That's true, but IBM has other product lines, and is even expanding them.
We were talking about PowerPC and POWER servers, and AFAIK IBM only offers POWER/PPC processors on i- and pSeries servers (with the possible exception of the JS20 -- not sure what that would be classified as).
Quote:
The longevity of the old 400 series surprised even them.
Yeah, in fact, it even outlived its own name:
When IBM marketing decided that "eBusiness" is a really cool word, they had all the server lines renamed to "eServer somethingSeries". Thus, the AS/400 product line became the "iSeries", S/3x0 became "zSeries", AIX-based POWER machines became "pSeries" and everything Intel-based became "xSeries".
[B]We were talking about PowerPC and POWER servers, and AFAIK IBM only offers POWER/PPC processors on i- and pSeries servers (with the possible exception of the JS20 -- not sure what that would be classified as).
It was thought that IBM would expand the series, but it didn't happen.
Quote:
Yeah, in fact, it even outlived its own name:
When IBM marketing decided that "eBusiness" is a really cool word, they had all the server lines renamed to "eServer somethingSeries". Thus, the AS/400 product line became the "iSeries", S/3x0 became "zSeries", AIX-based POWER machines became "pSeries" and everything Intel-based became "xSeries".
Yeah, IBM has been trying to discontinue the "iSeries" for years, but the users won't let them.
1.the promise of wine, crossover, darwine,is that the file system is seamless. a pc file say notepad.exe is right there, you can see it in the mac os finder, drag it anywhere you like, etc. so, better than virtual pc in the sense that there is only one primary file system (your mac hard disk) to worry about, unlike virtual pc where you have your different guest file systems for each guest virtual machine
You can launch Windows apps in VPC wherever they are as well. VPC mounts the folder as a network volume and launches the exe.
Quote:
so anyway i think what melgross said a while back is relevant. there are a lot of good options opening up now for windows and mac osX86 harmony:
2. crossover/wine/darwine/etc
eg. best for running windows applications seamlessly alongside mac applications in os X environment
Actually VirtualPC is and will be far more seamless than Darwine for quite some time. VirtualPC supports copy+paste a lot better than WINE, and you can forget about any drag+drop. This is mostly due to that extra nasty/crufty layer of X11.
Please don't tout Darwine as "seamlessly" doing anything until you've used it first hand.
I would categorize Darwine as best for running games when you don't want to reboot, assuming you can get the controls to work well.
Also, why are you using "eg" like that? Eg. stands for "for example."
[B]You can launch Windows apps in VPC wherever they are as well. VPC mounts the folder as a network volume and launches the exe.
Actually VirtualPC is and will be far more seamless than Darwine for quite some time. VirtualPC supports copy+paste a lot better than WINE, and you can forget about any drag+drop. This is mostly due to that extra nasty/crufty layer of X11.
Please don't tout Darwine as "seamlessly" doing anything until you've used it first hand.
I would categorize Darwine as best for running games when you don't want to reboot, assuming you can get the controls to work well.
I suppose that "seamless" would depend on what you're doing with it. Drag and drop is often better with VPC. But as VPC is so much slower, and has problems with Firewire, USB, graphics, and other services, it's not exactly seamless either.
I suppose that "seamless" would depend on what you're doing with it. Drag and drop is often better with VPC. But as VPC is so much slower, and has problems with Firewire, USB, graphics, and other services, it's not exactly seamless either.
I wouldn't call VPC seamless either, but Darwine is a far cry from being able to support even these rudimentary features.
It's been rumored that an iBook or Mini might come out in January, or maybe not until May or June. Pricing is unknown, though some think that they may cost somewhat less than what the current units cost.
there are a lot of good options opening up now for windows and mac osX86 harmony:
1. dual booting
eg. best for gaming
2. crossover/wine/darwine/etc
eg. best for running windows applications seamlessly alongside mac applications in os X environment
3. virtual pc for mac os x(86)
eg. best for testing and simulating guest windoze environments, also handy where darwine support for an app is incomplete
4. intel CPU virtualisation technology?????
In my earlier post, where I was saying that running Virtual PC on a G3/G4/G5 is very different from running a Windows VM on an Intel Mac, I was referring to your point #4 as the VM technology. That's why it's so different--it's partly hardware based (the CPU supports VMs, as opposed to Virtual PC where the G3/G4/G5 doesn't support VMs directlly) and there are no CPU instruction translations because both Windows and OS X/Intel run natively on Intel.
Here's an interesting take on how Apple might implement it:
If that comes to pass, there'll be no need for Microsoft's Virtual PC product for the Mac anymore. So that crosses off #3 from your list. And IMHO, Crossover/Wine/Darwine won't go mainstream, so cross #2 off your list.
I think the only real options are #1 (dual boot) and #4 (VMs). Use dual boot for performance; use VMs for convenience. Hell, you could even do both!
I think the only real options are #1 (dual boot) and #4 (VMs). Use dual boot for performance; use VMs for convenience. Hell, you could even do both! [/B]
Neither of which offer virtual drives, virtual networking, drag and drop support or cut and paste, features I use all the time in VPC. I'd rather use PPC VPC running under Rosetta on an Intel Mac than lose those features.
1 and 4 are only useful for gamers or people who do not want to use MacOS as their working environment.
If that comes to pass, there'll be no need for Microsoft's Virtual PC product for the Mac anymore. So that crosses off #3 from your list. And IMHO, Crossover/Wine/Darwine won't go mainstream, so cross #2 off your list.
I think the only real options are #1 (dual boot) and #4 (VMs). Use dual boot for performance; use VMs for convenience. Hell, you could even do both! [/B]
The article says what I've been saying about that approach. But the individual partitions will not help the speed of the programs any. The only advantage to that approach is that what happens in one partition won't affect the other. If one OS goes down, the other will still be running. But with both running, you give up the full power of the machine for either partition.. These are virtual partitions, so there is no concept here of one cpu one OS, either. It's fine if you are browsing or doing something where machine power isn't important, but when it is, this is not the way to go.
Neither of which offer virtual drives, virtual networking, drag and drop support or cut and paste, features I use all the time in VPC. I'd rather use PPC VPC running under Rosetta on an Intel Mac than lose those features.
1 and 4 are only useful for gamers or people who do not want to use MacOS as their working environment.
Yeah, I agree that #1 (dual boot) is pretty much a geek/gamer solution. Your average Joe or Mary won't really care for that at all. It's so inconvenient. It's like shutting down your stove so you can use your oven.
#4 (multiple independent VMs) is probably more useful than you think. I don't know the technical details of how Intel and Apple might implement it, but I'd guess you would be able to use the same networking and see the same hard drives (via networking). Yeah, cut & paste would be more difficult, but there might be a workaround (such as the VM silently writing temporary files to the hard drive so the other VM could use them in cut & paste). Who knows?
It would be very impressive if Apple created a seamless environment with Windows running under OS X á la Virtual PC for Mac. But as IBM's OS/2 showed, that just results in users feeling that they don't need to buy new apps for the main operating system (OS X). OS/2 ran Windows programs so seamlessly that there was no need for OS/2 programs. It turned out to be a big mistake for IBM.
A full-screen VM that a user has to switch to will probably be "good enough" to get Windows users to try a Mac. But I could be wrong.
#4 (multiple independent VMs) is probably more useful than you think. I don't know the technical details of how Intel and Apple might implement it, but I'd guess you would be able to use the same networking and see the same hard drives (via networking). Yeah, cut & paste would be more difficult, but there might be a workaround (such as the VM silently writing temporary files to the hard drive so the other VM could use them in cut & paste). Who knows?
VPC works by installing a 'Virtual Additons' driver and it's own virtual switch that makes Windows able to see the Mac as if it were another machine on the network. Without it, it doesn't see the Mac. It's also how the drag and drop from the Mac to the Windows session works. It's very neat.
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
It would be very impressive if Apple created a seamless environment with Windows running under OS X á la Virtual PC for Mac. But as IBM's OS/2 showed, that just results in users feeling that they don't need to buy new apps for the main operating system (OS X). OS/2 ran Windows programs so seamlessly that there was no need for OS/2 programs. It turned out to be a big mistake for IBM.
Yup. And that's why Apple aren't going to do it and why Microsoft probably will. I'd also guess that since the CPU emulation (ie. the hard bit) is now not an issue, we'll see open source Virtual PC clones.
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
A full-screen VM that a user has to switch to will probably be "good enough" to get Windows users to try a Mac. But I could be wrong.
It probably is "good enough" but it's not as good as VPC currently.
[B]Neither of which offer virtual drives, virtual networking, drag and drop support or cut and paste, features I use all the time in VPC. I'd rather use PPC VPC running under Rosetta on an Intel Mac than lose those features.
So use PPC then.
Quote:
1 and 4 are only useful for gamers or people who do not want to use MacOS as their working environment.
1 and 4 are useful for people who have things they need to do within a certain amount of time. They don't have the time to lose waiting for VPC to render that 200MB file in AutoCad. You know?
1 and 4 are useful for people who have things they need to do within a certain amount of time. They don't have the time to lose waiting for VPC to render that 200MB file in AutoCad. You know?
If VPC is Intel native then it will make no difference.
But I don't have a PC with Windows installed on it and if I did I wouldn't be using VPC on a Mac!
Um, it was rhetorical. The point was that VPC for Windows is Intel native, and it still doesn't achieve native speeds (not by a long shot). Just because it runs in the same processor architecture doesn't mean it will have native speed.
Um, it was rhetorical. The point was that VPC for Windows is Intel native, and it still doesn't achieve native speeds (not by a long shot). Just because it runs in the same processor architecture doesn't mean it will have native speed.
I didn't imply it would. It'd be as good as running under VT and no better but have the advantages of integration with it's host OS.
I didn't imply it would. It'd be as good as running under VT and no better but have the advantages of integration with it's host OS.
Would it be as good as running under a VM?
I remember Windows apps running under OS/2 would run much faster when run in full screen mode. Those "advantages of integration with its host OS" come at a significant cost.
Comments
Originally posted by melgross
That's true, but IBM has other product lines, and is even expanding them.
We were talking about PowerPC and POWER servers, and AFAIK IBM only offers POWER/PPC processors on i- and pSeries servers (with the possible exception of the JS20 -- not sure what that would be classified as).
The longevity of the old 400 series surprised even them.
Yeah, in fact, it even outlived its own name:
When IBM marketing decided that "eBusiness" is a really cool word, they had all the server lines renamed to "eServer somethingSeries". Thus, the AS/400 product line became the "iSeries", S/3x0 became "zSeries", AIX-based POWER machines became "pSeries" and everything Intel-based became "xSeries".
Originally posted by RazzFazz
[B]We were talking about PowerPC and POWER servers, and AFAIK IBM only offers POWER/PPC processors on i- and pSeries servers (with the possible exception of the JS20 -- not sure what that would be classified as).
It was thought that IBM would expand the series, but it didn't happen.
Yeah, in fact, it even outlived its own name:
When IBM marketing decided that "eBusiness" is a really cool word, they had all the server lines renamed to "eServer somethingSeries". Thus, the AS/400 product line became the "iSeries", S/3x0 became "zSeries", AIX-based POWER machines became "pSeries" and everything Intel-based became "xSeries".
Yeah, IBM has been trying to discontinue the "iSeries" for years, but the users won't let them.
Originally posted by sunilraman
hi aegis,
1.the promise of wine, crossover, darwine,is that the file system is seamless. a pc file say notepad.exe is right there, you can see it in the mac os finder, drag it anywhere you like, etc. so, better than virtual pc in the sense that there is only one primary file system (your mac hard disk) to worry about, unlike virtual pc where you have your different guest file systems for each guest virtual machine
You can launch Windows apps in VPC wherever they are as well. VPC mounts the folder as a network volume and launches the exe.
Quote:
so anyway i think what melgross said a while back is relevant. there are a lot of good options opening up now for windows and mac osX86 harmony:
2. crossover/wine/darwine/etc
eg. best for running windows applications seamlessly alongside mac applications in os X environment
Actually VirtualPC is and will be far more seamless than Darwine for quite some time. VirtualPC supports copy+paste a lot better than WINE, and you can forget about any drag+drop. This is mostly due to that extra nasty/crufty layer of X11.
Please don't tout Darwine as "seamlessly" doing anything until you've used it first hand.
I would categorize Darwine as best for running games when you don't want to reboot, assuming you can get the controls to work well.
Also, why are you using "eg" like that? Eg. stands for "for example."
Originally posted by strobe
[B]You can launch Windows apps in VPC wherever they are as well. VPC mounts the folder as a network volume and launches the exe.
Actually VirtualPC is and will be far more seamless than Darwine for quite some time. VirtualPC supports copy+paste a lot better than WINE, and you can forget about any drag+drop. This is mostly due to that extra nasty/crufty layer of X11.
Please don't tout Darwine as "seamlessly" doing anything until you've used it first hand.
I would categorize Darwine as best for running games when you don't want to reboot, assuming you can get the controls to work well.
I suppose that "seamless" would depend on what you're doing with it. Drag and drop is often better with VPC. But as VPC is so much slower, and has problems with Firewire, USB, graphics, and other services, it's not exactly seamless either.
Originally posted by melgross
I suppose that "seamless" would depend on what you're doing with it. Drag and drop is often better with VPC. But as VPC is so much slower, and has problems with Firewire, USB, graphics, and other services, it's not exactly seamless either.
I wouldn't call VPC seamless either, but Darwine is a far cry from being able to support even these rudimentary features.
Originally posted by strobe
I wouldn't call VPC seamless either, but Darwine is a far cry from being able to support even these rudimentary features.
You got that right!
Darwine is far from supporting anything at all useful at this point in time.
We should hope that when the Mactels come out, there will be at least a working beta. Unless this January thing is true.
Crossover (based on WINE and Darwine) will be more important when it becomes available.
Originally posted by aidanp
how much $$ are these mactels going for?
There aren't any yet.
It's been rumored that an iBook or Mini might come out in January, or maybe not until May or June. Pricing is unknown, though some think that they may cost somewhat less than what the current units cost.
Originally posted by sunilraman
there are a lot of good options opening up now for windows and mac osX86 harmony:
1. dual booting
eg. best for gaming
2. crossover/wine/darwine/etc
eg. best for running windows applications seamlessly alongside mac applications in os X environment
3. virtual pc for mac os x(86)
eg. best for testing and simulating guest windoze environments, also handy where darwine support for an app is incomplete
4. intel CPU virtualisation technology?????
In my earlier post, where I was saying that running Virtual PC on a G3/G4/G5 is very different from running a Windows VM on an Intel Mac, I was referring to your point #4 as the VM technology. That's why it's so different--it's partly hardware based (the CPU supports VMs, as opposed to Virtual PC where the G3/G4/G5 doesn't support VMs directlly) and there are no CPU instruction translations because both Windows and OS X/Intel run natively on Intel.
Here's an interesting take on how Apple might implement it:
http://www.architosh.com/news/2005-1...t-mactels.html
If that comes to pass, there'll be no need for Microsoft's Virtual PC product for the Mac anymore. So that crosses off #3 from your list. And IMHO, Crossover/Wine/Darwine won't go mainstream, so cross #2 off your list.
I think the only real options are #1 (dual boot) and #4 (VMs). Use dual boot for performance; use VMs for convenience. Hell, you could even do both!
Originally posted by bikertwin
I think the only real options are #1 (dual boot) and #4 (VMs). Use dual boot for performance; use VMs for convenience. Hell, you could even do both! [/B]
Neither of which offer virtual drives, virtual networking, drag and drop support or cut and paste, features I use all the time in VPC. I'd rather use PPC VPC running under Rosetta on an Intel Mac than lose those features.
1 and 4 are only useful for gamers or people who do not want to use MacOS as their working environment.
Originally posted by bikertwin
Here's an interesting take on how Apple might implement it:
http://www.architosh.com/news/2005-1...t-mactels.html
If that comes to pass, there'll be no need for Microsoft's Virtual PC product for the Mac anymore. So that crosses off #3 from your list. And IMHO, Crossover/Wine/Darwine won't go mainstream, so cross #2 off your list.
I think the only real options are #1 (dual boot) and #4 (VMs). Use dual boot for performance; use VMs for convenience. Hell, you could even do both! [/B]
The article says what I've been saying about that approach. But the individual partitions will not help the speed of the programs any. The only advantage to that approach is that what happens in one partition won't affect the other. If one OS goes down, the other will still be running. But with both running, you give up the full power of the machine for either partition.. These are virtual partitions, so there is no concept here of one cpu one OS, either. It's fine if you are browsing or doing something where machine power isn't important, but when it is, this is not the way to go.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Neither of which offer virtual drives, virtual networking, drag and drop support or cut and paste, features I use all the time in VPC. I'd rather use PPC VPC running under Rosetta on an Intel Mac than lose those features.
1 and 4 are only useful for gamers or people who do not want to use MacOS as their working environment.
Yeah, I agree that #1 (dual boot) is pretty much a geek/gamer solution. Your average Joe or Mary won't really care for that at all. It's so inconvenient. It's like shutting down your stove so you can use your oven.
#4 (multiple independent VMs) is probably more useful than you think. I don't know the technical details of how Intel and Apple might implement it, but I'd guess you would be able to use the same networking and see the same hard drives (via networking). Yeah, cut & paste would be more difficult, but there might be a workaround (such as the VM silently writing temporary files to the hard drive so the other VM could use them in cut & paste). Who knows?
It would be very impressive if Apple created a seamless environment with Windows running under OS X á la Virtual PC for Mac. But as IBM's OS/2 showed, that just results in users feeling that they don't need to buy new apps for the main operating system (OS X). OS/2 ran Windows programs so seamlessly that there was no need for OS/2 programs. It turned out to be a big mistake for IBM.
A full-screen VM that a user has to switch to will probably be "good enough" to get Windows users to try a Mac. But I could be wrong.
Originally posted by bikertwin
#4 (multiple independent VMs) is probably more useful than you think. I don't know the technical details of how Intel and Apple might implement it, but I'd guess you would be able to use the same networking and see the same hard drives (via networking). Yeah, cut & paste would be more difficult, but there might be a workaround (such as the VM silently writing temporary files to the hard drive so the other VM could use them in cut & paste). Who knows?
VPC works by installing a 'Virtual Additons' driver and it's own virtual switch that makes Windows able to see the Mac as if it were another machine on the network. Without it, it doesn't see the Mac. It's also how the drag and drop from the Mac to the Windows session works. It's very neat.
Originally posted by bikertwin
It would be very impressive if Apple created a seamless environment with Windows running under OS X á la Virtual PC for Mac. But as IBM's OS/2 showed, that just results in users feeling that they don't need to buy new apps for the main operating system (OS X). OS/2 ran Windows programs so seamlessly that there was no need for OS/2 programs. It turned out to be a big mistake for IBM.
Yup. And that's why Apple aren't going to do it and why Microsoft probably will. I'd also guess that since the CPU emulation (ie. the hard bit) is now not an issue, we'll see open source Virtual PC clones.
Originally posted by bikertwin
A full-screen VM that a user has to switch to will probably be "good enough" to get Windows users to try a Mac. But I could be wrong.
It probably is "good enough" but it's not as good as VPC currently.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
[B]Neither of which offer virtual drives, virtual networking, drag and drop support or cut and paste, features I use all the time in VPC. I'd rather use PPC VPC running under Rosetta on an Intel Mac than lose those features.
So use PPC then.
1 and 4 are only useful for gamers or people who do not want to use MacOS as their working environment.
1 and 4 are useful for people who have things they need to do within a certain amount of time. They don't have the time to lose waiting for VPC to render that 200MB file in AutoCad. You know?
Originally posted by Gene Clean
1 and 4 are useful for people who have things they need to do within a certain amount of time. They don't have the time to lose waiting for VPC to render that 200MB file in AutoCad. You know?
If VPC is Intel native then it will make no difference.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
If VPC is Intel native then it will make no difference.
Try VPC for Windows. Then we can talk.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Try VPC for Windows. Then we can talk.
But I don't have a PC with Windows installed on it and if I did I wouldn't be using VPC on a Mac!
Originally posted by aegisdesign
But I don't have a PC with Windows installed on it and if I did I wouldn't be using VPC on a Mac!
Um, it was rhetorical. The point was that VPC for Windows is Intel native, and it still doesn't achieve native speeds (not by a long shot). Just because it runs in the same processor architecture doesn't mean it will have native speed.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Um, it was rhetorical. The point was that VPC for Windows is Intel native, and it still doesn't achieve native speeds (not by a long shot). Just because it runs in the same processor architecture doesn't mean it will have native speed.
I didn't imply it would. It'd be as good as running under VT and no better but have the advantages of integration with it's host OS.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
I didn't imply it would. It'd be as good as running under VT and no better but have the advantages of integration with it's host OS.
Would it be as good as running under a VM?
I remember Windows apps running under OS/2 would run much faster when run in full screen mode. Those "advantages of integration with its host OS" come at a significant cost.
TNSTAAFL.