The (Virtual) Reality of VMware

[Swad]

This may just be the hype of a CEO, but the head of VMware says that the company is testing VMware for the Mac… and it’s done. At least in the labs. In an interview with USA Today, CEO Diane Greene had this to say:

"We'd like to let anybody run any operating system (OS) on any machine," Greene says. "You'll be able to buy any application you want and not worry what OS it runs on."

 

Apple's Boot Camp only takes that so far. It makes it easier to run Windows XP on a Mac, but you'd have to restart your computer to get from one to the other. There is software on the Web that can make a Mac run another OS, but it's difficult to use.

 

Virtualization software tricks the computer into thinking each OS is the only one on the machine - so multiple operating systems can run simultaneously but not get in each others' way.

 

VMware has plans to roll out virtualization for consumers over coming years. "We can run it on the Mac OS in our labs already," Greene says.

This goes right along with previous rumors about VMware for Macs, although stating that they have it running in the lab doesn’t mean much at all.

 

Will “VMware Mac Edition” be the next big topic in our Virtualization forum? Will you be waiting in line for your copy?

[domino]

Apple's Boot Camp only takes that so far. It makes it easier to run Windows XP on a Mac, but you'd have to restart your computer to get from one to the other.

Funny, because I would rather dual boot and run native than use a virtual session. We can run a vertual session of OS X under windows, and now Mac users can dual boot to windows But who really wants to run anything virtual when all your drivers are supported? Developers perhaps? Webmaster who wants to run a virtaul webhost? For the average Joe, I can't find much use to run anything vitrual other thanusing it in a 100% Windows environment.

 

Edit:

 

Ps. Once Xen becomes a reality to PC users, VMware will be replaced in the Linux arena. I imagine it will be implicated on a Mac system also. I'm just having a hell-of-a-time trying to implement it on my Gentoo install

 

Edited for the sake of clarity

Edited April 10, 2006 by domino

[Colonel]

This is great news. My favorite Virtualization product has always been VMWare, and now their porting it to Mac. I can't wait to get my hands on a copy.

[Cyman]

As this is interesting news, I found an article which is even more interesting: Macworld.co.uk news.

 

Here is what it says:

Future Apple product to let PCs run Mac OS X?

 

By Macworld staff

 

Apple's Boot Camp software may emerge as a far larger deal than it seems, according to a leading tech opinion-maker.

 

Looking at the beta software, and speculating on the new rapprochement between Apple and Microsoft, Robert Cringley predicts that Apple will release a product that's similar to Boot Camp but which lets owners of 32-bit PCs run Mac OS X as well as Windows.

 

"I predict that Apple will settle on 64-bit Intel processors, and at that time will announce a product similar to Boot Camp to allow OS X to run on bog-standard 32-bit PC hardware, turning the Boot Camp relationship on its head and trying to sell $99 copies of OS X to 100 million or so Windows owners," he writes.

 

He also observes that Microsoft stands to benefit from Boot Camp by selling retail copies of XP - and states that he "knows" the software will also support Windows Vista in future.

 

"One reason why Microsoft isn't surprised by Boot Camp is because Microsoft has been working with Apple to make sure that Windows Vista runs well on Intel Macs. Apple will support Vista dual boot," he writes.

 

He also notes Apple's recent move to join the BAPCo Intel benchmarking group. This shows Apple plans to run a version of Windows on Macs: "Apple doesn't join standards organisations lightly, so Cupertino must expect that the Intel Macs will show quite well against more standard Windows platforms," he suggests.

 

This gives me hope again, to see Mac OS X for PCs some time sooner or later - if you ask me, no move from Apple would surprise me anymore.

[Doug Clinton]

That's the news I've been waiting for. I've used VMWare to run Linux on Windows boxes, Windows on Linux boxes and other permutations and it's a really great product. I figured that it would only be a matter of time before they got in on the act.

 

Personally, I hate dual-booting. To me an OS is something that should be up all the time. Since I only need Windows these days for a few bits of software I haven't been able to replace on the Mac, and none of them are really dependent on device driver performance, I will happily use VMWare for my needs. I was going to try out Parallels and I suspect that the timing of this announcement by VMWare has something to do with recent news, but now I'll wait for VMWare to be release (especially as I don't yet have an Intel Mac :-) )

[bluedragon1971]

Funny, because I would rather dual boot and run native than use a virtual session. We can run a vertual session of OS X under windows, and now Mac users can dual boot to windows But who really wants to run anything virtual when all your drivers are supported? Developers perhaps? Webmaster who wants to run a virtaul webhost? For the average Joe, I can't find much use to run anything vitrual other thanusing it in a 100% Windows environment.

 

Edit:

 

Ps. Once Xen becomes a reality to PC users, VMware will be replaced in the Linux arena. I imagine it will be implicated on a Mac system also. I'm just having a hell-of-a-time trying to implement it on my Gentoo install

 

Edited for the sake of clarity

 

Sharing data between both OS's and working in programs from both at the same time is one very good reason for virtualization. I have one Windows program that I'd really like to run in OS X (Newsleecher), and I hate having to reboot just to get to it (before you mention Darwine, this program won't even run right under WINE in Linux, much less under Darwine, unfortunately).

 

As this is interesting news, I found an article which is even more interesting: Macworld.co.uk news.

 

Here is what it says:

This gives me hope again, to see Mac OS X for PCs some time sooner or later - if you ask me, no move from Apple would surprise me anymore.

 

Cringley has always been the most clueless "tech reporter" in the business, even worse than Dvorak, when it comes to Apple.

[johnniecarcinogen]

I personally would rather have a "Red Box" (or Dharma for the flipside) type solution rather than having my resourses compromised in order to run a virtual machine. Until that can be done with a windows emulator or a 'compatibility layer', I personally perfer dual booting.

 

I find it weird that there have been rumors of running cocoa apps on windows and rumors of windows apps on OS X. It would be interesting if both Vista and Panther had symbiotic capabilities without having to have special binaries of apps... One can dream.

[domino]

Sharing data between both OS's and working in programs from both at the same time is one very good reason for virtualization. I have one Windows program that I'd really like to run in OS X (Newsleecher), and I hate having to reboot just to get to it (before you mention Darwine, this program won't even run right under WINE in Linux, much less under Darwine, unfortunately).

Yes, that's all fine if you have a company paying for your VMware license. I'm asking if it is worth the amount VMware is asking just to run less than 3 applications not available in OS X? To me that doesn't make sense penny wise. You pay someone for the application and you top that off by paying someone else to make it work where you want it to? The last time I checked, VMware WS was just under USD$200. Somewhere down the line, people are are going to ask if it's worth paying that amount for a software that leaches off a host OS.

 

I forgot to mention the post about:

There is software on the Web that can make a Mac run another OS, but it's difficult to use.

The guy is obviously full of {censored}. Q, is a free application that made it out the door months before the multi million dollar company even decided to "try" to make the headlines. I don't see Q on USA Today nor do I see Q selling out to these companies, but only time will tell I guess.

[blacksmith_tb]

The last time I checked, VMware WS was just under USD$200. Somewhere down the line, people are are going to ask if it's worth paying that amount for a software that leaches off a host OS.

True enough, but Parallels is taking OS X pre-orders for $39, with a list price of $49. Which I suspect is turning up the heat on VMWare on all three platforms...

 

I think there are fine reasons to dual-boot (gaming, for example), and also to run guest OSes in VMs (running individual apps, especially ones that aren't terribly graphics-intensive, say MS Access *shudder*). I'm impressed by the speed of the Parallels beta - much quicker than Q on my core duo mini. Windows runs nicely, as do linuxes, even KDE and Gnome-using distros. Parallels lacks the polish of VMWare, but the price is right. Of course, if the rumors about Apple rolling out their virtualization package are true, they'll both be driven out of the market. Almost like trying to compete with Microsoft...

[A Nonny Moose]

Will “VMware Mac Edition” be the next big topic in our Virtualization forum? Will you be waiting in line for your copy?

 

I'll be waiting for Virtual PC 8 for a few reasons:

 

1. I have VPC 7 and am not willing to throw money into another application to solve the same problem or downlad a free program to solve the same problem.

 

2. With VPC, Microsoft makes the software and makes the guest OS, so they can dig deeper into the system on levels others just dream of.

 

3. I don't play Windows games, save for little things that don't need things like graphics cards that run beautifully in VPC.

[learning_bird]

Yes, that's all fine if you have a company paying for your VMware license. I'm asking if it is worth the amount VMware is asking just to run less than 3 applications not available in OS X? To me that doesn't make sense penny wise. You pay someone for the application and you top that off by paying someone else to make it work where you want it to? The last time I checked, VMware WS was just under USD$200. Somewhere down the line, people are are going to ask if it's worth paying that amount for a software that leaches off a host OS.

Since last December VMWare launched VMware Player for free. Also, since February they launched the free ( still ) beta Server. You only have to pay for the Workstation and GSX and ESX Server and the difference between Player and Workstation is that you can't create VM images with the free Player, although there seems to exist some ways to (unofficially) achieve that with the free player.

I think we'll see a free VMWare Player for Intel Mac OS X in a few weeks. And it'll be a lot of fun to use their Virtual Appliances!

Unfortunately, I suspect we'll never see Mac OS X running as a Guest OS!

[Aristotle Dude]

With the release of Paralells coming at 39-49 dollars, I cannot see why anyone would by VMWare workstation for OS X unless it offered virtualization of 3D hardware as well.

[bluedragon1971]

I'll be waiting for Virtual PC 8 for a few reasons:

 

1. I have VPC 7 and am not willing to throw money into another application to solve the same problem or downlad a free program to solve the same problem.

 

Do you really think that Microsoft isn't going to charge you again for VPC 8? Of course they are, and most likely that is going to be more expensive than Parallels, and certainly more expensive than Q.

[domino]

Since last December VMWare launched VMware Player for free. Also, since February they launched the free ( still ) beta Server...

Yes, I have used vmw since it was beta 4 and I do keep up with the apps since I do have a license for the workstation. Let me ask you something, how much mileage go you think you'll have using a server version on a P4 HT or anything non-dual core? There is a way to create your own images the 2nd day the player was released, so that's no big secret.

 

Virtual appliances? if you like someone else to install an OS for you and add whole {censored} load of bloat, have at it. For me, I like it light enough to get descent speed using no more than 256mb memory for any guest OS. It would be wiser to grab a copy of the trial version and make your own images the way you like it. Then stash a virgin copy on a DVD in case you need it later. There's no way in hell any OS would take more than 4gig of space from a fresh install unless you go install happy on one of the linux distros.

 

Unless VMware has something up it's sleeves, there is no way they can complete with the price of Parallels. The way Parallels' development is going, vmware will have to drop prices or somehow harness the agp power real time.

[A Nonny Moose]

Do you really think that Microsoft isn't going to charge you again for VPC 8? Of course they are, and most likely that is going to be more expensive than Parallels, and certainly more expensive than Q.

 

Actually, Q will cost me $599 (the cost of a shiny new Mac mini) bceause I have a G3 system and it isn't supported by Q. So let's throw Q out the window.

 

Parallels requires an Intel based Mac. This means a shiny new Mac mini, costing me $599 on top of the cost of the software cost. So let's throw that out the window.

 

VPC 7 requires a 700 MHz G3 or better, which I have. The upgrade cost for VPC is $79. Virtual PC is super cheap compared to the cost of the others.

[Guest sss]