[MW Forums]

Parallels Workstation lets you run multiple virtual machines on your Mac. more

[jredmon]

Quick Question: Is there support for video acceleration in this virtualization environment?

[Uncommon]

So there's native, near-native, and close to near-native. Maybe the final version will actually achieve near-native speeds /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[hexor]

Their server seems to be inundated.. Can't download their docs and some of the web pages aren't loading completely..

[longtimer]

Call me the devil's advocate, but I'm a bit worried about running Windows software on Macs. What incentive does any developer now have to produce and maintain an OS X version of their application? Isn't it now easier to tell Mac owners to just "use our Windows version"??? Will this lead ultimately to a situation where you will use Windows most of the time on your Mac, only switching back to OS X for Apple applications like iLife and Pro apps?? Will this ultimately mean the death of OS X?? Is Bill passing out cigars even as we speak?
Just worried...

[b_baggins]

Take a business 101 course and stop being worried.
If people want something and are willing to pay for it, someone will make what they want and sell it to them.

[b_baggins]

Who cares. For 99% of the people who need a virtualization solution, it's because they need to run one or two BUSINESS applications in Windows, for which video acceleration is totally unnecessary.

[macnews]

Question for any of those that may be in the know...
We all know how virus, malware ridden windows is but if I run this virtual machine what sort of protection do I have? Assume I don't install any virus/malware protection (stupid I know, just run with it for a minute), could I do the following:
1. If the virtual windows machine locks up for any reason just use force quit to stop the whole mess and still be running OSX just fine?
2. If the windows virtual machine gets infected with a virus, can I just deleted the virtual machine and be safe?
3. Could a virus from the with in the virtual machine infect the actual processor, thus affecting my ability to run OSX?
With boot camp and now this software, it would be nice to see an article discussing the possibility of these items.

[axnicho]

The Holy Grail of Mac users who need to run Windows? Perhaps if you really need to run Windows.
I see a progression here (on the assumptions that (a)MacOSX is preferable to Windows as an operating environment and (b)there are Windows applications that are useful but dont yet have MacOSX equivalents):

[*]Two separate machines. Run Windows and Windows applications on one. Run MacOSX and MacOSX applications on the other.
[*]One machine, dual-bootable between Windows and MacOSX. Run Windows applications while booted in Windows. Run MacOSX applications while booted in MacOSX. Advantage: only one machine. Disadvantages: can only run one OS and its applications at a time; one machine waiting to be trashed by Windows viruses.
[*]One machine, with virtualized operating systems. Run Windows and MacOSX applications simultaneously in separate OS environments. Advantage: no rebooting needed. Disadvantages: have to switch between different OS environments when switching between Windows and MacOSX applications.
[*]One machine running MacOSX, with a Windows-compatible API layer. Run Windows and MacOSX applications simultaneously in MacOSX. Advantages: no need to context-switch between different operating systems just to use different applications; reduced vulnerability to Windows viruses; no need to buy Windows or pay Microsoft anything. Disadvantages: Microsofts continually changing API could make it difficult to keep up (but older applications will still work).
[/list]
Ideally (in my view), there would be no need for any of this, because every application that we need would be available in shiny MacOSX-native form. However, the last of these options is, I think, the next best thing not the Holy Grail, but not far off. Its not pie-in-the-sky stuff either. Similar technology has been available on Linux for years, in the form of WINE. The Darwine project is working on bringing the same kind of functionality to Macs. That will be worth waiting for!

[tabasco_hot]

I agree. Unless your using Bootcamp for gaming this solution is probably far more suitable for 99% of users. There is nothing stopping you from having both on your system. Bootcamp will be built into Leopard, but this solution is preferable, Windows in a window if you need it.

[jmincey]

People keep raising the same questions:
1. Will developers for OS X no longer have an incentive to create software native to OS X?
First, the vast majority of existing Mac developers will continue to support OS X because it's economically viable for them. If it were not, they wouldn't be developing for the platform to begin with.
Second, among those software firms who would cease OS X development on grounds of Boot Camp or virtualization, in order for this decision to be revenue-neutral at a minimum it would have to be predicated on the assumption that all their current Mac customers (1) will have made the conversion to Intel-based Macs and (2) will run out to purchase a non-OEM (retail) copy of Windows XP (which runs $299 at list price). This premise is simply not plausible.
2. Will running Windows (either under a dual-boot configuration or in a virtual partition) compromise the integrity and security of my Mac system?
Pending real world tests, my answer to this is an emphatic no. When run on a Mac, Windows will be vulnerable to the same viruses, worms, spyware, etc., as any Dell, Gateway, HP, Wintel box would be. But this damage would be confined to the Windows system itself in my view -- provided that the user (1) partitions his hard drive and puts Windows on its own separate NTFS file system and (2) doesn't routinely run Windows from a user account with "Administrator" rights or OS X from the "root" account.
3. If Windows crashes will it bring down the entire system?
This question is only relevant for running Windows in a virtual partition. If Windows is running in a dual-boot configuration and it suffers a kernel-level crash, then it will indeed bring down the entire system since it is itself the entire system (in that particular session). But in a virtual partition it will bring down only the partition itself -- which would be an allocation of protected memory and look to OS X (or to the virtualization software) just like any other running process. It shouldn't adversely affect the integrity of OS X or processes running under OS X.
Of course, there is no substitute for real world tests so I don't hold up myself as an authority over empircal data. But absent such data, this is my answer for now.

[wardoggie]

In reply to:

---

Take a business 101 course and stop being worried.

---

Just because people want something and are willing to pay (a reasonable amount) for it, doesn't mean the people who own the IP rights want to invest in what it takes to port it over to a new platform.
Take a look at the Mac software section (if there is one) and the PC software section at any retail location. See a difference? Think that difference is going to get bigger, stay the same, or get smaller as more OS cross-pollination occurs? Think it's possible that one day you'll be using your Windows virtual machine for everything except web browsing, email, and Apple-branded apps?
I think it's a possibility, but would love for you to prove otherwise.

[tabasco_hot]

I admit. I am really worried that first time software, or "new to OS X" software will stop happening shortly. The only people that will have new software for the Mac are ones that already had a development team on it. I'll bet this is the reason why Avi left. He new this was a doomsday device for new to mac software developers. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[Nobody]

In reply to:

---

What incentive does any developer now have to produce and maintain an OS X version of their application?

---

That's not something worth worrying about at all. A company that refuses to write native software based on excuses, is not a company that is worth worrying about. The language you use is needlessly alarmist - i.e "any developer." Many Mac developers know that they are richly rewarded by enthusiastic and loyal customers who reward quality software. I believe that Mac users are much more willing to pay for quality software than their Windows counterparts. However, they are less willing to put up with crappy software. Windows usually has a crappifying effect on any software it runs.
It's becoming less of an issue anyway - as increasingly, small business-centric applications are moving to the web.

In reply to:

---

For 99% of the people who need a virtualization solution, it's because they need to run one or two BUSINESS applications in Windows, for which video acceleration is totally unnecessary.

---

Precisely. The other main market for Windows on a Mac is gaming. But those people will be dual-booting with Bootcamp. This is one area where Windows doesn't affect the software so much (except for graphics drivers) - because games are played fully outside the Windows interface. The problem is the lack of DirectX on the Mac. Most gamers will play games intensely for a fairly long period of time, so re-booting isn't much of an issue - it's like starting up your game console.
Where virtualization comes into its own is those smaller, specific apps, where you don't want to interrupt your workflow, just to do some quirky thing. For me, the real benefit is for "hobbyist" software that come from individual programmers who don't have a "real" company. Often they aren't the greatest programmers in the world - and they will never port to Mac, because they are at most a cottage industry, or a labor of love. They know their specific hobby really well, but aren't in it to be "software developers" - you see a lot of this in areas like radio controlled modelling, and hobby electronics. None of these are graphically intensive or particularly demanding, and would run perfectly under virtualization. It's "quirky" yet unique and invaluable software.
------
I'm really glad about the way Bootcamp is going to put the boot up some butts to promote innovation in this product area. If nothing else, Apple's writing of Windows drivers for Mac hardware eliminates the one major hurdle that prevents smaller companies from producing affordable compatibility solutions. I see no reason why Apple's Window drivers disc for Bootcamp cannot be used with these products.
I hope Apple keeps up with writing the Windows drivers. It doesn't have that much specific hardware, and a limited number of configurations, so it shouldn't be hard. If anything, Windows will have many fewer problems on a Mac, if Apple brings good drivers to the table. Windows users are forever having headaches over crappy drivers for cheap hardware. And if your Windows install goes tits-up, you can always contain it, and debug from MacOS X!
It will be interesting to see if even full-time Windows users start taking notice of Apple's hardware to solve their endless configuration problems. Some guys on slashdot were opining on how it's easier to install Windows on a Mac now, than it is on a PC! Makes sense, because a PC can't do much without an OS, but a Mac already has one to "look after things" even during the install process.