Quantcast
You are not logged in, click here to log in.
21 Replies Last post: May 16, 2006 3:46 PM by jrethorst   1 2 Previous Next
Click to view MW Forums's profile New Member 12,220 posts since
Aug 2, 2004
Reply

Nov 14, 2005 4:20 AM

Intel brings virtualization to desktop chips

Intel Corp. is expected to unveil two new desktop processors on Monday that come with hardware support for virtualization technologies, but users won't be able to take advantage of that technology for some time. more
Reply
Click to view macnuke's profile Old Hand 6,658 posts since
Mar 5, 2004
1. Nov 14, 2005 4:34 AM in response to: MW Forums
Re: Intel brings virtualization to desktop chips
perhaps a chip for the iNteliNside Macs for Mac OS Xp?
Click to view bernardb's profile New Member 6 posts since
Aug 29, 2004
2. Nov 14, 2005 6:18 AM in response to: macnuke
Re: Intel brings virtualization to desktop chips
Wow...HOW exciting!....If you're an IT Manager...this is not of much interest to a dedicated Mac user involved with creating art and animation...
Click to view bigpics's profile Member 352 posts since
Aug 3, 2001
3. Nov 14, 2005 6:48 AM in response to: bernardb
Re: Intel brings virtualization to desktop chips
Well, it MAY well be of interest to 20 year PC vet switchers who hate MS Word and are experts in other software like WordPerfect. And those who have invested years in mastering Windows only databases and languages but who otherwise want to work in the Mac environment on imaging, sound, video, and other Mac software.

And without having to worry about whatever Microsoft's Virtual PC intentions (and deliverables) are in a MacIntel environment.

And this may WELL be of interest to APPLE -- who can appeal to switchers by lettting them know they don't have to give up any of their favorite software or performance to begin their transition to the Mac.

(Note: WordPerfect is still the world's best word processor by a country mile - Pages is a very nice semi-page creation program but has a long way to go as a comprehensive WP.)

I love the passion of Mac users, but I frequently shake my head at their chauvinism and dismissiveness. Don't spend all your time bathing in the same pool. Macs are great, but there are other useful tools in the computing world.

Which Apple, if it wants to really have a chance to break out of its marketing niche needs to play nice with.

Click to view Peter Cohen's profile Macworld Editorial 4,148 posts since
Feb 5, 2003
4. Nov 14, 2005 7:22 AM in response to: bigpics
Re: Intel brings virtualization to desktop chips
In reply to:<hr />
Don't spend all your time bathing in the same pool

<hr />


And if you do, at least change the water every once in a while.
Click to view jmincey's profile Old Hand 3,934 posts since
Aug 27, 2004
5. Nov 14, 2005 8:10 AM in response to: bernardb
Re: Intel brings virtualization to desktop chips
In reply to:<hr />
Wow...HOW exciting!....If you're an IT Manager...this is not of much interest to a dedicated Mac user involved with creating art and animation...

<hr />
I do regard this as an exciting development. And I would like to see native virtualization support in OS X Server. Imagine dual-core, two-processor XServes with virtualization capability -- baked into the OS itself. Windows has this (thanks to Microsoft's purchase of Connectix's Virtual PC, and Linux has long had it. So if Apple is serious about the enterprise, (even if on the low-to-mid level), it should add this as well and not rely only on third parties for it.
Click to view uchuugaka's profile Member 438 posts since
Apr 12, 2005
6. Nov 14, 2005 8:24 AM in response to: jmincey
Re: Intel brings virtualization to desktop chips
this is most important in regards to the future of the XSERVE platform...
at the small app level, AJAX type things have a lot more potential for the future.
I say AJAX type, meaning Java, Python, Ruby, etc...
these are all already platform independent.
Click to view HumanJHawkins's profile Member 538 posts since
Jan 22, 2003
7. Nov 14, 2005 8:47 AM in response to: jmincey
Re: Intel brings virtualization to desktop chips
In reply to:<hr />
I do regard this as an exciting development.

<hr />


I think one reason others aren't enthused about this is that they aren't aware of all of the potential for Macs... Virtualization is not just about running two distinct copies of Windows Server on a computer. It has been used to run different OSes at the same time.

It seems likely that one could have OS X and Win XP running concurrently on an Intel Mac with a negligable performance penalty... On the order of less than 1% speed hit for either. Instead of dual boot, you would have some command key to switch between the two.

For those who won't touch Windows with a 3,048,000,000 nanometer pole, this won't mean much. But for those who need or want both, it would be huge.
Click to view montgomery_burns's profile Member 829 posts since
Aug 31, 2004
8. Nov 14, 2005 9:04 AM in response to: HumanJHawkins
Re: Intel brings virtualization to desktop chips
In reply to:<hr />
Virtualization is not just about running two distinct copies of Windows Server on a computer. It has been used to run different OSes at the same time.

<hr />


How about multiple copies of Mac OS X at the same time?

http://www.maconlinux.org/
Click to view hmurchison's profile Member 316 posts since
Apr 29, 2004
9. Nov 14, 2005 9:47 AM in response to: HumanJHawkins
Re: Intel brings virtualization to desktop chips
In reply to:<hr />
On the order of less than 1% speed hit for either. Instead of dual boot, you would have some command key to switch between the two.


<hr />


You could probably command key to switch or even simply run the second or third OS in another window ala VMware. The 3rd party company would then add unique code to share information between the vm environments and other nice goodies.

Color me jazzed.
Click to view scottellsworth's profile New Member 121 posts since
Apr 22, 2004
10. Nov 14, 2005 10:01 AM in response to: bernardb
Re: Intel brings virtualization to desktop chips
It is actually quite exciting, even for desktop users. Desktop users occasionally need to run windows software on windows, and having it run at essentially full speed means that you get the complete windows experience. If you are a web designer, for example, testing against IE in win2k, xp, and vista, you really do want to test against what your users actually have. Not needing an extra PC is a substantial cost savings, as well as space savings.

Scott
Click to view hmurchison's profile Member 316 posts since
Apr 29, 2004
11. Nov 14, 2005 10:46 AM in response to: scottellsworth
It gets better
Future version of PCI Express will support virtualization as well

PCI Express IO Virtualization and IO Sharing Specification Revision 0.3

Currently we will only have Virtualization on a minute hardware level but we are rapidly approaching a day where the I/O and everything else will be virtualized. We're basically splitting our computers like a cell to create fraternal twins.

When computers meet biology.
Click to view neilr_'s profile New Member 31 posts since
Jul 12, 2005
12. Nov 14, 2005 12:17 PM in response to: HumanJHawkins
Re: Intel brings virtualization to desktop chips
In reply to:<hr />
On the order of less than 1% speed hit

<hr />


Please tell me that you don't actually believe this. All other reasons aside, the implementation of this, frankly, sucks. I've played with the tech and talked with the people thrash testing it. Prepare to be underwhelmed.
Click to view hmurchison's profile Member 316 posts since
Apr 29, 2004
13. Nov 14, 2005 12:41 PM in response to: neilr_
Re: Intel brings virtualization to desktop chips
In reply to:<hr />
I've played with the tech and talked with the people thrash testing it. Prepare to be underwhelmed.

<hr />


Hence the desire for hardware virtualization support. I know there'll be more than a %1 hit but Vanderpool and Pacifica will speed things up a bit more than we are getting today.
Click to view jbh001's profile New Member 108 posts since
Aug 31, 2004
14. Nov 14, 2005 2:14 PM in response to: bigpics
Re: WordPerfect ... Where is WebPerfect?
"(Note: WordPerfect is still the world's best word processor by a country mile ...)"

I am a former die-hard WordPerfect user. After having been forced to use MS Word at work for the last three years (though I still use WP exclusively at home), I have to disagree. There are some things that Word does more gracefully/intuitively the WordPerfect. Granted, they are few and far between, but they are critically placed. For example, ctrl+ & ctrl+ to increase/decrease font size. WP has Alt+ & Atl+ for similar functionally, but it can fill your Reveal Codes with a bunch of trash codes if you use it a lot. Another example, after you get past the learning curve of setting tabs, indents and margins in Word, WP's corresponding methods feel clunky.

The fact that you can create a document in WP12.0 and have WP6.0 open it is a bonus to some, but for me, it is evidence that WordPerfect has been stagnating and bloating since about WP8.0; the only thing of substance that gets updated is their MS Word coversion tools.

WordPerfect needs a major overhaul, but I doubt it could survive going through one at this point. The best thing that WordPerfect could do would be to dump the albatross that is its current file format and move to an HTML/CSS/XML file format. That alone could become a significant challenge to the MS Word .doc format domination. Ironically, the WordPerfect file format has been "almost there" since before WP5.1 -- before HTML even ever really came to be. WordPerfect also desparately needs to add basic forms controls features, i.e. radio buttons, check boxes, form fields, drop-down boxes, combo boxes, etc. It would be nice to create such a form/document in WordPerfect, save it to PDF, and have the checkboxes, form fields, and such functions work in the resulting PDF document--and do it all gracefully and easily.

I can print web pages from my browser, why can't my word processor create them for my browser as easily as it does hard copies? For me there really isn't that much conceptual difference between a document layout and web page layout--in concept, IE, Firefox, and PDF are just different printers. I don't need all the bells and whistles of Dreamweaver for web page layout anymore than I need Quark Xpress or InDesign for word processing. MS Word is getting closer to this by babysteps. But WordPerfect seems mostly oblivious to this concept.

I used to hope that WordPerfect would reconsider and port to OS X. But with the current state and direction of the internet, PDF, and such, what would be the point? WordPerfect needs to become so much more than it is right now before it can become a compelling piece of software again.

I guess I'll have to wait for Google or Mozilla to come to the rescue.