What's it got that beats Paralells that warrants a big WWDC spot? ::Crosses fingers for hardware graphics:: I mean, if they plan on running Vista, they need a graphics solution capable of pushing Aero (which would be sufficient for most 2-year-old games)
VMWare is a well-established, highly regarded and very successful virtualization system.
Parallels is to VMWare as TextEdit is to Word... for most people the simpler one will do, but the other is the industry brandname, and has all the bells and whistles.
If you brag about running Vista, you need Aero. You don't say "It runs Vista" if you don't have Aero. Which is why I'm so hopeful for hardware graphics acceleration.
My point is that if VMWare is going to release a product that they say runs a virtualization of Vista on a Mac, they need to support Aero, or at least give the option of supporting it. Therefore, they need to provide enough graphics power to run a fair few games...
.....Especially since Vista won't be out for a few months (and maybe as long as a year if some naysayers are right)
Is it only me that thinks that Apple (or any other large software company) could probably write an entirely new Operating System from scratch (not just 10.4 to 10.5) before Vista comes out?
Is it only me that thinks that Apple (or any other large software company) could probably write an entirely new Operating System from scratch (not just 10.4 to 10.5) before Vista comes out?
::Crosses fingers for hardware graphics:: I mean, if they plan on running Vista, they need a graphics solution capable of pushing Aero (which would be sufficient for most 2-year-old games)
That's all they would need to completely take over the market. Parallels is great but without hardware acceleration, it's just a partial solution. However, I don't think VMWare has hardware acceleration on other platforms and I'm pretty sure they would have done it if they could. Maybe if they could somehow tie it with the Mac drivers, which are more standard than say Linux ones then maybe they could somehow allow OS X to control the Windows graphics so that you get by the issue I read of where onlyone system can control the GPU.
It would inevitably be a fair bit slower but even if it was as much as 50%, it would still be very useful for 3D scientific/animation programs.
I'm glad that there will be competition between Parallels and VMWare because it means they will have to come up with new features to make the sale. I also think they will dedicate a lot of time to the Mac versions because I imagine they'd make more money from virtualization solutions on Macs than on Windows.
My ideal solution is one where it has 3D acceleration, but is 10 to 15 percent slower than native. That way, companies with high-selling programs can't say "Just run Windows", because it'd be unreasonable for them to say that if we have to pay an extra $250 or so to get slower speeds w/o reboot, or native w/ reboot.
Personally, I'd settle for DX9, because you can run Aero on a DX9 card, and honestly, you can't emulate DX10 w/ any success on a DX9 card.
Marvin - just because they don't have it yet doesn't mean they won't intro it for multiple platforms here. I mean, most VMWare installs are for servers in the Linux/Windows world, where 3D hardware graphics is no big deal. So there isn't much impetus to have it done. But in the Mac world, all their sales go to people like Onlooker or Sunilraman or myself who want to play games at a decent speed w/o rebooting. In my case, I want to play games and use EyeTV on a Mac Pro at the same time (assuming I can get my Mac Pro)
Even though it really wasn't a surprise, I'm really glad VMware is finally jumping into the Mac market for virtualization. I give a lot of credit to the Parallels team for the great work they have done so far, but I have always felt that VMware has a superior product...of course, we don't know how great it will be just yet for the Mac... 3D hardware acceleration would be awesome, but it will be interesting to see how (if?) they accomplished this feat. GPUs don't have the "hooks" that (new) AMD and Intel CPUs have for hardware virtualization... Is an x1600 GPU(Or maybe a combo of the x1600 and one of two CPU cores?) powerful enough to create a virtualized x300? 9500? GMA950? Should be interesting, that's for sure!!
Well, in theory, you can do some degree of "pass-through" in swapping DX9 calls for OpenGL calls, and send them like their VMWare's calls. That puts a hurt on performance, but if you have a 7600GT or a 7900GT, it'll still feel better than nothing.
Comments
Ot will help tremendously, IMO.
Parallels is to VMWare as TextEdit is to Word... for most people the simpler one will do, but the other is the industry brandname, and has all the bells and whistles.
.....Especially since Vista won't be out for a few months (and maybe as long as a year if some naysayers are right)
Is it only me that thinks that Apple (or any other large software company) could probably write an entirely new Operating System from scratch (not just 10.4 to 10.5) before Vista comes out?
Is it only me that thinks that Apple (or any other large software company) could probably write an entirely new Operating System from scratch (not just 10.4 to 10.5) before Vista comes out?
::Crosses fingers for hardware graphics:: I mean, if they plan on running Vista, they need a graphics solution capable of pushing Aero (which would be sufficient for most 2-year-old games)
That's all they would need to completely take over the market. Parallels is great but without hardware acceleration, it's just a partial solution. However, I don't think VMWare has hardware acceleration on other platforms and I'm pretty sure they would have done it if they could. Maybe if they could somehow tie it with the Mac drivers, which are more standard than say Linux ones then maybe they could somehow allow OS X to control the Windows graphics so that you get by the issue I read of where onlyone system can control the GPU.
It would inevitably be a fair bit slower but even if it was as much as 50%, it would still be very useful for 3D scientific/animation programs.
I'm glad that there will be competition between Parallels and VMWare because it means they will have to come up with new features to make the sale. I also think they will dedicate a lot of time to the Mac versions because I imagine they'd make more money from virtualization solutions on Macs than on Windows.
Personally, I'd settle for DX9, because you can run Aero on a DX9 card, and honestly, you can't emulate DX10 w/ any success on a DX9 card.
Marvin - just because they don't have it yet doesn't mean they won't intro it for multiple platforms here. I mean, most VMWare installs are for servers in the Linux/Windows world, where 3D hardware graphics is no big deal. So there isn't much impetus to have it done. But in the Mac world, all their sales go to people like Onlooker or Sunilraman or myself who want to play games at a decent speed w/o rebooting. In my case, I want to play games and use EyeTV on a Mac Pro at the same time (assuming I can get my Mac Pro)
VMWARE... MAC... PARALLELS
*ahem* None of those are acronyms.
VMWare, Mac, Parallels. No need to shout.
*ahem* None of those are acronyms.
VMWare, Mac, Parallels. No need to shout.
Fixed them. Also fixed "CPU's" and "GPU's".
Also fixed "CPU's" and "GPU's".
Massive grammar respect.