OSNews

This is a total theory that struck me, and based in no rumour or fact.

The issue of Bootcamp requiring to boot into XP (and therefore nothing to do with virtualization), yet the rumours of 10.5 having virtualization built in gave me the idea.

If you virtualize off of a hard disk partition, (and I mean real, real virtualization - whereby two OSes run on the same hardware at the same time, one on each core), it means you can either reboot for games, or run in OS X for convenience.

Now I don't think this is possible, but would it not be very cool, if when running OSX and XP at the sametime, you could shut down OS X, and instead of the machine switching off, the virtualised XP running on the other core, would then take over.

If true virtualization is there, then theoretically another OS can run on the same hardware without the need of the other OS, other than to bootstrap it into existance.

Now showing off XP and OSX on a cube, and then shutting down OS X leaving XP running would be one hell of a party trick to show at WWDC, and Apple love showing off there

Thats interesting... like a small bootstrap OS thats only job is to not let Windows and OSX see each other and manage resources between them to prevent race conditions.

EDIT: So that the whole two OS on one box is transparent to both OS's

Edited 2006-06-20 18:00

Congrats, you both just reinvented (D)LPAR ( http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/eserver/iseries/lpar/ )

Ah, but does it exist in OS X yet? No.
Will it exist in Leopard? Who knows.
Would that totally revolutionize running multiple OSes, yes.
And Apple love to be the 'first' in a lot of things.

the problem with that analogy is that a car doesn't rely on after market third party parts to be useful.

also i'd argue that in the big picture apple really isn't all that relevant in the industry.

In the consumer space, secrecy helps. You want to blow people away with your cool, new products. In the enterprise space, secrecy doesn't fly. If I'm purchasing for IT, I want to plan ahead, and I want to see detailed roadmaps of at least the next couple of years. I don't want to spend a million bucks on a bunch of servers only to have their architecture rendered obsolete a month later with no previous warning.

[OT]
Imagine automakers showing what they're selling 2 years ahead of time?

Wouldn't surprise me since "next year's" cars keep getting announced sooner every year. Wasn't there a commercial for some 2007 model during the Superbowl, or maybe even earlier? That premature marketing hype sure seems desperately and pathetically misplaced in light of rising oil/gas prices.
[/OT]

1. thats not a danger as apple has already made the sell of hardware.

2. people (generalizing) dont buy a mac to run windows

youd be hard pressed to find a mac user whom has never used xp before and decides they prefer it.

2. I did,
(I just run OS X more often)

>1. thats not a danger as apple has already made the sell of hardware.

But will people using XP/Vista in their Mac buy a Mac when they'll be choosing their next PC?

The problem with dual booting is the real danger to Apple that users will set the default boot to XP and leave it there.

[sarcasm]Yes, as a Mac user I have never been exposed to XP, and if I am there is a real danger of liking it more than OS X and switching over[/sarcasm]

As a general rule, a Mac user already knows XP (and is probably forced to use it at work), is not satisfied by it and finds OS X good enough to commit to an 'uncommon' platform just for the sake of using it.

Think of it this way: Let's say you are a Linux user instead. Would you switch to XP 'just because you can'? No, you chose Linux and, dual-booting is only there (if at all) for the occasional game and/or custom, work-related app that happens to be Windows-only.

HEYYYY I was just stating what I noticed i a increase in apple/OSX articles. Cut me some slack. Who invented this moderation/popularity system from hell anyway.

or it may end up helping apple.

the opposite of your scenario could just as easily happen, and i would argue, is more likely to happen. just about everyone and their mom are familiar with windows.
the same cannot be said for os x. youll need to look hard to find people whom were forced into purchasing a mac for work or school related reasons, much easier to find people whom must use windows. i just think the notion of someone buying apple hardware with os x on it, and then being slowly pulled to windows is unlikely. and again, so long as apple makes the hardware sale it doesn't really matter.

i wonder if in a few years, should apple's market share grow, if the new meme will be "but how many of those are running windows only? mac osx i still only at 3%!!"

In my case, I used to triple-boot Linux, OS/2, and Windows 3.1 (staying mostly in Linux), and then dual boot Linux, and Windows 95, and then finally boot Windows 95.

Back in 1995, Windows 95 *was* superior to Linux (at least to me). Linux was a better OS, but Windows 95 had all the best apps and with Cygwin, Windows 95 had a decent command line. All the Unix rags also tend to give the impression that the Unix wars had killed Unix and that NT, based in the equally solid VMS foundations, was going to kill Unix in time. Thus, Linux didn't seem to have much of a future, whereas Windows did.

OTOH, I also used to dual boot Windows 2000 to Linux -- staying mostly in Windows 2000 initially before eventually switching back to Linux completely.
When Windows 2000 was released, things started shifting back. Linux had all the good (free) development apps that just weren't available in Windows and it was slowly starting to get all the Windows 2000 apps. When Windows XP was released, it was clear Windows was going down hill and Linux was a rising star that had everything I needed. Dual booting helped make the transition easy, and VMWare was the final nail in the coffin.

The point is, it works both ways. If your OS truly is *superior*, and by superior I mean, has the best apps, has all the apps you need, has the best OS, and there's no uncertainty around the future of your OS, then you have nothing to worry about. Dual-booting can only help convince the fence sitters or people who depend on apps from "the other OS" to give it a try, since you can always go back any time you want.

So the question is, is MacOS X truly better than Vista for people who are currently using MacOS X? If yes, boot camp (and VMWare) can only help Apple gain new people. If not, .it'll hurt Apple.

More likely, the people who are already Mac users will end up buying fewer non-Macs for the occasions that call for Windows. If, when the Mac Pro ships, you can put a regular video card in it, people who've been spending money to maintain a PC for 3D games will redirect that money back to Apple.

It's also changing the minds of a lot of PC-only types. Paul Thurrot has a photo series on Flickr of him unpacking his shiny, new iMac. Basically, it's no longer necessary for Windows fanatics to hate Apple, but you wouldn't know it from the comments and articles posted here.

Well, we will see, vmware for mac is not out yet.

One thing is certain, Virtual PC for Mac is finished.

how do you use windows on a macbook full time when it only has one mouse button? It must be a massive inconvenience plugging in a mouse into your portable on the train.