Not true. I use VMware all the time. Both the subjective analysis and actual benchmarks show that a Guest OS that is running native code on its native processor has performance that is comparable to a dedicated machine. Virtual PC emulating Intel on PPC is definitely slow, but the majority of this slowness comes from having to emulate the processor's instruction sets and data formats. Virtual PC emulating Intel on Intel would be a pleasure to use in comparison.
You need to read between the lines in that article, and recognize that the statement came from a low-level product manager. She said:
"Users still need to switch between both environments to make the experience less intrusive." Which experience is that? The experience of taking a Windows user and converting them into an Apple user?
The Microsoft execs are shaking in their boots over what Apple has released on the marketplace. They will not allow a Virtual PC for Intel Mac until AT LEAST months after Vista is shipping. At that point, they will have worked hard to duplicate much of the functionality already in OS X and will feel much safer that their users will not make the switch at all.
If you really want side-by-side Windows + Mac OS X, QEMU or VMware is going to be the way.
I would contend that by allowing users the option of *both* upgrading to a Mac, and also retaining their investment in *legacy* PC software, MicroSoft would be aiding the switch of their users from their platform to a competitor's. They simply would not want to do that because they would lose market share over time. That one license for Windows that they would sell would not make up for the fact that the user would now be on an Apple platform, and much less likely to make future investments in Windows.
I doubt Microsoft is going to continue to support Virtual PC on Intel based Mac's. With the native underpinning the new machines allow, it would be equivalent to Microsoft delivering an actual satisfying Windows experience on Apple hardware and Mac OS X. I am sure MS would rather force those of us who need both platforms to continue to invest in a PC (as well as a Mac).
But I suspect that QEMU will deliver an adequate solution to meet this shortcoming.
While computer power and storage can be seen to double every 18 months, the same cannot be said for RF spectrum. There are hard limits to how much data can be packed into a given wireless network. Using the cellular network as a personalized radio station with iPod-level audio fidelity is more than a few years off. Voice calls only need ~8kbps, and carriers already have capacity problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Not true. I use VMware all the time. Both the subjective analysis and actual benchmarks show that a Guest OS that is running native code on its native processor has performance that is comparable to a dedicated machine. Virtual PC emulating Intel on PPC is definitely slow, but the majority of this slowness comes from having to emulate the processor's instruction sets and data formats. Virtual PC emulating Intel on Intel would be a pleasure to use in comparison.
You need to read between the lines in that article, and recognize that the statement came from a low-level product manager. She said: "Users still need to switch between both environments to make the experience less intrusive." Which experience is that? The experience of taking a Windows user and converting them into an Apple user? The Microsoft execs are shaking in their boots over what Apple has released on the marketplace. They will not allow a Virtual PC for Intel Mac until AT LEAST months after Vista is shipping. At that point, they will have worked hard to duplicate much of the functionality already in OS X and will feel much safer that their users will not make the switch at all.
If you really want side-by-side Windows + Mac OS X, QEMU or VMware is going to be the way.
I would contend that by allowing users the option of *both* upgrading to a Mac, and also retaining their investment in *legacy* PC software, MicroSoft would be aiding the switch of their users from their platform to a competitor's. They simply would not want to do that because they would lose market share over time. That one license for Windows that they would sell would not make up for the fact that the user would now be on an Apple platform, and much less likely to make future investments in Windows.
I doubt Microsoft is going to continue to support Virtual PC on Intel based Mac's. With the native underpinning the new machines allow, it would be equivalent to Microsoft delivering an actual satisfying Windows experience on Apple hardware and Mac OS X. I am sure MS would rather force those of us who need both platforms to continue to invest in a PC (as well as a Mac). But I suspect that QEMU will deliver an adequate solution to meet this shortcoming.
While computer power and storage can be seen to double every 18 months, the same cannot be said for RF spectrum. There are hard limits to how much data can be packed into a given wireless network. Using the cellular network as a personalized radio station with iPod-level audio fidelity is more than a few years off. Voice calls only need ~8kbps, and carriers already have capacity problems.