The first thing users usually do when they have Windows running on their Macs (either through VPC or Parallels Workstation or BootCamp) is to find ways to move files between the two platforms. And there starts the danger for hosing your OS X installation by Windows malware. If the user shares his OS X home folder with Windows, a Windows app (or virus) can delete the whole home folder. To the casual user (who's running OS X as an administrative user without any other users installed), this pretty much is _it_ about how bad things can go. His files and settings are gone.
As long as you're using a VM restrained to itself, the danger is relatively low of losing anything outside of it. But even then you usually suddenly have a Windows machine _within_ your home network. That alone can be dangerous or at least a drag.
As to what I'd _like_ Apple to do about BootCamp/virtualisation (I *know* BC isn't virtualisation, hence the slash...): Do it much like Parallels Workstation, but with a nice interface. And a Mac-i-fied Windows installer which asks you for the Windows CD, your CD-key, user name etc. and then hides the installation process behind a nice, normal installation process window.
As to what I'd _like_ Apple to do about BootCamp/virtualisation (I *know* BC isn't virtualisation, hence the slash...): Do it much like Parallels Workstation, but with a nice interface. And a Mac-i-fied Windows installer which asks you for the Windows CD, your CD-key, user name etc. and then hides the installation process behind a nice, normal installation process window.
Are you currently using Boot Camp or Parallels? I guess what my question is, is what do you want Apple to offer that Parallels isn't already offering?
Not much. Well: I want Apple to offer it for _free_ and with a nicer interface. ... But if they don't go anywhere with BootCamp (basically just finalizing what they have now with updated drivers etc.) I'm happy using Parallels, no problem. I just think that Apple _wants_ to go virtualisation, and those were the things that came to mind when thinking about how to make a _better_ virtualisation solution. That's what the thread's _about_, btw.
I agree, that is what the threads about and I enjoy hearing your opinion. As far as giving virtualization away "for free," well, if it's included in Leopard we'll be paying for that upgrade, so it won't be free. Interface is somewhat important, but I run Parallels in fullscreen mode so I hardly see the interface anyways. Plus, for $40, it didn't break the bank.
anyone download the new general availibility release of Parallels Desktop?
Yes, have it and it works great. No more capture the mouse, does that automatically. Also it has shared files and they work great I exchange files by saving to a desktop folder in Mac and also having the desktop file as a shared file for XP.
Last of all, Apple is about the macintosh, and at the end of the day that means mac os X - not windows on a macintosh machine. Just imagine the potential issues for Apple if osX had windows functionality built in: Some developers may begin to show very little interest in developing mac os native software is one issue, and another issue is that building this functionality into osX would have a negative impact on the osX product itself.. I mean, an osX installation already consumes enough resources without having a whole chunk of windows XP as well. Think about it.. How many people who buy a mac actually need windows functionality of the kind you people are describing? Would it really be worth selling every mac with huge chunks of XP preinstalled?
You had me until this paragraph came up.
BootCamp: I bet we see hardware virtualzation by leopard and that means that Apple can keep from paying MS a bunch of money while third part software makes copy and paste between OS's possible.
Just about every technical idea in that post is wrong. You have emulation and virtualization so hosed up that there is no way to unravel the post except sentence by sentence, and that ain't worth the effort when it's this far off the mark.
thats why MS bought vpc, not for mac but for servers to run multiple os, windows os's parallels has a great future in enterprise.
I, for one, hope that Leopard does have the capability to run Windows apps. The ability to run Windows only apps will be a big plus (for all the reasons listed in
Comments
As long as you're using a VM restrained to itself, the danger is relatively low of losing anything outside of it. But even then you usually suddenly have a Windows machine _within_ your home network. That alone can be dangerous or at least a drag.
As to what I'd _like_ Apple to do about BootCamp/virtualisation (I *know* BC isn't virtualisation, hence the slash...): Do it much like Parallels Workstation, but with a nice interface. And a Mac-i-fied Windows installer which asks you for the Windows CD, your CD-key, user name etc. and then hides the installation process behind a nice, normal installation process window.
Originally posted by fryke
As to what I'd _like_ Apple to do about BootCamp/virtualisation (I *know* BC isn't virtualisation, hence the slash...): Do it much like Parallels Workstation, but with a nice interface. And a Mac-i-fied Windows installer which asks you for the Windows CD, your CD-key, user name etc. and then hides the installation process behind a nice, normal installation process window.
Are you currently using Boot Camp or Parallels? I guess what my question is, is what do you want Apple to offer that Parallels isn't already offering?
Originally posted by builttospill
anyone download the new general availibility release of Parallels Desktop?
Yes, have it and it works great. No more capture the mouse, does that automatically. Also it has shared files and they work great I exchange files by saving to a desktop folder in Mac and also having the desktop file as a shared file for XP.
Originally posted by Archstudent
Last of all, Apple is about the macintosh, and at the end of the day that means mac os X - not windows on a macintosh machine. Just imagine the potential issues for Apple if osX had windows functionality built in: Some developers may begin to show very little interest in developing mac os native software is one issue, and another issue is that building this functionality into osX would have a negative impact on the osX product itself.. I mean, an osX installation already consumes enough resources without having a whole chunk of windows XP as well. Think about it.. How many people who buy a mac actually need windows functionality of the kind you people are describing? Would it really be worth selling every mac with huge chunks of XP preinstalled?
You had me until this paragraph came up.
BootCamp: I bet we see hardware virtualzation by leopard and that means that Apple can keep from paying MS a bunch of money while third part software makes copy and paste between OS's possible.
Originally posted by Hiro
Just about every technical idea in that post is wrong. You have emulation and virtualization so hosed up that there is no way to unravel the post except sentence by sentence, and that ain't worth the effort when it's this far off the mark.
thats why MS bought vpc, not for mac but for servers to run multiple os, windows os's parallels has a great future in enterprise.
http://www.gavinshearer.com/weblog/a...tion_xp_i.html
Originally posted by NOFEER
thats why MS bought vpc, not for mac but for servers to run multiple os, windows os's parallels has a great future in enterprise.
You think Parallels has a future in the server market?