[Buffalo]

I was just reading this:
http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/21/a...for-boot-camp/

and thought that since they already are making money with their "Parallels" software, would it be stupid of me to think that this may be allow them to integrate Parallels with Leopard and allow both Mac and Windows formats to run, except with vitualized Windows apps? I mean, Boot Camp could replace Parallels if they did this, right?

[billybobsky]

Apple isn't responsible for parallels, so I am not sure what you are off about...

[Robo]

Also, it's just a rumor that they'd be charging for the final version of Boot Camp, and that's only if you don't get Leopard, anyway. Just thought I'd point that out...

[atomicbartbeans]

First charging for the 802.11n enabler, now this... what the hell Steve?

It's Cingular's and Verizon's job to nickel-and-dime customers for every little feature, not Apple's... let's hope it's just a bad rumor.

[Buffalo]

Originally Posted by billybobsky Apple isn't responsible for parallels, so I am not sure what you are off about...

Are you sure Apple isn't responsible for Parallels? I thought Parallels was Apple's own virtualization software. I must have overlooked to part that said it was included in Leopard for free.

[chucker]

Even assuming the rumor is true, Apple is only charging in case you wish to stick to Tiger. With Leopard, it'll be included for free. This is no different from Apple charging for iChat AV beta->final for those who wished to stick with Jaguar, whereas Panther users got it for free.

Originally Posted by Oyarses Are you sure Apple isn't responsible for Parallels? I thought Parallels was Apple's own virtualization software. I must have overlooked to part that said it was included in Leopard for free.

Wha? Parallels is a software company. Parallels Desktop is a virtualization product. There is no connection to Apple.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by atomicbartbeans First charging for the 802.11n enabler, now this... what the hell Steve?

Huh - it just occurred to me that 802.11n may come for free with Leopard, but be $1.99 for Tiger users.

Maybe they're racking up a suite of nickel and dimes to *cough* entice people to upgrade to Leopard, since you get those things 'for free'?

[rasmits]

Originally Posted by Kickaha Maybe they're racking up a suite of nickel and dimes to *cough* entice people to upgrade to Leopard, since you get those things 'for free'?

Those are the top secret new features:

The "privilege" to use the things you already bought/got for free.

[Fahrenheit]

Things like BootCamp are not free to R+D, they probably cost a heck of a lot. $29.99 for that capability is chicken feed, and anyway, most people are going to get Leapard anyway.

[Wyatt]

Originally Posted by Oyarses Are you sure Apple isn't responsible for Parallels? I thought Parallels was Apple's own virtualization software. I must have overlooked to part that said it was included in Leopard for free.

As chucker said--two different companies. Apple isn't the only company making software for the Mac, you know. Apple *recommends* Parallels because it's different from Boot Camp, which is Apple's solution for running OS X and Windows. Boot Camp is free in Leopard. Parallels is $80 right now and will continue to be $80 (or more, perhaps) as long as it is sold. Two different pieces of software. Two different companies.

[LatteCoffee]

I was surprised about Apple going to charge for BootCamp. With Parallels at least you don´t have to restart.

I think maybe they´ll release BootCamp for free (you gotta restart) and BootCamp Pro for $30 without the need of restarting your mac.

Same strategy as QuickTime Player.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by LatteCoffee I think maybe they´ll release BootCamp for free (you gotta restart) and BootCamp Pro for $30 without the need of restarting your mac.

No, that would be a wholly different technology. Boot Camp isn't a virtualization environment; it's am umbrella term for firmware features, partition resizing support, a setup GUI and Windows XP drivers. It's very, very different from Parallels Desktop. Considering Phil Schiller's unequivocal statement that they don't wish to invest any resources into building their own virtualization software, especially seeing as there are two contenders already (VMWare Fusion as well), I don't get why so many people still think Apple will do it anyway. There's nearly nothing they could do better than the competition, so why needlessly kill off third parties?

[Chinney]

I don’t see any controversy with Apple charging a bit for certain Leopard features to those who choose to stay with Tiger. This gives people flexibility, if they don’t want to do the full upgrade. I don’t think that anyone expects Leopard to be free. Why would some of its most sought-after individual features be free? Overall, I find Apple’s software pricing to be quite reasonable (including the price of the various OS X upgrades over the years) in exchange for what you get. Their hardware is still a bit pricey though, but again I feel even the hardware has become more reasonable from a value for money perspective.

[Chinney]

Originally Posted by chucker No, that would be a wholly different technology. Boot Camp isn't a virtualization environment; it's am umbrella term for firmware features, partition resizing support, a setup GUI and Windows XP drivers. It's very, very different from Parallels Desktop. [...]

How exactly does Parallels work?

[LatteCoffee]

Originally Posted by chucker No, that would be a wholly different technology. Boot Camp isn't a virtualization environment; it's am umbrella term for firmware features, partition resizing support, a setup GUI and Windows XP drivers. It's very, very different from Parallels Desktop. Considering Phil Schiller's unequivocal statement that they don't wish to invest any resources into building their own virtualization software, especially seeing as there are two contenders already (VMWare Fusion as well), I don't get why so many people still think Apple will do it anyway. There's nearly nothing they could do better than the competition, so why needlessly kill off third parties?

Who can trust Apple?
Apple also said they´re neither stop people from installing Winblows nor a way to help people installing that OS. Months later BootCamp was released...

I see your point though.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by LatteCoffee Who can trust Apple? Apple also said they´re neither stop people from installing Winblows nor a way to help people installing that OS. Months later BootCamp was released... I see your point though.

No, they said they won't support you in installing it; and they don't.

[yongxiaofeng]

Most likely, Apple has quitely aquired Paralells,

because each single person from Apple got a copy of Paralells, which is unusual for them, according to my sources

[chucker]

Originally Posted by yongxiaofeng Most likely, Apple has quitely aquired Paralells,

No. Parallels isn't even self-owned.

It turns out that Parallels is not such a little company after all. About three years ago it was quietly purchased by an enterprise-focused virtualization company called SWsoft, a fact that has never been publicly disclosed until now. SWsoft and its Parallels subsidiary are both Russian-American operations. SWsoft CEO Serguei Beloussov, based in Virginia, calls the shots for programmers who are based in Moscow. Parallels employed only seven when SWsoft bought it, but today has 100 people, mostly in Russian R&D.

Now you can argue that Apple quietly purchased SWsoft, but at that point, things start to get silly.

Sometimes things are just exactly as they appear to be.

[Wyatt]

Originally Posted by Chinney How exactly does Parallels work?

Parallels saps some RAM away from OS X and runs WIndows directly on top as an application within OS X. Both are running at the same time, and Parallels uses a large file within your OS X partition (or it loads your Boot Camp partition). It directly accesses hardware, but system resources are split between the two operating systems.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by fcgriz It directly accesses hardware, but system resources are split between the two operating systems.

Well, most hardware isn't directly accessed. The CPU, if it supports it, gives Parallels a special form of direct access, and some devices (USB ones, for instance) can be directly accessed, but then not shared at all. And stuff like sound and graphics is emulated; the virtual machine sees very generic, low-end sound and graphics chips.

[rasmits]

Originally Posted by chucker Now you can argue that Apple quietly purchased SWsoft, but at that point, things start to get silly. Sometimes things are just exactly as they appear to be.

Aren't major, publicly trading corporations like Apple required to disclose any purchases and acquisitions like that anyway? They can't just secretly buy other companies without telling their stock holders.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by rasmits Aren't major, publicly trading corporations like Apple required to disclose any purchases and acquisitions like that anyway? They can't just secretly buy other companies without telling their stock holders.

Ocean Telecom?

Cassidy and Greene?

Apple does a lot of weird stuff without saying anything about it until they have to.

[rasmits]

Exactly. It's no secret that they own those companies, we just really don't know why. (Or didn't know, I've never heard of them before).

[chucker]

Originally Posted by rasmits Aren't major, publicly trading corporations like Apple required to disclose any purchases and acquisitions like that anyway? They can't just secretly buy other companies without telling their stock holders.

They eventually have to disclose it; I don't know about the "deadline". Apple tends to wait until they have an Apple-branded product based on the acquisition to present.

Most of SWsoft's products are way out of Apple's interests; acquiring them would make little sense.

[Anthem]

I honestly don't see what the big deal is. If you're already using Boot Camp before Leopard comes out, it won't magically start to cost money. And once Leopard comes out, every new Mac will get Boot Camp for free.

Nobody's going to pay anything for it. And I expect Leopard to have plenty of other features to make people want to upgrade.

[Bryson]

It's a good point: if you've already got it, what mechanism will they use the charge for it?

If they try and charge for the download, I suspect it will be easily torrented.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Bryson It's a good point: if you've already got it, what mechanism will they use the charge for it? If they try and charge for the download, I suspect it will be easily torrented.

This really isn't any different from iChat AV 2.0. Those who already have the Beta can continue to use it just fine. The Beta download will likely get pulled, though, but that doesn't mean Apple has anything against people distributing it regardless. All they're charging for is the final version, either for Tiger for $29, or for Leopard as part of the package. And yes, either of them will be available "for free" anyway, if you're that stingy.

I don't get what the fuzz is about, really.

[Bryson]

Unless of course, 10.3.9 "breaks" the beta...

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Bryson Unless of course, 10.3.9 "breaks" the beta...

I'll resist the "t,ftfy", but it should be pointed out that nobody's forced to update to 10.4.9 either. If people don't want to buy the Leopard upgrade right now, they can either:
A) stick with things as they are
B) keep 10.4.x up-to-date and buy the $29 license if they have to
C) upgrade all the way to 10.5.0.

[Bryson]

Agreed. But many people blindly click yes to everything in software update, especially as Apple won't be upfront about what the update actually does. Observe all the people that wanted to roll back to the old version of iTunes that let you do something naughty...