[Doxxic]

Wouldn't you think that Apple will do *anything* to use the coming Intel configuration for compatibility improvements?

* Virtual PC-like functionality running on native Intel speed, inside a window or fullscreen. Alt-tab your way between PC instances.
* One button buying service in the Apple Store, for Windows, Linux or anything
* Thus, possibility of several instances of Intel PC in several windows, running different OSes
* Extensions to those OSes, made by Apple, that make cutting and pasting and file sharing between OSes easy
* Im&exporting Contacts, Calenders to and from any OS
* Switch from PC to Mac by first moving to Mac in PC modus, then use switching scripts made by Apple
* If user runs Windows, Mac OS X communicates with Exchange via Windows


OK especially the last may be a little far-fetched, but wouldn't you think there are chances here?

[Messiahtosh]

Well, Apple would have to write a VPC, and M$ owns The VPC.

[Wraven]

ibl ibl ibl..

Just kidding. But I don't find any of the above likely.

[Doxxic]

Originally Posted by Messiahtosh Well, Apple would have to write a VPC, and M$ owns The VPC.

No, they don't! VPC is obsolete.
It consists of a PC emulator and Windows.
No PC emulator is needed anymore. And you can buy Windows or whatever OS anywhere and it will run on your Mac. Steve said so.
All Apple has to do is make other OSes inside a window within Mac OS, a bit like the Classic environment.

[chucker]

You don't know much about virtualization, do you.

[dviant]

Never gonna happen. Can't see Apple facilitating the use of Windows apps in OS X. Especially if an Intel mac could run it anywhere near "native speed". Great way to kill off development.

IBL

[Brad]

Let's stop with the "ibl" bullshit. k? thanks!

[Baron Munchausen]

VPC sells many licenses on PCs, as it can run as a virtual machine running different instances and versions. Useful on a server when blended with Citrix type techology. Actually it is useful just to run anything, as it allows installs, rollbacks etc, which are useful for any PC user who has a disk trashed due to "install shield".

Does Apple need its own VPC? Why should MS NOT support VPC for Intel Macs? They get to sell another XP/Donghorn license, so why ever not? VPC could also run Linux instances with a little nudging.

Apple should know how to do this, considering they had Classic running, which AFAICT, would have been of a similar magnitude, if not harder due to the vastly different multitasking paradigms between Classic and OSX. In the case of VPC, we are talking about the similar thing to Classic, i.e. creating a virtual machine that allows another OS to run in its own memory and scheduling space with applications that can drag-drop in and out of the host system. Of course this is vastly oversimplifying, but if XP runs on Apple, but OSX can never run 'inside' windows, what machine would you rather have?

[jer2eydevil88]

I'm much more interested in what Codega will cook up for Windows Emulation in OS X than what Microsoft will offer. For those who don't know Codega builds the OpenOffice software for linux that succesfully emulates a Windows 9x/2k system for applications to run in. With the release of Vista Microsoft will likely no longer make applications that are backward compatible to the point that OpenOffice will still emulate them, so this means a great period of innovation.

[Anthem]

Originally Posted by jer2eydevil88 I'm much more interested in what Codega will cook up for Windows Emulation in OS X than what Microsoft will offer. For those who don't know Codega builds the OpenOffice software for linux that succesfully emulates a Windows 9x/2k system for applications to run in. With the release of Vista Microsoft will likely no longer make applications that are backward compatible to the point that OpenOffice will still emulate them, so this means a great period of innovation.

No offense, man, but that's a major swing and a miss. You're confusing three products: Cedega, CrossoverOffice, and OpenOffice.org.

Transgaming produces Cedega, which is a Win32/DirectX compatibility layer based on WINE. It's not an emulator, it's an open-sourced rewrite of the win32 protocols. It runs at near-native speed (assuming identical architecture). Actually, some things run better because Linux often has less overhead than Windows. Cedega focuses exclusively on games.

CodeWeavers produces CrossoverOffice, which is also based on WINE but is focused less on games and more on productivity software. Same general idea.

OpenOffice.org is a cross-platform office suite released under the LGPL. They currently aren't developing the Mac version, because Mac folks don't like using X11. There's supposedly a Mac fork called JOffice or NeoOffice or something, but I don't know how that's going.

And Vista WILL be backwards compatible. Just clearing that up.

[dviant]

Originally Posted by Brad Let's stop with the "ibl" bullshit. k? thanks!

I forgot my ...

[jer2eydevil88]

ROFL - I was sooooo tired/hyped when I typed that post... wow I really messed up just about everything...

To clarify my thoughts some let me rephrase.
Codega - Point2play - transgaming
OpenOffice - wtf why did I even type that to begin with it has nothing to do with my post
CodeWeavers Open Office - is what I was referring to in most of my post hopefully that explains a bunch...

Wow I should be lucky that I wasn't drunk or I would have seriously misconstrued my thoughts even more so...

Oh and my comment about vista isn't that it won't support older applications. Rumors are abound that Microsoft will no longer develop software with older platforms in mind, hence forcing user to upgrade to xp or vista.

[Doxxic]

Originally Posted by chucker You don't know much about virtualization, do you.

My point is that virtualization really isn't neccessary.

[Doxxic]

Originally Posted by dviant Never gonna happen. Can't see Apple facilitating the use of Windows apps in OS X. Especially if an Intel mac could run it anywhere near "native speed". Great way to kill off development.

Jobs has said that Windows will be able to run on Mactel computers. And if it does, that alone is a reason for Apple to make the best out of it, and not make it needlessly difficult. And if they don't facilitate it, someone else will, but not as well.

Of course I'm aware that the risc of it killing off development is an argument against it - but it's also an argument against going Intel at all and Apple *is* going Intel, with Jobs saying that OSX is what defines the Mac, not it's hardware. He's saying that people buy Macs mainly because of their operating system.

If that is true, and Apple appears to be pretty sure it is, Windows may be killing Mac OS everywhere, *but not on Mac computers*.

That said, the option to have a well-integrated Windows on your Mac would definitely be a *feature* that could win over these people:
- hesitating windows users,
- (cross-platform) developers
- Mac users with older systems who need Windows sometimes (gaming/microsoft exchange integration)

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Doxxic My point is that virtualization really isn't neccessary.

If you want to run multiple operating systems, then yes, you need virtualization. You can do this on the software side using VMWare or Virtual PC 2005, or you will be able to do it on the hardware side in a few years' time.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Doxxic And, after all, Jobs has said that Windows will be able to run on Mactel computers.

That was Schiller, not Jobs.

And he said that it will be possible, for obvious reasons, but won't be supported at all by Apple, for, again, obvious reasons.

And if it does, that alone is a reason for Apple to make the best out of it, and not make it needlessly difficult.

Yes, make it very easy to run competitive software on one's own hardware. Best business interest right there.

[Doxxic]

Originally Posted by chucker That was Schiller, not Jobs. And he said that it will be possible, for obvious reasons, but won't be supported at all by Apple, for, again, obvious reasons. Yes, make it very easy to run competitive software on one's own hardware. Best business interest right there.

You seem not to grasp Apple very well. They make money selling hardware. And people buy it because it exclusively runs Mac OS X. Steve Jobs supported the Intel switch by claiming precisely that.

So people who have bought a Mac will always prefer Mac OS X over Windows as their basic OS. Wether Windows has been installed or not. This means that every reason that existed to port applications to the Mac, will remain.

Practically, the only difference will be that the part of the VPC package that emulated an Intel PC has become obsolete, since it's functionality is going to be offered by Apple out of the box at native speed.

Ok now remember Apple makes money mainly by selling hardware.

What would *you* do if you were them? Don't tell me you'd boycot software of any kind??? Have they ever done that, if it were not for historical hardware restrictions???

Concerning Apple saying they're "not supporting" Windows on Macs: I personally interpreted "not supporting" as not installing and not offering support. And whatever it means - of course they say that! They need developers to port as much to Mac OS X as they can. And rightfully so, because I expect that only a small percentage of current Mac users *will* install Windows on their Macs, so those developers won't find them doing all the porting for nothing.

But think of all the possible *new* customers that *will* install Windows. If next year Apple appeared to have made Leopard ready for optimal OS integration, it wouldn't be the first time some say they've changed their minds...

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Doxxic You seem not to grasp Apple very well. They make money selling hardware.

They make money selling a platform. A complete package. Or, as Microsoft would put it, an "ecosystem".

So people who have bought a Mac will always prefer Mac OS X over Windows as their basic OS. Wether Windows has been installed or not. This means that every reason that existed to port applications to the Mac, will remain.

For users, yes. For developers? Not at all.

Practically, the only difference will be that the part of the VPC package that emulated an Intel PC has become obsolete, since it's functionality is going to be offered by Apple out of the box at native speed.

That makes the emulation obsolete, but not the virtualization.

What would *you* do if you were them? Don't tell me you'd boycot software of any kind??? Have they ever done that, if it were not for historical hardware restrictions???

I just cited Phil in my previous post. I'm sorry to see that reading is not one of your highest proficiencies.

I said, specifically, that it is indeed possible according to Phil, so it is very official. But he also quite clearly stated that Apple won't support it.

And concerning Apple saying they're "not supporting" Windows on Macs: of course they say so! They need developers to port as much to Mac OS X as they can.

Um, yes, exactly. So aren't we contradicting ourselves a little here?

And I expect that only a small percentage of current Mac users *will* install Windows on their Macs, so those developers won't find them doint all the porting for nothing.

If there's so few people, then why would Apple bother creating a virtualization software?

But think of all the possible *new* customers that *will* install Windows.

For what exact reason?

[Doxxic]

Originally Posted by chucker That makes the emulation obsolete, but not the virtualization.

What do you mean by virtualization?

[rasmits]

Originally Posted by Doxxic What do you mean by virtualization?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtualization

[Doxxic]

Originally Posted by rasmits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtualization

Ok then I suppose that Chucker means with virtualization that environments are created in a way that it seems like there are several Intel pc configurations running instead of one, with no specific OS installed.

Don't you think that if Apple wouldn't offer virtualization software, third parties would, maybe in combination with their OS? Like Microsoft, Red Hat, someone else or all of them?

So very soon there would be virtualization software for the Mac anyway, able to run other OSes on normal speed?

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Doxxic Don't you think that if Apple wouldn't offer virtualization software, third parties would, maybe in combination with their OS?

Absolutely! Like I said, VMware and Microsoft are likely to offer such software, and, in addition, update their existing Windows and/or Linux software to support OS X.

So very soon there would be virtualization software for the Mac anyway, able to run other OSes on normal speed?

Almost normal speed, that is, but pretty close, yes. I never argued that. I just don't see Apple doing it.

Hope that clear a few things up.

[Doxxic]

Originally Posted by chucker Absolutely! Like I said, VMware and Microsoft are likely to offer such software, and, in addition, update their existing Windows and/or Linux software to support OS X. Almost normal speed, that is, but pretty close, yes. I never argued that. I just don't see Apple doing it. Hope that clear a few things up.

It sure does

But if virtualization comes anyway, why would you think that the amount of software ported to the Mac depends on who offers the virtualization software, Apple or someone else?

[rasmits]

Originally Posted by Doxxic It sure does But if virtualization comes anyway, why would you think that the amount of software ported to the Mac depends on who offers the virtualization software, Apple or someone else?

If OS X was to run all Windows apps without modification right out of the box, at native speed, there would be little incentive for people to make Mac native apps.

This opposed to a $299 software package from Microsoft, which a small percentage of the Mac population uses.

[chucker]

rasmits has it dead-on.

Now, of course, if Apple were to commercially offer such virtualization software, it would be different, but then
1) they couldn't bundle Windows with it (at least not at the same low price Microsoft can)
2) they would have a hard time competing with MS and VMWare. They can't offer any significant advantages*, so they'd have to be cheaper, and they're not the company to do that either.

*) the "Apple can integrate into the OS better and thus optimize more" argument is a non-one, since the base OS is open source. Everything you need to know about OS X optimization is either obvious from the open-source parts, or rather well-documented.

[Doxxic]

Originally Posted by chucker rasmits has it dead-on. Now, of course, if Apple were to commercially offer such virtualization software, it would be different, but then 1) they couldn't bundle Windows with it (at least not at the same low price Microsoft can) 2) they would have a hard time competing with MS and VMWare. They can't offer any significant advantages*, so they'd have to be cheaper, and they're not the company to do that either.

Ok I hear you but I keep trying to find counterarguments if it were just for the sake of thourough falsification
You may notice that some of the ideas from the beginning of the thread are being rejected...

First: in order not to keep developers from porting their software to Apple, Apple should indeed ask a fee for it, and/or not offer it in the first year of Leopard.
But I suppose that from a certain moment, making new versions of software cross-platform from the beginning will be a lot cheaper than it is to port them now. It should be worthwile to make your app run inside OS X for the little effort it is then, if that makes makes the difference of Mac users buying it in Mac form rather than virtualized or not installed at all, Windows form.

Then: they might *have* to make their own version if makers of open source OSes start to offer their virtualization software for free.
Or else, how long would it take before there is a free (ad-ware/) virtualization engine on the Mac, if it were only for opening up the Mac for cracked pc games?

Therefore, it's at least in Apple's interest to *control* this then possibly vital part of the Mac OS X platform/ecosystem, and use that to further enhance the Apple brand and the appeal of Mac OS X.

It would be typically Apple to want to:
- Make sure that any other OS would feel like it runs *within* Mac OS X, not next to it.
- Control the user interface (integrate it in Fast User Switching, system preferences, the dock, etc etc)
- Control inter-pc-instance communication protocols
- Then have Jobs peacocking: "From today, if you have a copy of Windows, Mac OS X runs it just as well as a Dell machine does".

Yes this could sure be a explained as supporting Windows, in contradiction with what Apple has said before. But hey, doesn't Apple like to change their mind every now and then?

Originally Posted by chucker *) the "Apple can integrate into the OS better and thus optimize more" argument is a non-one, since the base OS is open source. Everything you need to know about OS X optimization is either obvious from the open-source parts, or rather well-documented.

Wouldn't it be enough that they can make it more user friendly than anyone else can? And maybe more important: bless it with the Apple brand?

[Baron Munchausen]

1) As a developer of mobile tech, I had to run VPC because the numbnuts at Nokia and Sony Ericsson produced java apps and IDEs that needed to be run on a PC*.

2) I have every reason to want an Apple port of an app as a) it will use the native UNIX memory management etc b) anything internet will run in OSX because...

3) I do and will sandbox XP/Donghorn without access to the internet to avoid any malware/virus access to the infrastructure and the interminable patches it demands.

4) If Apple actually produces an Intel EFI VM to allow other OSs to be hosted, my next step would be OpenVMS!

5) Apple apps just look and feel better than the ghastly windows versions. I truly believe that to become a Windows Certified Developer you must have a style bypass.

* People who produce Java apps that must be installed on a PC need to have their development license revoked and their machines impounded.

[dviant]

Originally Posted by Doxxic Apple *is* going Intel, with Jobs saying that OSX is what defines the Mac, not it's hardware. He's saying that people buy Macs mainly because of their operating system.

An operating system is nothing without software. You do not build a library of software and by piggy-backing on another OS. In most of the cases mentioned above we're talking about something better (faster) than existing VPC. At that point it becomes a real competitor to the native software. The last thing Apple wants to do from a business standpoint is give developers a huge excuse to not bother with cross-platform development.

That said, the option to have a well-integrated Windows on your Mac would definitely be a *feature* that could win over these people: - hesitating windows users, - (cross-platform) developers - Mac users with older systems who need Windows sometimes (gaming/microsoft exchange integration)

Hesitating windows users: Why are they switching if they simply want to be able to keep using Windows? If they have software than only runs in Windows then Apple's goal shouldn't be to run that Windows software, but to have an OS X version of it.

Cross Platform developers: With a well-integrated Windows on your Mac there wouldn't be much of a reason to do cross-platform development in the first place.

Mac users with older systems who need windows sometimes: Why do they need Windows sometimes? Because the software wasn't developed for Mac OS. I fail to see how Windows-on-Mac would do anything but perpetuate and compound this problem.

[dviant]

Oh and also to be clear, just because I firmly believe it's not in Apple's best interest to offer emulation/virtualization/whatever to offer Windows on Mac, that doesn't mean I don't think someone else wouldn't do it. In fact as a means of getting paid to sabotage the platform, I'm positive Microsoft will have a go at it. It will be interesting to see what stance Apple takes. If they actively attempt to block such a thing or simply allow it to happen in hopes that OS X has enough momentum that no one will care about a new "VPC"...

[Doxxic]

Originally Posted by dviant Oh and also to be clear, just because I firmly believe it's not in Apple's best interest to offer emulation/virtualization/whatever to offer Windows on Mac, that doesn't mean I don't think someone else wouldn't do it. In fact as a means of getting paid to sabotage the platform, I'm positive Microsoft will have a go at it. It will be interesting to see what stance Apple takes. If they actively attempt to block such a thing or simply allow it to happen in hopes that OS X has enough momentum that no one will care about a new "VPC"...

plz read my post about apple possibly wanting to keep in control by moving ahead of the pack, rather than waiting what others do in this respect or blocking options for their users...