[harrowww]

what's the deal with the rumor(?) of Leopard intergrating virtualization technology? what have you heard about bout this and what do you think about it?

[DeputyDoofy]

I actually feel it is a pretty unlikely scenario. I think Apple would have a hell of a time covering their backs if they did do it, and would probably spark some lawsuit in some form or another from Microsoft. Though I guess they would have nothing to loose, as it wouldn't be like Microsoft would need to develop OS X specific software anymore (if there was virtualization software integrated).

Either way it is all irrelevant to me because I am on a Powerbook G4, but then I do wonder how they will handle the release, perhaps they will release 2 separate versions for each architecture.

[Grrr]

1st i've heard of this 'rumour'

[harrowww]

i feel as though this would be a nightmare for apple as well. now with the third party virtualization solution (Parallels), if you screw up your Mac, they can blame parallels and say "well, you used a third-party program, tought luck." But if they offer the solution, and your Mac gets infected w/ a virus thru windows file sharing or something like that, Apple is gonna have trouble.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by mattgirv

I actually feel it is a pretty unlikely scenario. I think Apple would have a hell of a time covering their backs if they did do it, and would probably spark some lawsuit in some form or another from Microsoft. Though I guess they would have nothing to loose, as it wouldn't be like Microsoft would need to develop OS X specific software anymore (if there was virtualization software integrated).

Either way it is all irrelevant to me because I am on a Powerbook G4, but then I do wonder how they will handle the release, perhaps they will release 2 separate versions for each architecture.

How would using the virtualization features of the Intel chip lead to a lawsuit from Microsoft? It still means a sale of Windows for Microsoft for people to take advantage of it.

[DeputyDoofy]

Well ok, lawsuit was strong but as of yet, Microsoft doesn't see Apple as a threat but if they do then they will do anything they can to stop them.

I do think though that the level of support placed on Apple if they did integrate such a thing, would be tremendous, possibly they could license the Parallels Virtualization software but I don't know really.

[harrowww]

I feel as though Apple might be getting in over their heads w/ introducing virtualization in Leopard, unless this is something they've been planning on for a long time. However, I doubt that considering they recently released bootcamp, which is a totally different thing (dual-booting vs. virtualization). I think they'd be smarted to bundle Parallels Desktop in Leopard and let Parallels deal w/ all of the support issues.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by framedinblood

I feel as though Apple might be getting in over their heads w/ introducing virtualization in Leopard, unless this is something they've been planning on for a long time. However, I doubt that considering they recently released bootcamp, which is a totally different thing (dual-booting vs. virtualization). I think they'd be smarted to bundle Parallels Desktop in Leopard and let Parallels deal w/ all of the support issues.

Nope. If the chip supports it and Apple figures out a way to do it, they will.

I doubt that Apple will let Parallels do it for them because Parallels is still a "glorified Virtual PC," which still has the same graphics limitations as Virtual PC.

Now, with processor supported virtualization, you may be able to get Windows to be able to directly access the graphics chip, which would allow for running graphics-intensive programs within Windows without rebooting and leaving the Mac OS.

But this is all speculation, and we won't know what Apple has planned for Leopard until Steve gives the preview at WWDC in August.

[DeathMan]

I'd love to see Microsoft develop a Windows runtime that would let me install and run windows apps, without the windows operating system. I imagine it working similar to JRE, hooking into the Mac's filesystem, networking, drivers, all that.

I would pay for something like that over Microsoft windows. I would be willing to pay more for it, in fact.

[harrowww]

I think it's a little far-fetched to say Parallels is a "Glorified Virtual PC" for 2 reasons:

1) I think most people who use virtualization aren't worried that much about graphic limitation, unless you're a gamer, in which case you use boot camp.

2) Parallels runs like 10000X fastr than VPC ever dreamed of, making it 10000x more useful.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by framedinblood

1) I think most people who use virtualization aren't worried that much about graphic limitation, unless you're a gamer, in which case you use boot camp.

2) Parallels runs like 10000X fastr than VPC ever dreamed of, making it 10000x more useful.

Yes, but there are still professional applications that can definitely benefit greatly from full access to the graphics chip.

To say that only gamers care about the graphic limitation is a gross understatement.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by mattgirv

Well ok, lawsuit was strong but as of yet, Microsoft doesn't see Apple as a threat but if they do then they will do anything they can to stop them.

Microsoft is a software company. They don't make computers. Microsoft makes more money on a retail copy of Windows than on the OEM copy included with a new PC. Microsoft would be THRILLED if Mac users all started buying retail copies of Windows because that is how they make money: selling software.

tooki

[Brass]

It would not be an overly burdensome support issue for Apple. They still would not supply a copy of Windows (at least it would be exceedingly unlikely, I think), and therefore they would not have to support windows (or Linux, or whatever else you installed).

Apple would merely have to support the virtualisation method. Not the operating systems you choose to install and run.

You would have to go to MS to get support for any of your Windows issues.

[harrowww]

You're right, Apple is definitely not in the business of supporting other OSes such as Windows and Linux. But, if they supply the virtualiztion method and people are having trouble w/ that, it will be an Apple issue. If peple have a seperate Windows issue, obviously that won't be apple's problem, but I think most virtualization support questions stem from actually getting the system working.

[kman42]

Originally Posted by Brass

It would not be an overly burdensome support issue for Apple. They still would not supply a copy of Windows (at least it would be exceedingly unlikely, I think), and therefore they would not have to support windows (or Linux, or whatever else you installed).

Apple would merely have to support the virtualisation method. Not the operating systems you choose to install and run.

You would have to go to MS to get support for any of your Windows issues.

Exactly. Look at it this way:

1) Apple spent a lot of money to complete the Intel transition prior to the release of Leopard. They will leverage everything they can from these chips in their new OS. Leopard will take advantage of chip-level virtualization.

2) But Leopard will ship for both PPC and Intel. Apple will not make any obvious feature differences for Leopard between the two platforms yet. The only difference (regarding this issue) will be that if you are running Intel, then Leopard will support virtualization out of the box for any OS you want to add. But it will not INCLUDE any other OS.

All speculation, but I have never know Apple not to exploit any possible advantages they could.

kman

[harrowww]

Kman, I like the run down. I'm still not sold on Leopard including virtualization support. I'm just not sure why they would have put out boot camp at all if they had these virtualization plans so near in the future. doesn't seem to make sense, starting a project and just moving on to something else before finishing it...

[kman42]

I think they wanted to get something out there since there were competing solutions being worked on. They wanted to try to keep people 'in the fold' so that apple could easily convert them to the Leopard solution when it comes out. I'm guessing that a boot camp setup will be easily converted to apple's virtualization solution if so desired and apple may let you use either a boot solution or a virtualization solution.

kman

[sieb]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanderpool
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2

[Big Mac]

It is implied by the Bootcamp introductory page that Bootcamp is merely a preview of what's coming in Leopard, which indicates to many that virtualization is coming.

[Brass]

Originally Posted by kman42

I think they wanted to get something out there since there were competing solutions being worked on. They wanted to try to keep people 'in the fold' so that apple could easily convert them to the Leopard solution when it comes out. I'm guessing that a boot camp setup will be easily converted to apple's virtualization solution if so desired and apple may let you use either a boot solution or a virtualization solution.

kman

It would be very good if you could use the same Windows (or Linux, or Solaris x86) partition with both Bootcamp and Apple's (rumoured) virutalisation solution. It would be very frustrating to have to use one Windows installation for virtualisation and a completely separate Windows installation for booting into Windows.

I know that this would probably not affect many people as most would use either one or the other. But there are legitimate uses for both, and some people may want to get the best of both worlds, without having multiple instances of a non-Mac OS installed.

[sieb]

From what I have read about VT, it is just an extra series of commands built into the processor to allow a more direct approach for virtualization. I could see Apple making 10.5 something akin to VMWare ESX server, where the OS itself is the Hypervisor. This would be the same as building Paralells into OSX instead of a seperate app ontop of the OS (giving it more direct hardware control). OR, 10.5 would install its own Hypervisor and then everything else ontop, including the users OSX install and/or XP install, both of which would be virtualized. Which could be entirely possible with the use of EFI.

The only thing that baffels me is hardware implementation, i.e. if I plugin an usb key, which OS gets to use it? This is also the same issue I see preventing PCs from making full use of dual cores to run two whole OS's at the same time with direct hardware access, something Mainframes have been doing for years.

If anything, I could see Apple building BootCamp into 10.5 and letting the user continue to dualboot. We will know more come WWDC this fall.

[harrowww]

well, I don't doubt that Leopard will include bootcamp in the least. If it does include virtualization, I'm sure they'll make it possible to use the same windows install for that and for bootcamp. Right now, I know you can't do that w/ Parallels/Bootcamp, but that's a different story.

As far as USB goes, you just have to point it toward the VM is that's where you want it to be used. It's pretty simple actually.

[sieb]

My concern wasn't limited to USB, but any port on the machine. If you had the two OSs running at the same time with the same access to hardware, you would need some way to determine which would get to use the firewire, or usb, or card slot, etc. Its one thing to just tell a virtual machine program to mount the usb device, but different when both OSs are working at the same level and not in a little window with icons on the bottom to select per device.

[harrowww]

Well, in parallels there's a special option called "Autoconnect." If it is enabled, tdevice will open in the VM. If not, the VM won't try to connect to the USB device, and it will open in the Host OS. Does this answer your worry?

[Angus_D]

Originally Posted by framedinblood

I think it's a little far-fetched to say Parallels is a "Glorified Virtual PC" for 2 reasons:

1) I think most people who use virtualization aren't worried that much about graphic limitation, unless you're a gamer, in which case you use boot camp.

2) Parallels runs like 10000X fastr than VPC ever dreamed of, making it 10000x more useful.

Virtual PC for Windows is virtualization software like Parallels, VMware etc.

[harrowww]

Originally Posted by Angus_D

Virtual PC for Windows is virtualization software like Parallels, VMware etc.

I'm not arguing that fact. I'm just saying Parallels runs 1000x quicker than VPC.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by framedinblood

I'm not arguing that fact. I'm just saying Parallels runs 1000x quicker than VPC.

Yes. We know that. Parallels works like VPC in that it emulates PC hardware on the host operating system. And it can't access the hardware directly. Yes it runs faster than VPC because the Intel instructions aren't emulated. It is more useful than VPC, but it is still a "glorified VPC" because the machine still looks to Windows like whatever base hardware Parallels emulates.

With virtualization, there is the potential for the operating system to see the hardware for what it really is. For example, Parallels might tell the guest OS that it's running on a Pentium III, with an S3 Trio graphics card and an older network card, etc when it's really on a Core Duo or Core Solo, with ATI x1600 or GMA 950 integrated graphics with whatever chipset Apple uses for networking. This is no different than how VPC does it. Under virtualization, the operating system would see that it is a Core Processor with ATI x1600 or GMA 950 graphics, etc. In other words, it sees the real capabilities of the system.

That will make it more useful to people with high end needs who don't want to have to dual boot.

[Eug Wanker]

Virtualization doesn't have to be used to run other companies' OSes. It can be used to run other versions of OS X, for testing purposes.

I think it'd definitely be a nice OS X developer feature. The fact that I'd use it for Windows is just a bonus.

[harrowww]

Originally Posted by Person Man

Yes. We know that. Parallels works like VPC in that it emulates PC hardware on the host operating system. And it can't access the hardware directly. Yes it runs faster than VPC because the Intel instructions aren't emulated. It is more useful than VPC, but it is still a "glorified VPC" because the machine still looks to Windows like whatever base hardware Parallels emulates.

With virtualization, there is the potential for the operating system to see the hardware for what it really is. For example, Parallels might tell the guest OS that it's running on a Pentium III, with an S3 Trio graphics card and an older network card, etc when it's really on a Core Duo or Core Solo, with ATI x1600 or GMA 950 integrated graphics with whatever chipset Apple uses for networking. This is no different than how VPC does it. Under virtualization, the operating system would see that it is a Core Processor with ATI x1600 or GMA 950 graphics, etc. In other words, it sees the real capabilities of the system.

That will make it more useful to people with high end needs who don't want to have to dual boot.

I disagree...Parallels is virtualization. VPC is emulation. NOT the same.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by framedinblood

I disagree...Parallels is virtualization. VPC is emulation. NOT the same.

VPC is a form of virtualization in that the hardware is simulated on the host machine. Yes, the instruction set is emulated, but that's the only difference.

They are both virtualization. Parallels still simulates a baseline set of hardware, like VPC does.

[TimmyDee51]

Originally Posted by Person Man

VPC is a form of virtualization in that the hardware is simulated on the host machine. Yes, the instruction set is emulated, but that's the only difference.

They are both virtualization. Parallels still simulates a baseline set of hardware, like VPC does.

That's a big difference. In fact, it's so big as to say that's why we have two separate words for the two methods.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by TimmyDee51

That's a big difference. In fact, it's so big as to say that's why we have two separate words for the two methods.

Emulation is a subset of virtualization.

VPC on PowerPC is emulated virtualization, where "the virtual machine simulates the complete hardware, allowing an unmodified OS for a completely different CPU to be run"

VPC on Windows, and Parallels is native virtualization, where "the virtual machine only partially simulates enough hardware to allow an unmodified OS to be run in isolation, but the guest OS must be designed for the same type of CPU." Note that there is still simulation of hardware, just as in emulation.

Quoted text comes from Wikipedia.

I KNOW what I'm talking about, and emulation is virtualization.

[Angus_D]

Originally Posted by framedinblood

I'm not arguing that fact. I'm just saying Parallels runs 1000x quicker than VPC.

Than VPC for Mac, sure. Obviously. I'd be surprised if there was a large performance difference vs VPC for Windows.

[sieb]

Originally Posted by framedinblood

Well, in parallels there's a special option called "Autoconnect." If it is enabled, tdevice will open in the VM. If not, the VM won't try to connect to the USB device, and it will open in the Host OS. Does this answer your worry?

Ah, didn't know that since I don't have an Intel Mac yet. That makes things interesting..

[dazzla]

I've also gotta point out, that on Parallels Windows picks up the CPU as an Intel Core Duo T2500 (2.0GHz).
Also, VMware are claiming they have GPU virtualisation down. The next WMware workstation from them will be able to directly access the CPU AND the GPU.

[sieb]

Exciting stuff!

[Catfish_Man]

Originally Posted by Person Man

Emulation is a subset of virtualization.

I KNOW what I'm talking about, and emulation is virtualization.

While you're quite correct, it still makes sense to distinguish between the two of them. All emulation is virtualization... but not all virtualization is emulation (i.e. direct passthroughs to the underlying hardware). So for convenience' sake, I'd say that emulation is used to refer to a fully software virtual machine, while virtualization is used to refer to a partially software virtual machine.

Using these definitions of convenience, the old Virtual PC that could use the graphics card would have been a CPU emulator and a GPU virtualizer*, while the newer ones that lost that capability were emulation-only.


*iirc, anyway. Did VPC actually provide full access to the GPU or did it just use the real GPU to accelerate emulation of the software one?

[Brass]

If Apple includes virtualisation in 10.5, what do you think they will call it?

It would be interesting if they called it "Classic", and if it worked much like Classic does for Mac OS 9 on PPC Macs. That way, whenever you ran Windows on your Intel Mac, it would always be referred to as "I can run this program in classic", and would windows on the Mac would always sound old to Mac users. It would also give Windows-to-Mac switchers a feeling of familiarity, and make them feel that Mac OS X is really the more modern step to take after using Windows.

That way Apple would have "Classic" on both PPC and Intel versions of the OS, but depending on your hardware, Classic would run OS 9 or Windows (or Linux, Zeta, Solaris, etc)

[Chuckit]

Overloading the name "Classic" would just be confusing.

[Brass]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Overloading the name "Classic" would just be confusing.

I think so too, but it would be worth it. I'm sure Apple wouldn't think it was worth it, though.

[harrowww]

I don't think Apple's gonna do that. I'm still not even convinced the next version of OS X is going to have the capabilities you speak of.

[twistedone]

You don't think they're gonna add in the .NET framework for OS X instead of virtualization. Kind of like the mono project for Linux. They have regular updates to their 'own' version of the JDK... why not .NET?

[harrowww]

I don't know. I don't think Apple's gonna do anything past Boot Camp to support other OSes.

[kleinemans]

If Leopard features Virtualization, I will interpret that move as an indication that Apple is moving away from hardware, which I don't see happening. Hardware is a large source of revenue for them.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by Brass

If Apple includes virtualisation in 10.5, what do you think they will call it?

It would be interesting if they called it "Classic", and if it worked much like Classic does for Mac OS 9 on PPC Macs. That way, whenever you ran Windows on your Intel Mac, it would always be referred to as "I can run this program in classic", and would windows on the Mac would always sound old to Mac users. It would also give Windows-to-Mac switchers a feeling of familiarity, and make them feel that Mac OS X is really the more modern step to take after using Windows.

That way Apple would have "Classic" on both PPC and Intel versions of the OS, but depending on your hardware, Classic would run OS 9 or Windows (or Linux, Zeta, Solaris, etc)

I think they could call it "Archaic" Oh, that's a Windows program... that's why it looks so ugly... I'm running it in "Archaic Mode" It's new in Leopard.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by kc311

If Leopard features Virtualization, I will interpret that move as an indication that Apple is moving away from hardware, which I don't see happening. Hardware is a large source of revenue for them.

If Leopard allows you to install other systems on the hardware, that will indicate Apple is moving away from hardware? How do you figure?