[bassplayinMacFiend]

Originally Posted by dviant 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.

I've met many people that would love to start using Macs/OS X. The software they know and love is even available today for OS X. The problem is, they'd have to repurchase licenses and for some people that would actually cost more then the Apple computer they want so much. If people could run their current software, then upgrade/sidegrade one program at a time, the OS X platform would be more attractive.

[dviant]

Originally Posted by bassplayinMacFiend I've met many people that would love to start using Macs/OS X. The software they know and love is even available today for OS X. The problem is, they'd have to repurchase licenses and for some people that would actually cost more then the Apple computer they want so much. If people could run their current software, then upgrade/sidegrade one program at a time, the OS X platform would be more attractive.

Why should Apple allow what is essentially a "trojan horse" inside their camp just because Adobe, MS, etc don't offer more attractive cross-grade pricing or simply make cross-grading a non-issue by shipping hybrid discs? Your friends should really call the developer in question, there may be a solution there where the license can be transferred from Windows to Mac (i.e. I did this with Macromedia Studio MX 2004 once).

I don't see anyone proposing that having Windows-on-Mac will somehow be *good* for Mac software development. Unless anyone can give a reasonable argument against cross-development erosion occuring, then any arguments for convenience or short-term user gain are moot.

[Doxxic]

I found backup from eWeek, for the idea that Apple might include virtualization software that would allow you to run whatever other OS inside a "box" within Mac OS X.

Interesting quotes:

"Apple doesn't plan to sell or support Windows," said Brian Croll, Apple's director of software product marketing, during an interview at the company's Worldwide Developer Conference last week. But, he said, "We're not planning anything on the hardware side that would preclude it from running."
Croll declined to elaborate on Apple's Mactel hardware or software plans.
"The focus right now is [on letting] our developers understand that they have to develop universal binaries" that work for PowerPC and Intel chips, he said.

And: "Even if full hardware support isn't offered, there's a fallback position for more enterprising Mactel owners. Virtualization technology built into Intel chips—desktop Pentium 4 chips will sport built-in virtualization this year and the Pentium Ms will gain it next—will allow the machines to be partitioned to run numerous different types of software at the same time. Thus, there is no reason the machines couldn't run Windows or Linux and all of the associated applications on top of Mac OS X.
"In theory, you could run Windows on top of Mac OS, which is how it works on Mac today with Virtual PC," McCarron said. "The difference is, with hardware virtualization, you'd be running at almost full speed. By and large you'd end up with a full-speed virtual system."
Although it's unlikely that an individual or a business would buy an Intel-based Mac and wipe its operating system just to install Windows, the capability could woo enthusiasts who might prefer Apple's designs but still want to run Windows. It could also make it easier for others, such as educational institutions, government agencies, and small and midsize businesses, to choose Apple hardware."

This is the full story:

'Mactel' Desktops May Offer Triple-Threat OS
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1828265,00.asp

[Baron Munchausen]

Interesting, Doxxic.

I wonder if this is a memory management enhancement*, for we still need one OS to be the dominant, baseline OS.

* Currently we have system and process memory spaces, so virtualisation could allow for an additional tier - subordinate system memory maps with their own process memory maps within. Not sure. Pure speculation and dreaming. I'll shut up now.

[Doxxic]

Originally Posted by dviant Unless anyone can give a reasonable argument against cross-development erosion occuring, then any arguments for convenience or short-term user gain are moot.

First of all, I think cross development erosion will occur anyway, since sooner or later anyone will come with (possibly free) virtualization software. Apple has no option but defending itself against the competition by staying ahead of them, as they've done the past 5 years.

That said, there are several reasons why the cross development erosion might appear to be less than you'd expect, after all.

- We should realize that there is close to no cross-development already. This is not to say that the few cross-developers that exist, are not extremely important to Apple. But *they* seem to be on board. And if not, Apple may have alternatives, especially to MS Office. I see Safari, Pages and Keynote as tactical releases, partly made to convince Microsoft of what options Apple might have if they Microsoft doesn't convert Office. Apple could very well be sitting on a ready version of Open Office, tailormade for Mac OS X, just in case.

- Apple could wait with implementing the virtualization feature until the handfull vital 3rd party Mac developers have converted their applications.

- Not only in the short term more copies of Mac OS X will be sold, but forever. Isn't that a direct reason to keep developing for the platform?

- Mac buyers already made their decision very consciously. Therefore, it may not function as a Trojan Horse from Mac OS X towards Windows, but the other way round. Mac users will come to know many programs they didn't, and might start demanding native versions from the developers.

[McSandwich]

Originally Posted by Doxxic First of all, I think cross development erosion will occur anyway, since sooner or later anyone will come with (possibly free) virtualization software. Apple has no option but defending itself against the competition by staying ahead of them, as they've done the past 5 years.

Intel's virtualization is a hardware feature which allows multiple operating systems or instances of the same OS to run concurrently.

http://www.intel.com/technology/computing/vptech/

[hmurchison]

Intel is huge on virtualization. Not only will 2006 see the first "Vanderpool Tech" processors probably mentioned in the link above but there are virtualization capabilities being added to future generations of PCI Express.

A decade from now your computer won't be thought of as a Mac or a PC but rather a computer that can run multiple OS simultaneously. The lines will blur between platforms. Each OS will be able to simultaneously access the PCI I/O and probably every other component. This is important because in just 5 years the typical computer will have 8 cores or more. The ability to utilize all the cores efficiently will be tested by virtualization.

I look forward to running a Powermac Intel because I look forward to the future of running Final Cut Pro 9 right along side the PC apps of my choice. I expect to be able to export/import across the multiple OS and I expect to have the stability that a user would require amongst all the OS.

Good times are coming. Apple will be fine because they do software better than just about any ISV out there.

[Doxxic]

NOTE: the focus of this thread has gradually changed, in my opinion for the better.

It started with some wild fantasies of mine,
while now the focus is on the desirability for Apple to make PC virtualization available for Mac OS X for Intel, either seperate and paid for, or included for free.
And please note: *without* any 3rd party OS (c.q. Windows), but *with* the possibility to install one.

If I may, as the starter of this thread, I request new posters to relate your posts to this question, in order to keep it both meaningful and focused.

[Baron Munchausen]

Ah, Doxxic, in what way do you mean PC - Phoenix virtualisation, Windows virtualisation or EFI virtualisation?

I am of the mindset that believes Mac Intel machines will be EFI-based and not Phoenix.

I am of the mindset that many people do not realise what the Intel Virtualisation means in terms of user experience and what user experience you are assuming here.

One is being able to 'switch user' between OSs (Intel), another to embed applications with drag-and-drop in the same desktop (VPC). This needs to be made clear.

[Doxxic]

Originally Posted by Baron Munchausen Ah, Doxxic, in what way do you mean PC - Phoenix virtualisation, Windows virtualisation or EFI virtualisation? I am of the mindset that believes Mac Intel machines will be EFI-based and not Phoenix. I am of the mindset that many people do not realise what the Intel Virtualisation means in terms of user experience and what user experience you are assuming here. One is being able to 'switch user' between OSs (Intel), another to embed applications with drag-and-drop in the same desktop (VPC). This needs to be made clear.

I'm afraid I know too little about virtualization to answer the first part of your question. Could you explain the difference between EFI and Phoenix virtualization (or provide links for readers like me )?

But I do understand the latter part, where you describe it in terms of user experience. I think both options could be part of this discussion: on a user-switch level or on an application level (Classic belongs here as well if you define it as: "virtualization type where apps running in different OSes can be represented in the same Dock")

It comes down to finding a way out of the following dilemma (which I figure Apple must have solved for themselves even before they announced their move to Intel):

How can Apple remain in control of virtualization on the Mac platform, while
- making their OS maximally attractive to consumers
- making their OS maximally attractive to developers

This leads to the following questions:
* What kind of virtualization will be built in by default (user level, app level, none)?
* What (additional?) features will we be able to buy from Apple, if any?
* What will be left to offer by 3rd parties?

[Baron Munchausen]

EFI/Phoenix virtualisation goes right to the root of the motherboard and would allow an OS expecting Phoenix BIOS to boot on an EFI system. I doubt if this is what is intended, IMHO.

The other is indeed in two flavours, but I would go further - the 'user switch' version could also be Xserves running multiple instances of the SAME OS with different application sets in each. This is very useful to totally isolate key systems and installations from each other, to run different versions or configurations in parallel and also to enable separate instances to dynamically draw on a pool of CPU and memory resources, so one OS instance dealing with order taking has most during the day, while inventory or reconcilliation based in another instance takes the bigger slice at 3am.

It is not just about OS but hardware. I think we will see both kinds - the interwoven single desktop-capable for users and the totally isolated kind in the server market.

[Doxxic]

Originally Posted by dviant 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.

Yes, but Apple is not going to get an OS X version of it. They don't have the clout. Apple is going to get an OS X version of fewer and fewer applications.
Which keeps many Windows users from buying Macs. But some of them *would* buy Macs if they could still run Windows on it, with Games and Outlook and Access and other programs they need for their jobs.

Originally Posted by dviant 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.

Are you saying all Mac users would buy Windows for their Mac? Please give me a break! Of course the developers would do it for the Mac users who only run Mac OS X. They'll remain the majority (of Mac users). Meanwhile, it's good for developers themselves to use the Mac instead of both a Mac and a Dell to save money.

Originally Posted by dviant Mac users with older systems who need windows sometimes: Why do they need Windows sometimes? Because the software wasn't developed for Mac OS.

So! Why don't many people buy Macs? Because it doesn't run Windows!

So how is Apple going to get Mac OS in the hands of more users? By opening up the Mac for Windows.
There are people who'd love to get the benefits of the Mac enough to pay a little for Windows if they have to.

Slowly, these people will find out how they can live more and more without Windows, even if it's only because they don't have to boot another OS in virtualized mode.

I fail to see how Windows-on-Mac would do anything but perpetuate and compound this problem.

Where these virtualized windows users can't avoid Windows, these people are going to ask their software providers for:
- better platform interoperatibility
- software ports to Mac OS X.
They will even pay for that, because they prefer Mac OS X over windows.

This is the way out of deterring developer commitment. The only way, as far as I see it.
I'd love you to come up with a strategy that would increase porting of 3rd software to Mac OS X more than this.

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally Posted by Doxxic So! Why don't many people buy Macs? Because it doesn't run Windows!

I have to disagree. Many people don't buy Macs because they are ignorant, scared of the unknown, don't care, cheapscates, work for a company with some dweeb who insists they use it, have their machine bought by same or are advised by those who themselves have one or more of the failings listed above.

If Apple hardware can run XP applications seamlessly on OSX, people will do all their normal stuff in OSX - surfing, Office, email - and use the odd Windows ugly, lumpy, awkward app they have no option to inside the XP world just like Classic used to be used.

This is what I do with VPC. There is absolutely NO REASON to surf the net via Windows AFAICT, unless you come across some banking website written by a bunch of shaved baboons (HSBC, NAT WEST, for example).

[Doxxic]

Originally Posted by Baron Munchausen I have to disagree. Many people don't buy Macs because they are ignorant, scared of the unknown, don't care, cheapscates, work for a company with some dweeb who insists they use it, have their machine bought by same or are advised by those who themselves have one or more of the failings listed above.

Sorry I meant many people who don't buy Macs but would like to if they could.

If Apple hardware can run XP applications seamlessly on OSX, people will do all their normal stuff in OSX - surfing, Office, email - and use the odd Windows ugly, lumpy, awkward app they have no option to inside the XP world just like Classic used to be used.

Here you mean the same people I meant, don't you?

Anyway, the way you describe it is exactly how I would see virtualization within Mac OS X.

Then wouldn't you say that instead of doing it on "user switch level", they might better go all the way and show what a hell of software makers they are, and implement virtualization on the app level with the corresponding blessings like an optionally shared clipboard? ***

Because as you might have noticed, in this thread (= in life ) I've somewhat pleaded myself into the dogma that if Apple want their developers back, they have to go for the consumer in the first place - without being too kind to the 3rd party developers in the short term by compromising on the virtualization possibilities. This stance has apparently caused some forumers to pull out, but hey I'm sure they'll hook up again in a few years.

On the other hand, instead of advanced "App level" virtualization, the virtualization on the "user switch level" could be so self-explanatory and obviously safe, that it might be the better option not only in terms of R&D resources and developer politics, but from a marketing and user experience point of view as well... Which would mean *no* classic-like environment here...

What would you think?


*** Needless to say that in order to have a shared clipboard, users must buy & install the 3rd party OS themselves and Apple will have to make Mac OS X automatically install extended clipboard functionality in them when they are detected :smokey: .

[Baron Munchausen]

So are you suggesting an Aqua/quartz interfacing Darwine, i.e. WIN32 API support on via the normal OSX interface, not X11?

I think one of the big drawbacks for retail users wrt to Darwine is the use of X11, so if there comes a version of WIN32 using Aqua/Quartz/Cocoa then this would be a big step forward on the desktop.

This is a world away from 'user switch' which has its place on the Xserves.

One question: if OSX does support WIN32, what happens in Vista and how on earth does an app get installed?

[Doxxic]

Originally Posted by Baron Munchausen So are you suggesting an Aqua/quartz interfacing Darwine, i.e. WIN32 API support on via the normal OSX interface, not X11?

That would go way further than any end user would ask for, wouldn't it? And it would require a lot of cooperation from Microsoft. You think they'd do that?

I think one of the big drawbacks for retail users wrt to Darwine is the use of X11, so if there comes a version of WIN32 using Aqua/Quartz/Cocoa then this would be a big step forward on the desktop.

Again, at the moment I don't see why Microsoft would do that...

This is a world away from 'user switch' which has its place on the Xserves.

Exactly between what does this 'user switch' switch? I don't know the Xserves. How does their user switching differ from the regular version of OS X?

One question: if OSX does support WIN32, what happens in Vista and how on earth does an app get installed?

I have no idea. Honestly, I think Windows Vista wouldn't allow an OS from... another dimension to install extensions without any user interference like typing passwords and pressing OK-buttons.

After all, I'm definitely not suggesting OS X would *support* WIN32, only that it makes room for it.
And that Apple offers some tweaks to it somehow, so it can communicate more easily with Mac OSX.

All I'm thinking of is some simple but powerful features for the end user, like a (seemingly) 'shared' clipboard, and shared file directories.

This doesn't require as much intertwining of OSes as it may seem, I suppose.
Maybe both OSes could simply be connected via some networking protocol, so they see eachother's directories.
And a 'shared clipboard' doesn't have to be *really* one single shared clipboard. It could only be perceived as such, while different PC instances with possibly different OSes really just automatically sync their several clipboards each time the user switches PC-instances.

Still, I guess this would require some adaptations on the foreign OS's side, and I was only dreaming about this happening automatically when it's detected by Mac OS X. Again - I don't think it's going to be *totally* automatic, if it were only for Vista security reasons...

But if Apple would ask the user to drag some installer scripts to the Vista desktop and... OMG there I go this requires inter OS drag-and-drop support...



Seems it's going to have be on a separate cd with Apple goodies for Windows, Linux etc..., like quicktime, bonjour(), itunes etc etc...

[Baron Munchausen]

Doxxic,

1) Darwine (WIN32 on UNIX+X11) has NO support from MS but exists.

2) What I suggest goes only just far enough - I do NOT want X11 clunk on my desktop if I can help it.

3) 'User switch' in this thread is different in that we are talking one hardware system running multiple OS instances running their own memory spaces with no heirarchy. Why I say this would be in the Xserve world is because this is typically a server need and is currently provided in various degrees in the minicomputer and server markets running OSs like OpenVMS and its clustering technology (my background).

4) VPC already supports shared file and clipboard since before being bought by The Redmond Strangler.

[autodata]

Originally Posted by Baron Munchausen This is what I do with VPC. There is absolutely NO REASON to surf the net via Windows AFAICT, unless you come across some banking website written by a bunch of shaved baboons (HSBC, NAT WEST, for example).

One of the problems I've run into is that there are a number of realtors in my extended family and the MLS web application that is used to list property is uses activex. As a result, that's a whole industry that's forced to stick with windows even at home.

[Doxxic]

Originally Posted by Baron Munchausen Doxxic, 1) Darwine (WIN32 on UNIX+X11) has NO support from MS but exists. 2) What I suggest goes only just far enough - I do NOT want X11 clunk on my desktop if I can help it.

I see! I thought 'Darwine' was a typo...
You think Apple could use it?

4) VPC already supports shared file and clipboard since before being bought by The Redmond Strangler.

But it would be so nice for Apple if they would use their own implementation in combination with their Intel switch so they would be totally independent on Microsoft for those benefits.

Mac users would only have to buy a generic copy of Vista and then immediately have computer more elegant while still flexible and networkable than any Windows only machine.

[Baron Munchausen]

Instead of bitching about who "owns" '.com', why don' they outlaw such things on the net?

CaptiveX is what we called it.

[Doxxic]

Originally Posted by Baron Munchausen Instead of bitching about who "owns" '.com', why don' they outlaw such things on the net? CaptiveX is what we called it.

:smokey: In Paradise, they did outlaw such things. Then someone ate some apple and we were kicked out. Now we have to deal with it.

But let's stick a bit closer to the subject please!

[Baron Munchausen]

To me a WINE approach appears more efficient, as you do not need two entire OSs in memory, for that is not the purpose (running the OS/environment) but running the application.

The 'user switch' multiple OS route is very different as the objective is to run potentially totally isolated instances, where the interaction of the OS and application is aprt of the territory.

[Doxxic]

1) You think it's safe enough?
2) Is it elegant enough for Apple to offer it to the end user?
3) Could Apple brag about it?

Because to Apple those would be the benefits of just making space and run a complete computer in it.

Or do you think the whole virtualization thing would be a 3rd party product?

[PB PM]

I think Apple should stay way form $indows all together... leave it up to M$ to come up with a new Virtual PC, end of story.

i am a newbie here but i still think you all (please do not hate me now...) are missing the point.
The point is not whether or not osx can or can not emulate or run windows. as i see it all about applications. So you could argue who need one more operating system? I saw an early test app that made it possible to run windows application in osx but without windows, there was no secret about this. The only limitation at that time (10.0) was if the application called directly on hardware. in my humble oppinion we ahould not get stuck at "running windows". We can do better. We need to talk about how we can run the today PC only applications on future generations or current generations of OSX.

Any takers on my my ideas?

[hmurchison]

People here are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

http://www.vmware.com/

nuff said

[Roland]

Anybody ever looked at this patent from apple?

"..2. The method of claim 20, wherein the first operating system is selected from the set consisting of Mac OS X, Linux, and Microsoft Windows."

found it here.

Sorry if this has already been posted, don't have much of a clue what you guys are talking about.

[Doxxic]

Originally Posted by Roland Anybody ever looked at this patent from apple? "..2. The method of claim 20, wherein the first operating system is selected from the set consisting of Mac OS X, Linux, and Microsoft Windows." found it here. Sorry if this has already been posted, don't have much of a clue what you guys are talking about.

Now Architosh has found it, too.

They speculate that Apple is heading for a full OS war, by even allowing you to install Windows or Linux on your mac as the primary OS, and Mac OS X as secondary!

That would go pretty far, even for me....

[Roland]

why not actually?

I understand that they want to keep Mac OS on Apple Machines for compatability reasons (ever read the cubase forum where people are wondering
if motherboard x is working together with hardware piece y for a good performance in the sound field ?), but why should they not allow you to run Vista or Linux as your primary OS if the hardware is perfectly capable of it?

[Doxxic]

Originally Posted by Roland why not actually? I understand that they want to keep Mac OS on Apple Machines for compatability reasons (ever read the cubase forum where people are wondering if motherboard x is working together with hardware piece y for a good performance in the sound field ?), but why should they not allow you to run Vista or Linux as your primary OS if the hardware is perfectly capable of it?

Well, you should read the thread. Many here think that Apple should protect it's computers from the ubiquitous Windows environment.
They specifically think that the need for developers to develop for Mac OS X would vanish, causing the death of Mac OS X.

I don't agree with them: Mac users bought a mac in order to be able to run Mac OS X, including the applications that have been made for it. So I'd be very surprised if many Mac users would install Windows as their primary OS anyway. But I would not be surprised if Mac users who have just switched like the option to fall back to Windows for the tasks they want to, so they can move over to the Mac OS in a pace they like to.

If Apple is really going to sell the ability to run Windows as the prime OS as a competitive advantage, this means that the computer must have competitive advantages for people who use it that way.
This would mean that either Mac OS as a secondary OS is a competitive advantage (why?), or that Apple is going to compete with Dell on mere hardware specs (how?)

I'd be very, very surprised...
But never say never with Apple.