Boot Camp, Virtualization, parallels, etc : Evolution, Revolution or the end for the Mac?
by linathael
I do not pretend to know what will be the future, I rather open here a topic to allow our readers to react.
I personally believe that it will increase hardware sales for Apple, but might have a negative impact software development (mostly for games so far Apple does not make any effort to improve OpenGL drivers as well as ATI/nVidia drivers).
I love the virtualization idea, and it could really well turn the Mac into the universal platform, something that PC/Win will probably never be, especially with Vista and the current policy at Microsoft, lock everything, control everything, do not allow users to enjoy using a computer or an OS. It also maintains Apple in the news, proving that Apple is going ahead while Microsoft has recently once more postponed Vista release date. Intel might surf on Apple’s wave to regain support of shareholders.
please react :)
April 7th, 2006 at 16:58 CEST
First, a bit of perspective… running Windows side-by-side with the Mac OS is really nothing new, not even for Apple. Those of us who have been around awhile can still remember the various coprocessor cards from Apple, OrangeMicro, and others. These cards provided what was, arguably, a better solution than either dual booting (e.g., Boot Camp) or emulation (e.g., VirtualPC/Real PC on PPC) in that they provided an environment which ran at full speed using “real” PC hardware.
This is the biggest problem with Boot Camp or any dual/multiboot environment. Ultimately, the user must ask himself what environment he wants to be in at any given time and, moreover, must make due without some or all resources of the alternative systems while he is doing it. For instance, Mac OS X can not read NTFS partitions, shutting the user off from any data not stored in a FAT32 partition while running Mac OS X. Conversely, HFS support under Windows has (had?) traditionally required add-on driver packages. (Q: Does Boot Camp provide a driver to read Mac HFS/HFS+ partitions under Windows?)
Modern virtualization products have the potential to be a best of both worlds by offering side-by-side exection, easy ability to move between environments, and access to shared data and devices. However, based on the current state of PC virtualization products, we can assume that there will still be some limitations to MacIntel-based virtualization products.
Probably the biggest area area of limitation will be in 3D graphics. VMware, arguably the market leader in virtualization still considers its 3D support as “experimental”. Looking at the specs for Parallels workstation, they do not mention 3D at all, only VESA 3.0 compatibility. If this is the case, then running Windows games on a Mac under virtualization will probably not be all that it is cracked up to be.
April 9th, 2006 at 22:33 CEST
“Mac OS X can not read NTFS partitions, shutting the user off from any data not stored in a FAT32 partition while running Mac OS X”
That is incorrect, Mac OS X has read-only support of NTFS
April 16th, 2006 at 21:11 CEST
Eric wrote about Boot Camp: “To conclude, Boot Camp is also a marketing message for PPC/PC owners who might not delay further their acquisition of MacIntel thanks to the huge PC software collection now opened to Mac users (especially that most of those applications will never be ported to OSX).”
I bought my first Mac 1992 and I gathered about 10 of them. WindowsOS programms were never an argument not to buy a Mac. And will never be. And I get the ultimate huge PC (personal computer btw) software collection you can dream of: over 15.000 Debian or Ubuntu pakages for free. For PowerPC, of course.
Apple can do what Jobs likes and it was the right move to open up MacOS X and the platform. Sad thing, Jobs doesn’t do it. He closed it down on Intel. And Intel and Apple can do whatever they want. But that will never change my mind not to buy a computer with a dull little processor that’s not cabable of counting the right way. I will never buy Intel. And if Apple only offers Intel based Computers, I can’t buy new Apple computers anymore. I change my bank, my car, my OS, but I want change do Intel.
I haven’t cared about WindowsOS and Intel for more than 10 years. For heaven sake, why should I do it after Boot Camp?
Have a look at SUN. Nice little computers, not that expensive like the Intel-Apple boxes and best of all, no Intel inside.
April 20th, 2006 at 14:31 CEST
A few word about Linux, Windows and Mac OS. Linux was indeed designed primarily for sys env, where IT litterate thrive. Recently, Linux has been aiming for a large slice into the General Public base, the so-called basic user, making the operating system more user friendly and providing an attractive alternative to Windows Operating system. However it is failing so far to in that regard due to the following following reasons. The General public (basic users) do not have and is not willing to acquire the sufficient knowledge to run linux on their machine. They want a system which runs seamlessly, do not require a high level of computer knowledge and programming, display some nice graphic interface and does not turn an afternoon into a nighmarish experience when connecting a new hardware or installing a simple software which should be working right out of the box. Windows has a nice graphical interface and provide the user with a relative ease of use, although you can still spend some hellish time trying to install some new hardware and finding out that there are no drivers available for the version of windows on the machine (one exemple comes to mind with Blue tooth or wireless usb adapters from established brands such as belkin which do not provide drivers compatible with Service pac 2 despite the fact that Service pac 2 has been around the bloc for more than a year). Windows is also highly more vulnerable to viruses on the web. Now comes the next alternative, Mac Os X. Detractors will say that it is only available on Apple Computers. I personally think it is one of his strongest points as the hardware and the software are being made by the same company, there is no compatibility problem between hardware and software. Mac Os is a Unix based Operating system and thus, benefit from the strong stability of Unix and Linux. You can run Linux Programs on Mac Os. you can turn your machine as a server. The nice thing is that , in my opinion, Mac OS X offers all the advantages from Windows and Linux without the shortfalls. On Mac OS X, Plug and play is REALLY PLUG AND PLAY. The fact that you can now run Windows XP on a Mac machine will definitely push more and more Windows user to switch to Apple machine, though, i don’t really the point of buying an apple nachine to install Windows. Would be similar to buy a ferrari and trying to install an engine from a Peugeot.
April 25th, 2006 at 09:47 CEST
-> Ralf:
I understand your message; however I know plenty of mac users who do not care at all what CPU is inside their Mac. What they want is the OS: OSX and the ease of using a computer, making users feel they can accomplish something without caring about the hardware components.
Your remark corresponds to a Mac “geek” who has been fighting for the Mac for years and feel not acknowledged for his combat when Apple decide to move to Intel. Not a criticism at all. I can understand it.
But for your information, couple of years ago Apple almost moved to Intel too, IBM was just more convincing to sell PPC970 to Apple pretending great roadmap, whereas there were nothing really ready… Of course, Intel and IBM both had problems to move from 130 to 90nm, and with heat release and power consumption. Intel decided to renewed and change its strategy and IBM decided to move its CPU business to game consoles leaving Apple in the dust. Steve Jobs was smart enough not to be linked to a CPU manufacturer as it happened with Motorola and OSX x86 was co-developped during years. Even today one has to realize that it was a good decision; there is no more real R&D for PPC that can compete with Intel or even AMD. For x86 CPU, Apple has also made a good choice, AMD is having problems with development of future CPU, and Intel roadmaps looks pretty solid and reliable…so much reliable that processors are currently released ahead on schedule. Intel has embraced a new architecture, making it similar to Apple’s design: a computer is a synergy between hardware and software, and the hardware itself must be a synergistic mixture. it does not help to have a super clocked CPU if it can not communicate fast enough with the memory or has slow HD access timing; or simply if there is no software developed able to really use the CPU power.
I really thing that Apple’s future is brighter than couple of years ago, Boot Camp is just a piece of software; I guess Leopard will come with full virtualization. The ultimate computer platform is born and it is a Mac.
May 3rd, 2006 at 21:49 CEST
In response to Ralf,
the Mac OS has been in my home since 1987 and I had ZERO problem getting a new MacBook Pro. It’s performance has exceeded my expectations and Boot Camp simply makes attainable the few XP apps that also made keeping a PC a necessity. I’m hoping Apple responds to requests for a system level virtualization API as this would bode well for different development houses attacking the interface problem from different angles. The only drawback from them intel migration, and this should be temporary as smaller software firms begin to purchase the new machines, is the lack of universal binaries. Moreso the lack of old(er) PPC specific plugins as many have been in different development pipelines for years without need for updates.
May 24th, 2006 at 13:43 CEST
No universal primaries!
Ahhhh. *There’s the rub.
Importantly - no current opssibility of the best little (*super little - 348K of super-tuned Forth language, used since v1.0 on Mac OS 0.9) word processor ever built being able to be used anymore. 21 years of records.
About a year ago I did a wide ranging word processor comparison, looking for a WriteNow (4.02) replacement, and found only one that *may (on a marketing promise - current version 3.5 - equalising changes promised for v4 due Feb ‘05) be an equivalent. But not yet.
This is what determines my choices, as luscious as the new MacBook seems :)
When someone builds a OS 9.Classic emulator, I’m in, to Intel!
May 26th, 2006 at 10:50 CEST
i remember when mac had the old ms dos cards in the apple powermacs
but several things are making me mad at apple right now
let me explain
several mac users still own and operate g3 computers and g4 computers and g5 computers before apple went to intel processors and now what stinks bad over at apple
boot camp:great idea if you have a 1300 doller intel dual core system to run it
problems: this application really pissed off every g3 owner because we get a bad application from microdork called virtual pc 7 while users of the new and quite expensive macs get a nice application called boot camp what a crock
then they pushed us even farther with lets make ilife 06 compatible only on g4 and g5 processors basiclly killing anyone who owns a g3 processor yes there are hacks but without garageband it sucks
i think apple has a wonderfull idea but diffently in the wrong direction because think of this
a 1 ghz mac mini was 499.99 on the old powerpc processor
now a 1 ghz intel piece of junk cost 599.99 wow a hundred doller increase for a low end mac
dont get me wrong i love apple because i got tired of being hacked on microdork winblows xdork
but dumping your customers flat on your a*&& was not ot cool at all
June 24th, 2006 at 21:53 CEST
As mac grows to rival windows hackers will become interested in hacking it and writing virus’ for it. Compared to windows market share it is a small fish in a big pond. But within a few years it will not be and it will find itself in the same situation windows is in.
We will then be hearing the comparison about the two bad guys (Microsoft and Apple).
July 11th, 2006 at 05:19 CEST
I have a G3 and i was wondering if i will be able to run bootcamp on it because i dont have an entel chip. i have Tiger and i have plenty of space but i dont know if i can run it because i dont have an entel chip
August 10th, 2006 at 16:28 CEST
Is English a second language to you people? The spelling and grammer on these posts is awful.
August 13th, 2006 at 17:45 CEST
Shawn,
Grow up dude, the world DOES NOT turn around you nor your language. More people speak Spanish or Chinese than English. Give it a brake. Join a Russian board and try to post there while being grammatically correct. You are trully an English-speaking embarrassing idiot.
David Williams
August 15th, 2006 at 19:13 CEST
I think the future of windows programs on mac will be provided by a ‘compatibility-layer’. Why would you want to boot up Windows when you can use a compatibility layer to run the software on your OS X desktop.
CrossOver Mac by CodeWeavers’ is where we are headed. Have a read of my review: http://www.davejeffery.com/journal/crossover-mac
February 11th, 2008 at 07:59 CET
In fact , Mac is a closing system. So there is no compatible problem, so if Mac OS goes to intel, I will wonder is that any compatible problem exist?
So far I will prefer using MacOS if you surfing internet and doing creative job. What do you think if you doing creative and the system hang out suddenly?