“In the past week, three key products which enable Apple users to run Mac OS X and Windows on the same machine have received upgrades: VMWare Fusion, Parallels Desktop for the Mac, and Apple Boot Camp,” Michael Calore blogs for Wired.
“It’s no surprise that all three products got a boost just days before Steve Jobs’ keynote address at Apple’s Worldwide Developer Conference. The event is the biggest day of the year for Mac software developers. It’s also where the Apple CEO will announce the full set of features to be included in the new Mac OS X ‘Leopard’ 10.5 operating system,” Calore writes.
“While most of the developers and Mac devotees in attendance will no doubt be clapping and wailing with glee at every new feature debuted during Monday’s keynote address, a handful of people in the room will be quaking in their boots, praying that one thing in particular remains unspoken,” Calore writes. “As far as Parallels and VMWare are concerned, those dirty words are ‘Virtualization in Boot Camp.’ If they are uttered during the Stevenote, the companies’ young products are as good as dead.”
Calore writes, “Sure, Apple is playing nice right now — the company even endorses Parallels’ product on its website. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t getting ready to steamroller right over Parallels Desktop for Mac when Leopard’s October release date comes around.”
Calore writes, “Even though it would flatten the hopes of the competition, it would be a win for users. Boot Camp is on track to be a standard feature of Leopard. What reason could Apple possibly come up with to not give users what they want by building virtualization into every Mac out of the box?”
Full article here.
Apple could announce it’sm buying these companies to integrate their patents and avoid lawsuits – also to add to its pool of brilliant software engineers that have working a lot on bringing windows apps to apple.
Wishful thinking.
Might as well stick a copy XP in there too, eh? I mean, since we’re in steamroller mode and whatnot, there’s not much reason to keep farting around like sissies, is there?
I dont think we are going to see anything like parallels from apple, apple can happily endorse it and use its R&D budget elsewhere
I am sure the spys from vmware and parallels have been working overtime and if they got a sniff do you think they would be rushing new versions out ?
I’m afraid virtualization is just too much of a system level involvement for Apple not to ignore.
Apple is already replacing the inferior cloning software (like superduper) with Time Machine and the new ZFS file system from Sun.
Sure these third party virtualization folks had their run, being more nimble than Apple, but Apple will provide a more complete solution, security and ease of use.
Plus Apple has access to Windows API’s.
I’m in no rush to run inferior Windows software on my Mac anyhow, but I would like to know if Lepoard will sandbox these applications much better.
I read that 95% of computer exploits are based in third party applications and functions. Like Java, Javascript, apps, video formats and the like.
Something has to be done to keep apps from affecting the operating system and from people foolishly installing apps using their administrative (aka root via sudo) password altering the operating system and leaving a pathway for root level exploits to take advantage of.
If Apple ignores virtualization, they risk Mac OS X being marginalized.
Apple has to keep Mac OS X relevant as it sells Apple hardware. That’s really the only thing that is because now Mac’s are basically PC’s in almost every detail.
I predict eventually that Apple may even release OS X for any Intel based PC’s from any company, especially if they can get a superior upper hand against Microsoft.
This last little round show it takes M$ five years to catch up to Mac OS X. If Apple could make that 20 years, and could save the buisness world billions of dollars a year in IT costs. The would switch in a heartbeat.
Strange thing nobody is suggesting an implementation of Wine.
That would partly hurt CodeWeavers (they won’t the Linux crowd), whose product is really nice, except it is my impression they run many versions behind the wine release.
Wine?
Wine only works well with a few programs and then some of those don’t work near 100%.
You see Windows is not static, it’s dynamic. They could pop out a update and ruin any plans for a static emulation software approach.
Apple tends to take the “whole route” and tries to avoid direct confrontation with the 800lb Redmond gorrilla (rather does “friendly select competition” like it does with Sony, buys their BlueRay, but competes against their computers) so their approach would certainly be a virtualization one, requiring the purchase of Windows.
How Apple would implement virtualization would probablly mimick what’s already being done with third party solutions.
“This application you downloaded is Windows OS based. If you wish to run it in Mac OS X, please insert a Windows XP install disk” Cancel OK.
It would be as easy as that. The app would run.
I predict that Boot Camp on the shipping Leopard will be part of the fast user switching feature that OS X currently has. That would be almost as good as virtualization.
@ They could pop out a update and ruin any plans for a static emulation software approach.
I agree with you, it’s too risky.
From what i’ve been told Apple will implement OS switching via Spaces.
Apparently a prototype running OS X, Windows & Ubuntu in Spaces with file dragging between all three OS’s was seen.
Anyway we will all know more on Monday.
@Apple Psychic
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
If Apple can find away to do away w/ BCs most tedious feature ie, requiring a reboot into Windows/Mac (and I being one hoping they do) then Virtualization apps a just good as dead. *Then* the Mac will truly be the ultimate PC
“I predict eventually that Apple may even release OS X for any Intel based PC’s from any company, especially if they can get a superior upper hand against Microsoft.”
Three words for you:
Ain’t
Gonna
Happen.
Because I specifically said we would not do it.
Wired is to tired…
Phil
MDN magic word: leave – as in leave this one alone
@ macromancer
There is no way. Apple’s success is heavily due to their business model: small product range, tight supply lines, and total control of the product from R&D to retail. Licensing Mac OSX would be a major departure from that model.
@Mike
Apple is on a trajectory away from past marginalization. They will not spend time developing their own virtualization. There are 3rd party apps that do a phenomenal job and when 2010 rolls around and apple has 15% market share, with most of that coming from the most profitable section of the market, developers will fill in any holes that now exist.
Additionally, I think the use of ZFS will dramatically increase Apple’s presence in the enterprise. Then there will be a trickle down effect where more and more large and medium businesses will make the switch. (5-10 years)
@macromancer,
Sorry about that previous post, I failed to notice the quotations. I guess both of my thoughts are directed toward Mike.
MW:Social, Welcome to it.
@Mike
“I predict eventually that Apple may even release OS X for any Intel based PC’s from any company, especially if they can get a superior upper hand against Microsoft.”
Thats the job of linux Ubuntu.
No point competing with something that is free, has all the features of MAC os x, except crashing. But at least it crashes less than Windows.
anyone who thinks linux is mainstream and not grotesquely offensive to NORMAL PEOPLE is stoned.
Steve and Phil have said before that Apple has no interest in selling or supporting Windows. I think that BC was a simple pre-emptive strike at hackers to provide a clean dual boot solution that all could use instead of dealing with several kludge solutions.
Even with BC, you have to bring your own copy of Windows and formal support is non-existant. I don’t see why incorporating any more than BC is necessary with 3rd parties bringing virtualization to those that want it. Apple gets to avoid being tied up with Windows and lets the 3rd parties shoulder the support issues. I would prefer NOT to have a “virtualization tax” added to the cost of Apple products because, for me, virtualization is unnecessary. I don’t want to pay for it in the form of higher Mac or Apple SW prices or more schedule delays.
I don’t believe that Apple could, or even wants to, kill Windows. Apple wants to make a secure place for itself and grow on its own merits. Diverting attention from their own product to support another vendor’s product, especially one as complicated as Windows, would be a poor allocation of Apple’s resources when there are 3 competent 3rd parties working to provide that solution anyway. By resources, I don’t mean money because Apple has plenty. I mean true talent, which is difficult to buy. Apple’s got the money to buy that too, if it could find enough of it. Apple’s claim that they slipped Leopard due to resource limitations. These limitations would have to be pretty severe already to slip a very major new product. There may have been other reasons too, but those are known only to Apple.
– gws
Why would Apple even have the notion to delve deep into something like virtualization instead of having a blast kicking hardware makers butts every day with well designed hardware, a dominant music and video player, a phone, and an OS with a future? Who would waste their innovative time and energy. Let Parallels do that and people who need it will buy it. It is only $79 bucks.
I would spend precious time making a spreadsheet/mini Filemaker for iWork and bring some of Logic Audio Express’s functions into Garageband and add tons of themes to iMovie and iDVD.
No matter how many times Steve explains that he no longer sees the Apple & Microsoft situation as a zero-sum game, people insist on viewing it that way. I guess a lot of them are stuck in the 80’s and early 90’s when that was the prevalent view.
Get it through your heads: For Apple to win, Microsoft does not have to lose.
Apple has already said they will not be including virtualization in Leopard. Including any sort of Windows support as a standard feature would require that Apple support it, which means that when Johnny Dough-head installs IE or something and ends up getting viruses and spyware on his man he’ll come crying to Apple to fix it, start blaming macs, and claiming that they lied about being secure. No thanks.
Vlad, I agree. There doesn’t have to be one winner in this game, even though MS appears to still believe so. I would not want to see ANY vendor acquire the power that MS had. MS is still powerful but declining. I would prefer Windows, Linux, OS X, other flavors of BSD and even Solaris have significant shares of the OS market. Monocultures are bad, especially in software. Open standards are where the future is.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
– gws
Parallels’ excellent software certainly deserves some of the credit for the extreme success of Apple’s Intel-powered Macs, and it would be a shame if the folks at Parallels simply “had their run” and disappeared. But what do I know?
Why? Because it would reduce incentives for developers to produce a Mac version. There is already too much software that points Mac users to Parrallels or Boot Camp. Let’s hope Apple is smart enough to keep Windows applications at arm’s length.
There is no logical reason for Apple to implement their own virtualization, when Parallels is doing as well as they are.
Parallels mentioned that big news is coming at WWDC.
My prediction: Parallels Desktop will be included with every Intel Mac.
That way, everyone wins. Parallels gets to keep selling and developing their software, Apple gets to have awesome virtualization built right in (at someone else’s R&D expense), and customers do not have to purchase a third party app separate from their computer purchase–Just provide a Windows install disc should you desire to activate the Parallels software.
Apple would buy Parallels instead of spending countless hours developing their own. With all the new goodies in Leopard (Core Animation to name one), Apple doesn’t care about providing users with running anything other than OS X. They bought CoverFlow for iTunes because it was already there. Same goes for the hard work over at Parallels. Apple is doing Apple stuff, not worrying if their market share will climb because of XP/Vista. In their eyes market share is OS X, not more Macs. The VM guys have nothing to worry about. Like MS bought Connectix, Apple would buy Parallels, then supply the new Apple VM team with the Windows API’s. Everybody wins here, even MS.
Why would Apple want to make Windows?? Virtualization is what, easy? And last time we checked, Leopard was DELAYED to October with quite a large bug list and so on. Wired is fired! what stupid nonsense!