the executable and the OS itself is negligible - I read an article about how Cider works and essentially, there is no recompilation involved, the devs send Cider the binary and they work with that to get it to run elsewhere.
I don't see it as a threat in the short term at least because OS makers deliberately try to make their systems appealing by having exclusive features/components and that will always require the entire system in order to virtualize it - since that code is exclusive and closed source, the best that Crossover etc.can do is come up with an equivalent but likely years down the line.
Also virtualization solutions like Parallels and VMWare are not ideal as they don't access all your Ram or drive space and there is always the overhead.
The OS wars could have ended years ago if people opted to use virtual machines to run software but as always, whose vm do you rely on? And again, some people don't want to do this in the interests of exclusivity, performance and freedom. I'm sure that Microsoft could have ported the DirectX APIs to other platforms by now.
In the end, we will always need an operating system for shared libraries and APIs. The best we will achieve is that we all use the same one. At the moment, none of the OSs are a significant threat to the other. Windows isn't very good, OS X is tied to hardware and Linux lacks support and isn't as easy to use as the others.
Comments
-all4design
I havent had much first hand experience with Parrells, but so far i think bootcamp has taken parrells place. Except with bootcamp you cannot switch between OS's easily with the click of the mouse. And I dont think bootcamp will ever have that ability to easily switch because it would have to run both OS X and windows at the same time and it only does this in their native state. I dont think that is possible. Anyone, please correct me if I'm wrong.
-all4design
It should be possible to run multiple OSs simultaneously with some new hardware virtualization that's coming in future Intel products. If Bootcamp used this, it could affect Parallels but some people still prefer the idea of running systems inside a disk image. Plus Bootcamp isn't an app that runs or even helps to run Windows so it would be a different program altogether.
I personally don't use Parallels at all now and I switched over to native Windows simply because the read/write partition is much easier to deal with. Plus running a VM puts a lot of strain on your system.
Parallels is still there if I ever need to boot my Bootcamp partition on the Mac side but that situation hasn't arisen at all.
Will Leopard's Bootcamp take the place of Parrells?
No. Apple have categorically said so many times now. Parallels (and VMware Fusion) use virtualisation to allow Windows to run at the same time as OS X. The computer is booted into OS X, then Parallels or VMware Fusion is used to get Windows running at the same time.
Macs use EFI firmware, Intel's long overdue replacement for BIOS. However, Microsoft still only support BIOS. So, Boot Camp is an EFI patch that enables it to simulate being a BIOS, allowing an Intel Mac to natively boot Windows. OS X is not involved in any way. Boot Camp also provides Windows drivers for various bits of Apple Hardware, such as a trackpad driver to enable two-finger scrolling and right-clicking, wireless drivers, iSight drivers, etc. etc.
It should be possible to run multiple OSs simultaneously with some new hardware virtualization that's coming in future Intel products.
Are you talking about virtualisation for chips other that the CPU? Such as the GPU? Because all Intel Macs already have processors with virtualisation capabilities.
Are you talking about virtualisation for chips other that the CPU? Such as the GPU? Because all Intel Macs already have processors with virtualisation capabilities.
Yeah, GPU virtualisation, I remember there was an article talking about some future Intel technology that would allow this to happen. I don't know if it's just related to Intel graphics hardware though, which would make it less useful.
Yeah, GPU virtualisation, I remember there was an article talking about some future Intel technology that would allow this to happen. I don't know if it's just related to Intel graphics hardware though, which would make it less useful.
Virtualisation happens at the hardware level, so yes, Intel developments would apply to Intel graphics chips only. However, I guess Nvidia and ATI are working on this too.
Also, what is the term for something like CrossOver which doesn't need a Windows OS?
Is anyone here using CrossOver and what is your opinion of it?
It should be possible to run multiple OSs simultaneously with some new hardware virtualization that's coming in future Intel products. If Bootcamp used this, it could affect Parallels but some people still prefer the idea of running systems inside a disk image. Plus Bootcamp isn't an app that runs or even helps to run Windows so it would be a different program altogether.
I personally don't use Parallels at all now and I switched over to native Windows simply because the read/write partition is much easier to deal with. Plus running a VM puts a lot of strain on your system.
Parallels is still there if I ever need to boot my Bootcamp partition on the Mac side but that situation hasn't arisen at all.
True true true. As i asked, correct me if i was wrong. thats cool, i've learned something.
Its about time to make use of those dual cores.
Pardon my lack of tech savvy, but what's the difference between emulation and virtualization?
Emulation is where you support a different hardware architecture. Virtualization is where you run another system but one that runs natively on the same hardware i.e it is binary compatible with the architecture.
Also, what is the term for something like CrossOver which doesn't need a Windows OS?
Is anyone here using CrossOver and what is your opinion of it?
Crossover is a program that uses components which have been built to act like Windows but not using the actual Windows source code - I don't think there's really a term for it. It's like if there was someone speaking a foreign language and you had two translators. Windows (translator 1) has all the manuals and knows how to interpret the language exactly because he has all the correct APIs used to construct the language in the first place but the second is only guessing based on the results translator 1 gets. The Windows guy gets the interpretation correct but the Crossover guy might come up with some mistakes.
This means that because they are not using the same APIs used in building the programs (Crossover uses its own version of them), it's likely that compatibility problems arise and this happens quite a lot. Crossover in practice supports very few Windows programs and it's really been designed to support the most popular ones like Office and Half-Life 2.
It's not any faster than the virtualization products except possibly in graphics because you have to wait ages to initialize each program whereas say Parallels just has to boot once and if you use fast resume then you hardly have to wait any time at all. Crossover's major benefit IMO is being able to write directly to your Mac drive but that could be a security risk.
Even if all the hardware had hardware virtualization support, Bootcamp is as near to providing virtualization support as the sandwich I had for lunch would. So you'd still need a Parallels or VMWare to virtualize.
Yeah, that's right but it would be possible to have something where you're not actually running Windows inside OS X. It would be kind of an OS switching feature and it wouldn't even require hardware virtualization. So you'd suspend OS X and pass over control of the hardware to Windows entirely but without rebooting. Then similarly when going back to OS X. It would just need a hibernate feature on both sides and I'm sure that would affect Parallels etc.
That was supposed to be coming with Leopard:
http://www.tuaw.com/2007/06/17/leopa...g-disappears/2
http://www.macrumors.com/2007/06/12/...ter-restarts/#
Virtualisation happens at the hardware level, so yes, Intel developments would apply to Intel graphics chips only. However, I guess Nvidia and ATI are working on this too.
PCIe2 supports hardware virtualization. No Macs currently use PCIe2. In fact, only high-end gaming MoBos even offer it at this stage.
With PCIe2, a GPU with virtualization tech could be virtualized, but it would require hardware on the motherboard and the GPU.
They solve different problems.
Virtualization is where you run another system but one that runs natively on the same hardware i.e it is binary compatible with the architecture.]
Could this apply to Parallels or Fusion or Crossover?
VMware virtual appliance a threat to the OS: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...200040_pf.html
Could this apply to Parallels or Fusion or Crossover?
VMware virtual appliance a threat to the OS: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...200040_pf.html
I think it would more apply to software like Cider from transgaming but possibly Crossover (they are both based on similar technology). The likes of Parallels and VMWare run the original OSs so the OSs still need to exist. In the case of Cider, apps are simply linked against the equivalent parts of the system needed to run the executable and the OS itself is negligible - I read an article about how Cider works and essentially, there is no recompilation involved, the devs send Cider the binary and they work with that to get it to run elsewhere.
I don't see it as a threat in the short term at least because OS makers deliberately try to make their systems appealing by having exclusive features/components and that will always require the entire system in order to virtualize it - since that code is exclusive and closed source, the best that Crossover etc.can do is come up with an equivalent but likely years down the line.
Also virtualization solutions like Parallels and VMWare are not ideal as they don't access all your Ram or drive space and there is always the overhead.
The OS wars could have ended years ago if people opted to use virtual machines to run software but as always, whose vm do you rely on? And again, some people don't want to do this in the interests of exclusivity, performance and freedom. I'm sure that Microsoft could have ported the DirectX APIs to other platforms by now.
In the end, we will always need an operating system for shared libraries and APIs. The best we will achieve is that we all use the same one. At the moment, none of the OSs are a significant threat to the other. Windows isn't very good, OS X is tied to hardware and Linux lacks support and isn't as easy to use as the others.
Microsoft reverses decision to allow Vista virtualization
http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/06...tion/index.php
Hands On: Running Vista Home on a Mac
http://www.macworld.com/2007/02/firs...amac/index.php