“I can’t even find Apple’s own Boot Camp mentioned on the ‘you can even run Windows’ page of Apple’s Get a Mac site – surprisingly, it’s Parallels Desktop that has the spotlight now,” David Chartier writes for The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW).
Chartier asks, “Could Apple be giving Boot Camp the back seat in favor of the no-rebooting convenience of Parallels Desktop? Or might Parallels be working with Apple on virtualization (or a buyout) for the upcoming Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard?”
Full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Readers “jk,” “LinuxGuy” and “Cathy” for the heads up.]
MacDailyNews Take: Indeed, Apple’s “You can even run Windows software” page of the company’s “Get a Mac” web section eschews Boot Camp in favor of Parallels Desktop for Mac. We always thought Parallels had better hurry up and make their money quickly now, before Leopard debuts. But, what if Apple’s working with Parallels to include the technology in Mac OS X Leopard? What do you think?
Advertisements:
• Introducing the super-fast, blogging, podcasting, do-everything-out-of-the-box MacBook. Starting at just $1099.
• Get the new iMac with Intel Core Duo for as low as $31 A MONTH with Free shipping!
• Get the MacBook Pro with Intel Core Duo for as low as $47 A MONTH with Free Shipping!
• Apple’s new Mac mini. Intel Core, up to 4 times faster. Starting at just $599. Free shipping.
• iPod. 15,000 songs. 25,000 photos. 150 hours of video. The new iPod. 30GB and 60GB models start at just $299. Free shipping.
• Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.
• iPod Radio Remote. Listen to FM radio on your iPod and control everything with a convenient wired remote. Just $49.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Mac OS X Leopard to give Apple huge head-start on hypervised OS? – May 18, 2006
The Red Box Myth: Why Apple’s Mac OS X Leopard will not run Windows software natively – May 13, 2006
Apple confirms ‘sneak peek preview’ of Mac OS X Leopard at WWDC 2006 this August – April 18, 2006
Apple’s Boot Camp is first step towards Mac OS X Leopard’s inevitable support for virtualization – April 11, 2006
Mac OS X Leopard to contain ‘Red Box’ for natively running Windows applications? – June 23, 2005
Apple working with Parallels? Wouldn’t surprise me. Looks like a win-win for both.
“But, what if Apple’s working with Parallels to include the technology in Mac OS X Leopard? What do you think?”
If true, I think they’re going to be some wealthy motherf*ckers, that’s what I think.
Damn, I wish I knew how to write code.
Skipping trigonomentry class . . .
I think, therefore I AM
Here’s the direct link to Apple endorsing Parallel’s software, seems Apple might not compete in this area. Or is giving them a free bone until Leopard is released. Who knows?
Guess the folks at Parallel can calm down a bit, I’m sure 10.5 had them worried, less they go the way of Konafabubar (what was that software anyway?)
http://www.apple.com/getamac/windows.html
Funky, it ain’t trig, it’s calculus.
It doesn’t mention boot camp but it does say:
“Now you can take advantage of all the benefits of owning a Mac but still enjoy the convenience of starting up your Mac in Windows XP and running a Windows-only game or productivity application when needed.”
… in addition to talking about Parallel.
I think that Parallel’s Workstation is a shipping commercial product and Boot Camp is a pretty good proof-of-concept beta that is – in true Jobsian style designed to disrupt the dynamics of the marketplace.
I’ll also put good money against doughnuts that Apple’s virtualisation technologies in Leopard will actually act as springboard for developers of appliance systems (like Axentra) to use the Mac Mini and other Macintosh models as compatible hardware platforms, in effect making the power management, network devices, I/O and other MacOS essentials available to the guest OS in some form or another through APIs that are well executed and complete.
If that’s the case, Parallels, VMWare and others can compete on delivering high-performance virtualisation rather than who has either the “least-buggy” or “most complete” environment; in addition, a small outfit who wishes to create, for example, an embedded media center OS to run within the Macintosh environment will be able to concentrate on “their” part of the equation whilst leveraging OS X’s security and stability to link to the Internet for EPGs or whatever.
But, what if Apple’s working with Parallels to include the technology in Mac OS X Leopard? What do you think?
It wouldn’t be the first time a firm let someone else solve the problem, then buy the tchnology, or the firm. My guess is that Apple is giving Parallels a shot at making some money from their efforts, before releasing Leopard with a Parallels like technology incorporated into it.
You gotta keep the developers happy, or they go away.
My simple, and most obvious guess would be because Boot Camp is still a public beta so they don’t want to push it to hard. Just in case they get mass of bug issues after pushing it to everyone.
You see what makes Parallels so powerful and useful is that it will run MANY flavors of operating systems, not just Windows XP.
Of course the penalty is the performance is not so great as “BootCamp” because it’s still on only one core and the more a CPU has to handle the less it does well, much like Virtual PC is on PPC machines. However the performance is better than VPC on PPC because the Parallels/Core Duo is on the same x86 based processors.
So with that we have this
3D game/performance for Win XP only = BootCamp
For everything else = Parallels Workstation.
Now all we need is a Quad MacTel and a version of Parallels that will use all 4 cores.
My simple, and most obvious guess would be because Boot Camp is still a public beta so they don’t want to push it to hard. Just in case they get mass of bug issues after pushing it to everyone.
No “Boot Camp” was a direct response to Microsoft foot dragging and hobbling of Virtual PC on PowerMac G5’s. Microsoft can’t even get Vista out the door, so Apple took matters into their own hands.
Same thing with Parallel’s, M$ is such a hobbled beast that they are unable to keep up.
In fact Parallels is faster than Apple, Apple should have had this techonology back in Panther.
i think its a moot point (for apple at least), because either way it results in more hardware sales for them.
This is an easy one:
Boot camp is only BETA!!
I have no doubt Leopard will have a Parallels-like multiple OS function. But, until it is a fully functioning and supported feature, Boot Camp will be waiting in the wings.
Because it functions so differently, it is also very possible that the Leopard version of multiple OS functionality may not be 100% Boot Camp compatible. When you install Leopard and if you still want your Boot Camp’s XP, you may have to reinstall your XP in a different type of configuration.
Regardless what happens, when Leopard is released, it will continue to make XP/Vista look like a bad copy of OS 9.
I thought people had finally stopped calling them MacTels.
Oh well, one can dream. Maybe after the PowerMacs go Intel people will finally stop this nonsense.
i’m not sure how many developers Parallels employs, but it isn’t as many as Apple. They also aren’t absolute experts with the innards of OS X. I’d really like to see Apple buy out Parallels, give the company it due credit, and then unleash Apple engineers on the Parallels code. Make it run on both cores, integrate it into the system (i.e. for apps that you own both versions of, there could be an option to open it in OS X or Windows), fix all the driver bugs, etc.
So, when Apple pushes Leopard out of the doors, it’s a seamless experience between the two worlds (three with Linux, though that’s much tougher to integrate as deeply). Afterall, that’s what Apple is all about, giving you the computer to do what you want, regardless of compatibility.
I don’t think Apple will “work” with Parallels, I think they will offer their own virtualization software as part of Leapord. The BIG difference with Apple’s version will be graphics acceleration, the holy grail of virtualization software. Bootcamp is nothing more than a temporary solution for Tiger and a hint at what’s to come.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/
Why are so many people assuming The Steve doesn’t have a virtual machine in the lab. Remember Mac OS X’s “double life”?
The genius of Apple under The Steve is the ability to engineer terrific products and unleash them at the right time. I say The Steve doesn’t need Parallels technology; he has his own.
One more thing®
Who here really believes The Steve wants to see windblows owning a Mac using dual boot? I can see SJ’s Leopard keynote demo now:
SJ launches a virtual windblows machine. He runs various windblows apps like Auto CAD, etc. They are snappy. He starts quoting amazing benchmark specs. When all of a sudden the winblows virtual machine has a bunch of malware alerts popup. The machine is now some spam king’s bitch! The Steve says: “No problem, I’ll just trash this windows machine {dumps it in trash} and recover with the last working windows machine.”
The whole thing is carried out with cool new quartz eye candy (spinning 3D spheres and such). The room erupts with applause.
Rock on Steve!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”raspberry” style=”border:0;” />
I was looking at the Apple’s Mac site and found this where they mention Boot Camp! :p
Boot Camp On Canada Mac Site
Whoops I also found this…I think perhaps they haven’t changed it for the Canadians yet. 😮
Office Page
Bootcamp implies Apple will be supporting booting Windows, which is not something they are doing, want to do, or equiped to do. Pushing Parallels just shifts the burden of thousands of customer service calls to Parallels. Aside from that, it keeps OSX running on the box- preventing out of sight out of mind if a windows user boots directly to Windows. Good move on Apple’s part.
Damn it, now I need to get an Intel mac……
Parallels is a lot friendlier to Mac users than boot camp is. In Parallels you can easily set up shared folders, you can use 2-finger scrolling if you’re a MacBook or MacBook Pro user, the sound drivers work correctly, copy-paste is supported across the virtual divide, and you’re still running Mac OS X – which makes Apple happy.
In boot camp, you’ve lost your auto-screen dimming and backlit keyboard, browser performance is so high that it makes Mac OS X look sluggish, you can’t communicate with your Mac OS X partition, sleep isn’t very solid, sound drivers are goofed up (plugging in head phones does not stop the sound from playing through the speakers), and so on.
I’d say that Boot Camp is your gaming solution, and Parallels is for everything else you need to do in Windows.
We are not going to see graphics acceleration in something vitualized like Parallels, not even if Apple makes a competing product. Any on-the-fly translation layer from DirectX to OpenGL would incur such a large performance hit as to be useless. The two 3D technologies are too different to allow any efficient mapping at this point.
I am not sure Apple is happy because of Parallels or others’ virtualization technology works well. If there is a good virt.software many developer think they doesn’t need to port or develop native Mac OS X application. I think Apple can do virtualisaton better than Parallels becasue of Apple knows everthing about its hw and sw. But Apple did only Bootcamp. Apple wants to use Mac OS X enviroment not any version of Windows. Bootcamp is less usable then Parallel solution, Apple wants this but not using Windows easily.
Bootcamp – but virtualization too – is a short term possibility for average users.