Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 17th Apr 2006 18:38 UTC, submitted by vondur
Mac OS X Robert X. Cringely thinks that Apple will offer virtualization in Mac OS 10.5, but in order to do that, he thinks Apple will need to drop Mach. "So Apple will at least offer the option for users to run a virtualized version of Windows Vista atop OS X. Don't be surprised, either, to see that OS X 10.5 has a new kernel, finally giving up Mach and a big piece of its NeXTstep heritage. I write this for one thing - because OS X has kernel problems and needs some help, especially with swap space. I say it also because of the departure of Avie Tevanian, Apple's chief software technology officer, and the guy who hung onto Mach for so long." The Mach kernel has recently been the target for complaints; esp. in server duties, OSX' kernel lags behind significantly compared to i.e. Linux.
Thread beginning with comment 115667
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Virtualized without shell...
by th3rmite on Mon 17th Apr 2006 20:16 UTC
th3rmite
Member since:
2006-01-08

I think the way Apple is going to go is virtualization that doesn't require the Windows Shell to run. For example under linux I had "hacked" my VMware install to start MS Office without the windows shell, thus simulating the program running without Windows seeming to run. I imagine if Apple doesn't completely supprot something like this they will build in the mechanisms so that other companies can create software that does this. Thus making it seem like Windows programs are running directly in OSX. The only downside to this is you will need to have a windows license.

Reply Score: 1

elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

I think the way Apple is going to go is virtualization that doesn't require the Windows Shell to run. For example under linux I had "hacked" my VMware install to start MS Office without the windows shell, thus simulating the program running without Windows seeming to run. I imagine if Apple doesn't completely supprot something like this they will build in the mechanisms so that other companies can create software that does this. Thus making it seem like Windows programs are running directly in OSX. The only downside to this is you will need to have a windows license.

Just to play devil's advocate, if you had the ability to run Win32 apps "seamlessly" in OS X, where's the incentive for vendors to port native apps?

This is the same conundrum linux is in with Wine, people need Wine to run windows apps, but the better Wine gets the less incentive vendors will have to deliver linux native apps. Even IBM fell back on that excuse for not providing a Notes client for linux, instead giving people step by step instructions for running it under Wine, where it was less than perfect.

So if everybody's focused on seamless virtualization or translation layers, wouldn't that effectively make Windows a stronger default development platform since you could write-once run-many?

Like I said, just playing Devil's advocate, I'm not entirely sure I've formed an opinion yet on my own statement...

Reply Parent Score: 3

MediaSex Member since:
2006-02-08

"This is the same conundrum linux is in with Wine, people need Wine to run windows apps, but the better Wine gets the less incentive vendors will have to deliver linux native apps. Even IBM fell back on that excuse for not providing a Notes client for linux, instead giving people step by step instructions for running it under Wine, where it was less than perfect.

So if everybody's focused on seamless virtualization or translation layers, wouldn't that effectively make Windows a stronger default development platform since you could write-once run-many?"

Exactly.

Reply Parent Score: 0

godawful Member since:
2005-06-29

well, to a certain degree you can run x11 apps seamlessly on os x.. but it is largely dispised as it doesn't conform the the UI, and those apps dont generally take advantage of specific os x features (services, spotlight etc)

even classic apps worked "seamlessly" in os x.. sort of..

not to mention the initial cost of purchasing a windows license the run the non native software..

i guess it comes down to ones definition of "seamlessly"..

if seamlessly genuinely means takes advantage of native ui, shortcuts, features & services, but is really a windows program.. i guess you'd be right, of course the possibility of that "seamless" actually happening is pretty low

Reply Parent Score: 1