Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

ApplCmptrDood · Jun 17, 2006, 08:48 PM

Direct Link: http://www.apple.com/getamac/windows.html

Digg Article: http://digg.com/apple/Apple_s_Window...d_of_Boot_Camp

What do you think? Disscuss.

I posted a thread about this in the lounge, but then saw the addition of this forum seconds later. Mods, Admins, please delete my thread in the lounge - thanks.

icruise · Jun 17, 2006, 11:33 PM

Everyone assumed that the "Get A Mac" ad talking about running Windows on a Mac was referring to Boot Camp, but now they seem to be doing some sort of cross promotion with Parallels, which is a little surprising. I think probably the main reason is that Boot Camp is still beta software, and they are reluctant to go all-out promoting it. Still, I wouldn't have expected them to even mention Parallels, much less mention it in preference to Boot Camp.

lookmark · Jun 18, 2006, 01:01 AM

I think it's a strong sign that Boot Camp is only a small first step for Apple.

In the meantime, Boot Camp is still beta and Apple is gracefully acknowledging Parallels Desktop as the far better solution and handing Parallels some business.... at least until August 7th.

Macola · Jun 18, 2006, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by lookmark

I think it's a strong sign that Boot Camp is only a small first step for Apple.

In the meantime, Boot Camp is still beta and Apple is gracefully acknowledging Parallels Desktop as the far better solution and handing Parallels some business.... at least until August 7th.

I wouldn't say that Parallels is the far better solution at all. They are two completely different approaches, each with its own uses and advantages.

In any case, it wouldn't be that hard for Apple to simply buy Parallels if they wanted to incorporate virtualization into Leopard.

lookmark · Jun 20, 2006, 05:06 PM

I should say -- for most people, virtualization is the far better solution. (For gamers, people using intensive 3-d Windows programs, and full-time Windows users... Boot Camp is the better choice.) Hence the curious position of Apple recommending a $40-80 3rd-party solution over their own free one.

Apple won't have to buy Parallels, by the way. All signs point to them having been working on this for some time, and ready for Leopard.

besson3c · Jun 20, 2006, 05:37 PM

I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple incorporate some Xen support into Leopard. Xen is a sort of hybrid approach, if I'm understanding it correctly.

It would allow you to run your Windows apps in a window, but I believe it would also allow direct access to most hardware, so you'd be able to run your Windows games in OS X without a performance hit (aside from the extra RAM required for the OS X footprint).

My knowledge of Xen might be a little shaky, but it seems to represent to coolest approach to virtualization out of everything else out there.

lookmark · Jun 20, 2006, 05:50 PM

Very interesting. I hadn't heard about Xen.

Even more interestingly, Xen can only run Windows XP using recent Intel chips with Intel's hardware virtualization tech, VT -- e.g. the Core Duo. Hmmm.

besson3c · Jun 20, 2006, 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by lookmark

Very interesting. I hadn't heard about Xen.

Even more interestingly, Xen can only run Windows XP using recent Intel chips with Intel's hardware virtualization tech, VT -- e.g. the Core Duo. Hmmm.

Yeah, it's already available and becoming increasingly common in Linux. It's a great way for hosting providers to provide access to multiple OSes running on the same machine, basically providing full dedicated server access on a single CPU. I believe you can already do this with something like VMWare, but you are stuck with the hardware set provided.

I'm not sure how Xen handles disk access. In VMWare (and probably Parallels) you need to create a disk image for the OS to run out of. It would be cool if you could provide Xen full access to a secondary hard drive attached to the machine, which would allow a disk failure to not bring down the data on both host and guest OS, and would allow allocation of as many gigabytes as available on that drive without having to make choices about how to split up the space available on a single drive.

I need to learn more about Xen, but I think this is the sort of thing Xen is designed for. Very hip.

ghporter · Jun 20, 2006, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by lookmark

I should say -- for most people, virtualization is the far better solution. (For gamers, people using intensive 3-d Windows programs, and full-time Windows users... Boot Camp is the better choice.) Hence the curious position of Apple recommending a $40-80 3rd-party solution over their own free one.

Apple won't have to buy Parallels, by the way. All signs point to them having been working on this for some time, and ready for Leopard.

I'd agree except for the headaches reported here by people who run into stumble after fumble with setting up Parallels and with its limitations (like bad USB support...).