Slashdot Mirror

Mac is too proprietary to do ANYTHING for free. ... most wouldn't know what to do with virtualization software

Parallels http://www.parallels.com/ also supports both Windows and Linux (and BSD) clients on Windows, Linux, or OSX hosts.

I tried installing Vista, but Vista requires ACPI which wasn't supported by Parallels at the time. They said it would be supported in the next major version. Although, some random guy claims to have gotten it working.

---You get more security, etc, and you will get your next cool OS upgrade 1-2 years later instead of 5. (And you get to wear black turtle necks and jeans)

And if Apple did something like put a firewall around the Windows instead, and not let it make internet connections except with user warning first, and you did all of your surfing and email in Apple land, wouldn't that be just fine?

You get your windows XP apps running at ~ full speed, and you get your new OS, and you get security.

How does Vista compete with that? Apple would have the same compatibility with XP apps (maybe more, XP would be running natively on the Leopard system, vista is a new version of the OS, and might have compatibility issues) Apple could even throw in an upgrade sticker kicker to make it even more cost competitive. Like if you show proof of purchase of XP you get an upgrade discount buying the Apple hardware.

As a bonus you get iLife with the Mac: http://www.apple.com/ilife/, which could be better than most if not all of what is available on Windows for entry level photo/music/iPod Casting/Movie making, etc, and is FREE. You can always turn the mac into a beautiful windows Vista only machine later if you desire, so there is no Vendor lock in on stuff. You are basically trading the cost of the (Apple machine + Free iLife + MacOSX Tiger/Leopard + Free More Security) vs (new Vista Machine+Vista+Security headaches). To me this is the reason why the Mac argument works vs. the other OS choices, and in addition you have most of the important software Mac Native as well, so you can wean yourself off of Windows versions of other stuff at your convenience, trading increasing vendor dependency for more Mac native stuff (some people think that stuff is better, Ill leave that to you to make up your own mind).

Not really, since I'm still using Ubuntu on other laptop (and in Parallelson OSX for testing) and will always be using it as the main server deployment platform. There's simply nothing better than apt + Ubuntu! I was just in the market for a new laptop and the Macbook Pro has been nothing but phenomenal. The Xorg guys should catch up to the Quartz graphics in a couple of months and hopefully GNOME/etc will start incorporating the new GL based capabilities creatively and productively.. cuz the OSX desktop experience is the one to beat!!

-adnans

The only thing that will break the cycle of everyone adapting MS's newest OS is the ability to effortlessly run Windows apps on Linux, or Mac.

Already here, bubba. Next theory?

It's sad but true.

No, it's sad and your opinion.

"I cannot think of any other OS that even approaches the maturity of Linux at this point."

IBM might just decide to knock the dust off OS/2. In many ways Linux and Windows and yes even OSX still have not caught up with where it was a decade ago. I don't know of a 64 bit kernel for it or its offspring eCS but it might be hiding in one of the IBM labs in Boca Raton.

Actually the advances in hardware, emulators and virtualizers are making real time simulation of an entire hardware platform API or a specific OS API more practical. I suspect that any posix compliant OS with well written emulators or virtulizers will soon make reduce a specific OS like Windows to application level importance anyway.

I realize that most here are aware of these efforts, but are some urls anyway for the few that are not.

http://www.xensource.com/
http://www.parallels.com/
http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/eserver/about/virtua lization/about/systems.html
http://www.thefreecountry.com/emulators/pc.shtml
http://www.thefreecountry.com/emulators/macintosh. shtml
http://www.winehq.com/

Matthew

Plus I would add a third: bring the price back down to $49.99 as it was originally.

From their website, it still is $49.99:
* Limited time offer! Buy through 15th of July only for $49.99 and get $30 OFF!

That, I'm glad to read. I don't have a MacTel yet but am hoping to get a Macbook Pro within a week or two. That'll give me at least a couple of weeks for testing before buying it.

"The Windows Explorer architecture on these older versions of Windows is much less robust than the more recent Windows architectures."

In other words, Win98 Explorer is an unmaintainable hack and no one can figure out how to fix it. For some reason, that doesn't make me any more confident about their recommended OS: XP 2nd edition. But what do I care? I'm finally running Windows the way God intended: as a virtual machine under OS X. Once I get my data out of Logbook Pro into a RAILs application, I'm deleting Windows XP altogether.

With Apple going to Intel I'm frankly waiting (with baited breath) for VMWare to come out with a version for OS X [Intel]

Have you looked at Parallels Desktop? It much like VMWare Workstation, but cheaper.

Or how about the protections in Apple hardware to prevent you from installing a non-Apple OS on it?

There are no such protections. In fact, Apple has provided a semi-official way of doing just that. The only reason why Windows doesn't natively boot on a Mac is because Macs use EFI, which Windows does not yet support.

Add in Parallels which provides virtualization support and you can have a machine that runs Mac OS X, Windows, any Linux distro, Solaris, OS/2, QNX, or damn near any other OS you can think of - without the need to reboot the machine.

Given that my Mac has nearly a dozen OSes installed on it through virtualization at the moment, it's clear that your argument is simply untrue.

hopefully now that VMWare has some competition, see http://www.parallels.com/, these products will continue to improve. There certainly is a need for these programs and I love to see the competition.

I tried BootCamp and it works well, but I honestly prefer using Parallels Desktop. I loaded my MacBook up with 2GB of RAM, and XP boots and runs amazingly fast (though that's coming from someone who was used to running XP in Virtual PC on a G4, which could be painful), I can still access my OS X apps without having to reboot, and the MacBook's trackpad can emulate a right-click if you click the button with two fingers resting on the trackpad*, so I don't even need to attach a multibutton mouse to use Windows effectively.

BootCamp is probably the way to go if you want to play Windows games on the machine, but for Office and other apps like that, Parallels Desktop will suffice.

~Philly

* This feature is off by default and currently only available when booted into OS X, not when booted directly into Windows via BootCamp. I would expect a later version of BootCamp to have a trackpad driver for Windows that supports that feature.

So then go the route of virtulization via Parallels

This, combined with the ability to dual-boot to Windows and eventually the ability to run Windows apps through virtualization, makes the Mac platform more appealing to consumers, which will probably lead to an increase in Apple's market share.

Already done:

http://www.parallels.com/en/products/workstation/m ac/

Our company is already using Parallels as part of our full-time Java development and support. It is excellent product.

Changing CPU architectures will have absolutely effect on security.

Wrong. For example, to exploit buffer overflows, you need to write assembly. More people know Intel assembly than PPC assembly. That makes attacks on Intel Macs more likely than on PPC Macs. This is most definitely "an effect on security."

Switching to Intel will make it easier for game developers to port their code

Wrong. Most modern games contain no or very little assembly code. The chipset doesn't matter when porting games. DirectX would matter, but it's not available on Macs either way.

eventually the ability to run Windows apps through virtualization

Eventualy? It's already here, running on my Mac right now.

It's not about replacing OS X, so much as it is supplementing your Mac-using experience by letting you have easy access to your old Windows stuff. And for long-time Mac users, it's about getting access to the (very few) Windows applications that don't have a Mac version or equivalent.

Why dual boot when you can virtualize?

Have you checked out Paralles Workstation?

It's pretty slick, and the developers are awesome. As in, take suggestions and then implement them within days awesome.

It's still in beta, but is completely usable. I've experienced kernel panics in the early betas, but it's been rock solid for me lately. Then again, I don't have a ton of Windows software, so perhaps you could give it a better workout. It's definitely worth looking into.

You said: "VMware for Mac OS X"

This is similar:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallels_Workstation
http://www.parallels.com/

Some say it's faster than VMWare (less emulation). Haven't tried it myself.

Parallels

Sorry if I was misleading. I was refering to using three OS's in VM's under Parallels' Workstation product. AFAIK, dual booting works great. I assume Bootcamp will boot Linux as well as Windows but I haven't checked. I really don't like dual boot setups. Seems like Windows always trashes grub. Hence the reason I was really exciting to hear about Parallels Workstation. It is still beta but it seems to be useable at this point. VMware supposedly has something in the works for OS X as well.

http://www.parallels.com/en/products/workstation/

Sounds neat; just out of curiosity, what are you using for the virtualization?

Parallels Workstation. Takes full advantage of Intel VT, too.

And perhaps I'm revealing my ignorance here, but how does the guest OS on a virtualized system handle networking? There must be some sort of psuedo-device driver that you install so that it can talk to the virtualized 'hardware,' or else the virtualization software must emulate some kind of commonly-supported networking hardware. I guess I'm just curious what you have to do to the guest OS, if anything, to get it to work inside the sandbox.

It can either be NATed behind the host OS, or it can have its very own IP on the same network as the host machine. The virtual machine has an emulated network interface with its own MAC address. You don't have to "do" anything in the guest OS. It's a very generic network card that has had drivers available (and in my case, always included) in every OS I've installed so far.

Right now all my equipment (Mac stuff, anyway) is PPC based; however I find the whole virtualization concept really intriguing and I'm hoping that by my next round of upgrades, it'll be sufficiently mature to make dual-booting (or having a separate PC for Linux connected with a KVM switch, my current solution) unnecessary.

Well, you'll likely be very happy then, because, even at this early stage, that's exactly what I'm using it for right now. All on one machine that I can carry around with me.

Sounds neat; just out of curiosity, what are you using for the virtualization?

A friend of mine sent me a link to Parallels, which allows you to run different OSes under OS X. Haven't tried it yet, but the guy who sent it to me did. "It works", says he.

More than that I don't know. He's not exactly chatty. :)

As for Intel VT (Vanderpool) technology, its coming in the 64-bit Merom CPU this fall. Perhaps then I'll be ready to upgrade my current Powerbook G4 to a triple OS laptop (which I need as a systems admin).

No, VT is here today, on the current Core Duo T2500 Apple is using in all Intel-based Macs. Parallels Workstation takes full advantage of Intel VT, today. You don't have to wait to have your triple (simultaneously running) OS environment, since I'm looking at it on my MacBook Pro in front of me right now.

- FireWire 800 (9-pin) is included, in addition to FireWire 400 (6-pin) (so no, FireWire, and particularly FireWire 800, is not dead, as some like to continually predict)

- 3 USB 2.0 ports are included; 2 on the left, 1 on the right

- The left side ports are: power, 2 USB 2.0, analog and digital optical audio in and out, ExpressCard/34; the right side ports are: DVI (supports VGA, S-Video, composite), 10/100/1000 ethernet, FireWire 800, FireWire 400, 1 USB 2.0, security port

- An 8x dual layer SuperDrive is included (unlike the 15" MacBook Pro)[1]

- While this is known by many, it bears repeating that the wireless chipset in all Intel-based Macs supports 802.11a/b/g, though Apple doesn't advertise 'a'

- The 1680 x 1050 resolution of the 17" display is the same as many desktop 20" widescreen LCDs such as the Apple 20" Cinema Display and the 20" Dell 2007WFP

- Retail $2799, Education/government $2599 with 2.16 GHz Core Duo, 1 GB RAM, 120 GB 5400RPM Serial ATA drive, 256MB ATI Radeon x1600, and 8x dual layer SuperDrive

- For detailed specs, see here

I'd also note that for some people who might think that the 15" MacBook Pro looks like a bad deal next to this, the 17" is simply too large for many people, and many of those same people have no need for the faster dual layer SuperDrive, nor for FireWire 800.

And the Apple we site does not have to explicitly say it for us to know that, yes, of course the 17" MacBook Pro will support "Boot Camp" (and triple booting[2]), which is simply an umbrella marketing name for a collection of technologies that support booting Windows on Intel-based Macs:

- A Compatibility Support Module (CSM, BIOS compatibility layer) for EFI: this is already a non-beta, supported component of the recent rounds of firmware updates for Intel-based Macs, which the 17" MacBook Pro will ship with

- The ability to live-resize partitions on a GPT formatted volumes: this is already a non-beta, supported component of "diskutil" as of 10.4.6

- A collection of Windows drivers for the hardware in Intel-based Macs: almost all of these are non-beta, preexisting third party drivers

- A setup assistant that brings everything together: this is the only part of the solution, from a technical standpoint, that is "beta"

[1] Some may note that the new 17" MacBook Pro, at the same thickness of the 15" MacBook Pro (1.0"), includes an 8x dual layer SuperDrive versus the 4x single layer drive in the 15" model. It might be recalled that the reasoning for not including a faster, dual layer SuperDrive in the 15" MacBook Pro was because of the necessary space not being available inside the case; the 15" MacBook Pro could only use a 9mm tall mechanism as opposed to the 12mm mechanism currently required for dual layer capability and the greater speed. How, then, can the 17" MacBook Pro (or even the previous 17" PowerBook), at the exact same thickness, include this drive? Does this mean Apple was holding back? Is the 8x DL drive due in a 15" MacBook Pro imminently? The answer is no: the reason why the drive didn't (and still doesn't) fit in the 15" MacBook Pro is because the wider trackpad mechanism Apple chose to use encroaches internally on the space needed for a 12mm drive by about 1/8" laterally. However, this is not the case on the 17" MacBook Pro.

[2] Who wants to dual boot, much less triple boot? I'd rather have all of my environments running side by side in virtualization. And yes, I know there are some specific reasons people may want to dual boot (such as games for native 3D graphics support), and that's fine...but other than for those specific tasks, who would really prefer dual/triple booting over virtualization, especially given the excellent benefits Intel VT now offers for virtual machines?

A better solution would be to create a virtual machine for Windows (or any other os). That way you can sandbox the other os to limit damage from viruses and other malware yet still be able to do things like copy and paste.

http://www.parallels.com/ looks like just the ticket although I have not tried it yet.

Running Windows programs on a Mac is already easy. Parallels makes a virtual machine that is winning praise while still in beta from publications like Businessweek and Computerworld. You can download it free while it's in beta, but the full retail version is only going to be fifty bucks. Definitely much more affordable than Connectix/Microsoft's VirtualPC. Since it takes advantage of Intel's Virtualization Technology, you can run your favorite 'other OS' inside MacOSX and not be grey before that other OS boots.

I doubt Apple is going to bother trying to reinvent Wine inside it's OS. There has been a plan to make a foreign set of API's a new part of an OS for many years, however.

Back in the days after Steve Job's Next bought Apple for -$400 million dollars, there was talk of Cocoa based programs running on top of Windows. Apple called this idea Yellow Box for Windows. Rumors have been spreading that Yellow Box for Windows is being discussed again.

"Apple's emphasis in the 10.5 era will be on resurrecting 'Yellow Box for Windows,' a set of Cocoa (and potentially also Carbon) API's for Windows that would allow Universal Binary applications to run on Windows with a mere 150MB software package installation. And best of all, there is no extra work to be done on the developer's part to get fully native, rock-solid stable performance from their Xcode-developed Universal applications on Windows!"

What is Cocoa?
What is Carbon?

Somewhat OT: Check out Parallels, as mentioned in the New York Times (scroll halfway down). It's like VMWare for Macs.

How VMWare can be independent of host OS if it runs on top of it? I mean there is a single point of failure here: if host OS dies every VMWare instance dies with it.

And the question is not just performance -- indeed, with hardware band-aids like AMD Pacifica and Intel VT performance will be better. The question is density, scalability, and manageability (it is funny you even mentioned it -- see below).

Density: you can run hundreds of virtual environments in OpenVZ, you can run tens of guests in VMWare. Makes sense?

Scalability: can VMWare effectively utilize "big hardware" like 64-way SMP box with 64 GB of RAM? OpenVZ can -- absolutely no problem, there are no additional SMP hacks needed etc. More to say, a single virtual environment can use all those resources if needed.

Manageability: From a sysadmin point of view, VMWare guest is just like a physical server. If you want to apply software updates, you have to log in into each one and run an update procedure. One by one, the very same way you'd do it with separate physical boxes. In contrast, in OpenVZ you can actually see and access all the virtual environments from the host OS, making mass-management possible. You can apply updates en masse. You can do mass-management. Makes sense?

Indeed, VMWare (or other solutions of the kind, like Parallels or QEmu) makes sense if you want to run different operating systems, different kernels etc. It makes much sense in development labs, at home or when you have just one server. But if you have a rack of servers -- OpenVZ/Virtuozzo/other solutions of the kind makes much more sense, due to the reasons cited above -- scalability, density, manageability.

Not talking about natively booting, but via virtualization, it can run almost anything: http://www.parallels.com/en/products/guest_os/ And that's just the "officially supported" OSes. Yes, yes, old hat to people running Windows or Linux on x86 hardware, but now on a platform with Mac OS X as well.

Im posting this using a w2k fully updated install on a MacBookPro running the w2k OS in a window thanks to Parallel http://www.parallels.com/en/products/workstation/m ac/ works very well (no audio yet however) but a very stable and promising application even in this early beta state.

Dual booting is so very old-fashioned.

no-one seems to know for sure if the new Intel Macs have VT enabled.

They seem to, other than (apparently) some Mac minis. However, some people have had good luck in reenabling it even on those. See this thread:

http://forum.parallels.com/thread85.html

Seriously, how did this make it on /.? The article is only a few paragraphs long, doesn't really even touch on hardware virtualization support or why its necessary (because virtualization currently sucks under 'normal' intel architecture). It even refers to qemu as virtualization, which its not, its an emulator. It mentions the program once then never touches on it again. It never explains why a person might want to use bochs or qemu even though its much slower than vmware/virtual pc. it doesn't touch on parallels or any other software out there.

Even more it doesn't even explain why the suggestions it makes are made. This article is basically a badly written advertisement for vmware or virtual pc.

http://www.parallels.com/en/

Parallels is a brand new VM from some russian company. It even makes use of intel virtualization features of the CoreDuo/CoreSolo. All of the reviews have been positive and I'm looking forward to getting a MacBook so I can try it for myself.

The product is called Parallels Workstation 2.1 Beta. There's a free full-functioning download available for your Intel-based Mac. It has been speculated that OS X release 10.5 - Leopard will support such a thing and launch just around the corner from Vista.

might be the way to go. Parallels.com

Boot Camp will only help the Mac since it might get fair amount of Gamerz to switch as well as some tech savvy corporate OS.X users who don't use it today because they are afraid to be stuck without a fallback OS in case of the 'missing app' dilemma and other Microsoft compatibility issues. These are people who are usually not afraid of something like changing to a new OS. Another point is that even if rumors of Virtualizaton software being integrated into OS.X 10.5 are wrong there are still products like Parallels that offer high performance Virtualization which will do even more to convince these people to buy OS.X. Even so we are still only talking about 'power-users'. So in a sense this dude is right, neither Boot Camp nor Virtualization will trigger a mass migration from Windows XP/Vista to OS.X but that was bloody obvious from the very beginning so his comments are if anything rather superfluous . I would consider Compatibility Software like Wine to be much more likely to cause a User migration from Windows to OS.X that would be large enough show up as a small blip on Microsoft's look-down-shoot-dow radar. Professional, commercial adaptations of Wine such as CrossOver office if it is ever ported to the Mac will make switching a doable proposition, even for relatively clues-less windows users. But even if we see a dramatic growth for the Mac and OS.X due to these technologies. Apples Hardware/Software package will never grow to enjoy the kind of domination that it threatens Microsoft Windows and the BeigeBox Shufflers like Dell with Extinction.

Could Cnet.com.au possibly be any more clueless? Boot camp is what it is. Virtualized guest OS solutions are already starting to appear (Parallels Workstation for Intel Macs is currently in beta and close to release; VMware is also semi-officially working on it). Both solutions have their uses. A virtual machine is no good for running games. Dual boot is no good for cutting and pasting between simultaneously running sessions. Doesn't mean they both don't have their uses.

As for Apple getting into the business of supporting the jungle of commodity PC hardware out there - they are not that stupid, and Cnet is an ass for even suggesting it. The reasons why this would be a fool's errand are well appreciated by anyone with a clue.

However, in addition to bootcap, Parallels is already in the works with an operational beta which takes advantage of the virutalization properties of the new Intel chips.

I have got to think that vmware is working on a product as well. Ironically, VirtualPC (Microsoft) are the ones who are dragging their feet at this point.

It's already happened. Parallels has a beta out right now.

Forget about booting Windows on Macs. That goes against Apples' best interests.

What is the main reason most people won't run a Mac? Because we have one or more Windows apps that we MUST run. And the solution is very simple:
1. Change the Mac to Intel processors (underway).
2. Test Windows on the new platform (underway).
3. Develop VM technology inside OS/X that can run Windows (underway).
4. Jobs launches the new Mac tower as the only machine that runs OS/X, Windows and Linux AT THE SAME TIME.

This will allow Macs to be used inside corporations that are locked into certain Windows applications. They only have to displace about 10% of those Windows PCs to almost double their sales. And dual core processors could be setup to allow for one core per OS. Should run pretty darn good.

Want to see a VM that runs Windows inside OS/X? Look here:

http://www.parallels.com/en/products/workstation/m ac/

From the above site:
"Use any version of Windows (3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, Me, 2000, NT, XP, 2003), any Linux distribution, FreeBSD, Solaris, OS/2, eComStation, or MS-DOS in secure virtual machines running alongside Mac OS X."

The software is beta, can be downloaded for free, and will sell for about $40. I might have to buy a Mac...

( the URL i'm loading is http://download.parallels.com/beta/Parallels-2.1.1 658.24-Mac.dmg

--jeffk++

Virtualisation is where it's at!

http://www.parallels.com/en/download/mac/

This is truly a week of firsts.

Virtualization company Parallels announced a public beta of its Parallels Workstation virtualization product to Intel-based Macs (direct download. Parallels is a quasi-hypervisor-based (with a kernel module) virtual machine solution already shipping for Windows and Linux, and is the first desktop virtualization product to support Intel VT/Vanderpool CPU "partitioning". Once out of beta, It will also be only $50. Parallels also has a long list of officially supported guest OSes, and that's just the ones that are *officially* supported. It will likely run any x86-based OS you throw at it.

It's *very* fast, and has full support for Intel VT. Using Windows (or any other OS) inside of the environment is almost like using it natively on the hardware. Literally. It is quite amazing. (Here's a video someone made of it with SnapzPro - that is not my site. )This is the solution many people are waiting for; not dual booting - with the exception of things that need native 3D graphics support, of course...but otherwise, Parallels absolutely screams. This won't be novel to people who have already used things like VMware Workstation on other platforms. But to someone like myself, who has been hoping for a virtualization solution since the very second Steve Jobs uttered that Apple was switching to Intel, this, when polished and in its final form, will be something of a holy grail.

Virtualization will still be a HUGE benefit to people versus the annoyance of dual-booting. There's some overlap, but both technologies have their places.

Also, for those concerned about running a Windows environment alongside Mac OS X, this is just like the old Virtual PC model (except not horribly slow ;-). It's much less likely to be problematic for the following reasons:

- The entire environment is "sandboxed", network-wise, within the host OS's networking. Most Windows XP installations will now be behind the integrated software firewall anyway, but this is just another layer of protection: it's essentially like being behind a NAT router.

- A virtual machine environment, being secondary to the primary environment, is typically only used for targeted tasks, not routinely used for things like web browsing, email, and downloading - the major vectors of infection for much spyware/malware

- Since the virtual machine's disk is just a file on the host OS's drive, it can be immediately trashed and restored from a known-good pristine backup in seconds

- If no filesystem sharing is done via the VM between the Windows environment and the host (Mac OS X) environment, there is no[1] way that even severe malware within the Windows environment can cause any damage to the Mac OS X environment

- If filesystems are shared, e.g., a folder on the Mac side is shared as a drive letter on the Windows side, any malware that alters filesystems could theoretically alter the shared filesystem. If a virus, for example, attempted to delete all files on drives other than C:, that would be affected. But, 1.) Most malware doesn't just arbitrarily delete files, because its goal is to spread itself, and 2.) ONLY files that are shared could even theoretically be affected. Also, Windows malware will typically target Windows OS features and filesystem elements. But if you really are paranoid and want to be safe, you probably wouldn't want to, say, share your entire Mac OS X volume as a drive letter into the PC environment.

The bottom line is that from a technical and practical usage standpoint, running Windows in a VM is probably the safest possible way to run Windows, and there aren't really any ways, except for very specific ways via the explicit filesystem sharing, that anything that happens in t

This is truly a week of firsts.

Virtualization company Parallels announced a public beta of its Parallels Workstation virtualization product to Intel-based Macs (direct download. Parallels is a quasi-hypervisor-based (with a kernel module) virtual machine solution already shipping for Windows and Linux, and is the first desktop virtualization product to support Intel VT/Vanderpool CPU "partitioning". Once out of beta, It will also be only $50. Parallels also has a long list of officially supported guest OSes, and that's just the ones that are *officially* supported. It will likely run any x86-based OS you throw at it.

It's *very* fast, and has full support for Intel VT. Using Windows (or any other OS) inside of the environment is almost like using it natively on the hardware. Literally. It is quite amazing. (Here's a video someone made of it with SnapzPro - that is not my site. )This is the solution many people are waiting for; not dual booting - with the exception of things that need native 3D graphics support, of course...but otherwise, Parallels absolutely screams. This won't be novel to people who have already used things like VMware Workstation on other platforms. But to someone like myself, who has been hoping for a virtualization solution since the very second Steve Jobs uttered that Apple was switching to Intel, this, when polished and in its final form, will be something of a holy grail.

Virtualization will still be a HUGE benefit to people versus the annoyance of dual-booting. There's some overlap, but both technologies have their places.

Also, for those concerned about running a Windows environment alongside Mac OS X, this is just like the old Virtual PC model (except not horribly slow ;-). It's much less likely to be problematic for the following reasons:

- The entire environment is "sandboxed", network-wise, within the host OS's networking. Most Windows XP installations will now be behind the integrated software firewall anyway, but this is just another layer of protection: it's essentially like being behind a NAT router.

- A virtual machine environment, being secondary to the primary environment, is typically only used for targeted tasks, not routinely used for things like web browsing, email, and downloading - the major vectors of infection for much spyware/malware

- Since the virtual machine's disk is just a file on the host OS's drive, it can be immediately trashed and restored from a known-good pristine backup in seconds

- If no filesystem sharing is done via the VM between the Windows environment and the host (Mac OS X) environment, there is no[1] way that even severe malware within the Windows environment can cause any damage to the Mac OS X environment

- If filesystems are shared, e.g., a folder on the Mac side is shared as a drive letter on the Windows side, any malware that alters filesystems could theoretically alter the shared filesystem. If a virus, for example, attempted to delete all files on drives other than C:, that would be affected. But, 1.) Most malware doesn't just arbitrarily delete files, because its goal is to spread itself, and 2.) ONLY files that are shared could even theoretically be affected. Also, Windows malware will typically target Windows OS features and filesystem elements. But if you really are paranoid and want to be safe, you probably wouldn't want to, say, share your entire Mac OS X volume as a drive letter into the PC environment.

The bottom line is that from a technical and practical usage standpoint, running Windows in a VM is probably the safest possible way to run Windows, and there aren't really any ways, except for very specific ways via the explicit filesystem sharing, that anything that happens in t

This is truly a week of firsts.

Virtualization company Parallels announced a public beta of its Parallels Workstation virtualization product to Intel-based Macs (direct download. Parallels is a quasi-hypervisor-based (with a kernel module) virtual machine solution already shipping for Windows and Linux, and is the first desktop virtualization product to support Intel VT/Vanderpool CPU "partitioning". Once out of beta, It will also be only $50. Parallels also has a long list of officially supported guest OSes, and that's just the ones that are *officially* supported. It will likely run any x86-based OS you throw at it.

It's *very* fast, and has full support for Intel VT. Using Windows (or any other OS) inside of the environment is almost like using it natively on the hardware. Literally. It is quite amazing. (Here's a video someone made of it with SnapzPro - that is not my site. )This is the solution many people are waiting for; not dual booting - with the exception of things that need native 3D graphics support, of course...but otherwise, Parallels absolutely screams. This won't be novel to people who have already used things like VMware Workstation on other platforms. But to someone like myself, who has been hoping for a virtualization solution since the very second Steve Jobs uttered that Apple was switching to Intel, this, when polished and in its final form, will be something of a holy grail.

Virtualization will still be a HUGE benefit to people versus the annoyance of dual-booting. There's some overlap, but both technologies have their places.

Also, for those concerned about running a Windows environment alongside Mac OS X, this is just like the old Virtual PC model (except not horribly slow ;-). It's much less likely to be problematic for the following reasons:

- The entire environment is "sandboxed", network-wise, within the host OS's networking. Most Windows XP installations will now be behind the integrated software firewall anyway, but this is just another layer of protection: it's essentially like being behind a NAT router.

- A virtual machine environment, being secondary to the primary environment, is typically only used for targeted tasks, not routinely used for things like web browsing, email, and downloading - the major vectors of infection for much spyware/malware

- Since the virtual machine's disk is just a file on the host OS's drive, it can be immediately trashed and restored from a known-good pristine backup in seconds

- If no filesystem sharing is done via the VM between the Windows environment and the host (Mac OS X) environment, there is no[1] way that even severe malware within the Windows environment can cause any damage to the Mac OS X environment

- If filesystems are shared, e.g., a folder on the Mac side is shared as a drive letter on the Windows side, any malware that alters filesystems could theoretically alter the shared filesystem. If a virus, for example, attempted to delete all files on drives other than C:, that would be affected. But, 1.) Most malware doesn't just arbitrarily delete files, because its goal is to spread itself, and 2.) ONLY files that are shared could even theoretically be affected. Also, Windows malware will typically target Windows OS features and filesystem elements. But if you really are paranoid and want to be safe, you probably wouldn't want to, say, share your entire Mac OS X volume as a drive letter into the PC environment.

The bottom line is that from a technical and practical usage standpoint, running Windows in a VM is probably the safest possible way to run Windows, and there aren't really any ways, except for very specific ways via the explicit filesystem sharing, that anything that happens in t

This is truly a week of firsts.

Virtualization company Parallels announced a public beta of its Parallels Workstation virtualization product to Intel-based Macs (direct download. Parallels is a quasi-hypervisor-based (with a kernel module) virtual machine solution already shipping for Windows and Linux, and is the first desktop virtualization product to support Intel VT/Vanderpool CPU "partitioning". Once out of beta, It will also be only $50. Parallels also has a long list of officially supported guest OSes, and that's just the ones that are *officially* supported. It will likely run any x86-based OS you throw at it.

It's *very* fast, and has full support for Intel VT. Using Windows (or any other OS) inside of the environment is almost like using it natively on the hardware. Literally. It is quite amazing. (Here's a video someone made of it with SnapzPro - that is not my site. )This is the solution many people are waiting for; not dual booting - with the exception of things that need native 3D graphics support, of course...but otherwise, Parallels absolutely screams. This won't be novel to people who have already used things like VMware Workstation on other platforms. But to someone like myself, who has been hoping for a virtualization solution since the very second Steve Jobs uttered that Apple was switching to Intel, this, when polished and in its final form, will be something of a holy grail.

Virtualization will still be a HUGE benefit to people versus the annoyance of dual-booting. There's some overlap, but both technologies have their places.

Also, for those concerned about running a Windows environment alongside Mac OS X, this is just like the old Virtual PC model (except not horribly slow ;-). It's much less likely to be problematic for the following reasons:

- The entire environment is "sandboxed", network-wise, within the host OS's networking. Most Windows XP installations will now be behind the integrated software firewall anyway, but this is just another layer of protection: it's essentially like being behind a NAT router.

- A virtual machine environment, being secondary to the primary environment, is typically only used for targeted tasks, not routinely used for things like web browsing, email, and downloading - the major vectors of infection for much spyware/malware

- Since the virtual machine's disk is just a file on the host OS's drive, it can be immediately trashed and restored from a known-good pristine backup in seconds

- If no filesystem sharing is done via the VM between the Windows environment and the host (Mac OS X) environment, there is no[1] way that even severe malware within the Windows environment can cause any damage to the Mac OS X environment

- If filesystems are shared, e.g., a folder on the Mac side is shared as a drive letter on the Windows side, any malware that alters filesystems could theoretically alter the shared filesystem. If a virus, for example, attempted to delete all files on drives other than C:, that would be affected. But, 1.) Most malware doesn't just arbitrarily delete files, because its goal is to spread itself, and 2.) ONLY files that are shared could even theoretically be affected. Also, Windows malware will typically target Windows OS features and filesystem elements. But if you really are paranoid and want to be safe, you probably wouldn't want to, say, share your entire Mac OS X volume as a drive letter into the PC environment.

The bottom line is that from a technical and practical usage standpoint, running Windows in a VM is probably the safest possible way to run Windows, and there aren't really any ways, except for very specific ways via the explicit filesystem sharing, that anything that happens in t

You could always give this a twirl: http://www.parallels.com/en/download/

But, some notes:

- Even the existing http://onmac.net/ solution wasn't "illegal" or against any Apple or Microsoft license agreement - not saying the summary said that, but it kind of implied it might be

- The HUGE difference with Boot Camp is that it includes Windows XP driver profiles for Apple-specific hardware - including video drivers! Hello games and video intensive Windows software!

- Another big difference is that it includes a live repartitioning tool so the drive doesn't have to be reformatted to install Windows as the current solution requires

- And, it wraps everything up in a nice "setup assistant"-like interface

- It does burn a custom Windows XP installation disc (no, this does not violate any Microsoft or Windows license agreement, as making custom Windows installation discs has been routine in IT shops for years)

- Currently, it looks like it supports only Windows XP SP2, not any multi-disc XP-based installations (or other non-Windows OSes), but since Media Center is already working with the other solution by making a custom installation disc, I have no doubts that it could work with this as well

It's pretty incredible that Apple has decided to do this, to say the least.

However, the true benefit for many people won't come from dual-booting, but from running Windows (or any other x86 OS) in a virtualization environment alongside OS X with no dual booting or rebooting needed.

Virtualization company Parallels announced that it will be bringing its Parallels Workstation virtualization product to Intel-based Macs. Parallels is a hypervisor-based (with a kernel module) virtual machine solution already shipping for Windows and Linux, and is the first desktop virtualization product to support Intel VT/Vanderpool CPU "partitioning". It's also only $50. Parallels also has a long list of officially supported guest OSes, and that's just the ones that are *officially* supported. So either way, we'll have a nice dual boot solution AND a nice virtualization solution!

So Boot Camp will be standard with Leopard...great. What about the thing that a lot of us actually want, virtualization from Apple, rumored to be in Leopard? And not just virtualization to run x86 OSes, but to also run multiple instances of Intel-variants of Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server (*as well* as any other x86 OS)? Now THAT would be the holy grail. Desktop virtualization for things like Windows and Linux/BSD environments, and server virtualization for multiple Mac OS X/Mac OS X Server instances on a single box.

Since Apple has shown it's been officially willing to acknowledge the alternate OS/Windows universe on Intel-based Macs, I actually have a lot more hope for native, integrated virtualization in Leopard as well!