digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Is Parallels Leopard’s Secret Feature?

cavemonkey50.com — Could Apple have purchased Parallels? If you at look at the facts, it begins to add up. The Parallels team has been releasing new features like crazy and hasn’t been charging for them. They’ve added features like Boot Camp support, making Parallels compatible with Apple’s offering.

Who dugg this? Made popular Dec 4, 2006

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

112 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • InSeverance, on 10/12/2007, -5/+46Given Apple's open support of Parallels on their website it wouldn't surprise me too much if this is the case.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+35If Apple offers true Windows programme integration, Microsoft now has a serious threat.


    And that's karma for microsoft, seeing how they rule with Marketshare, but when another company can now suddenly dip into that same market and offer theirs simultaenously, anyone who is buying a new computer already knows that Vista needs processing power, and all the new Mac Lineups offer that.
  • bigredgpk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29I could see Apple buying Parallels but I think Parallel's is just riding on Apple's coat tails. Which is a very nice place to be.
  • nerd05, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24@imike
    “I am so pleased to see [Apple promoting Parallels],” said Wolf. “I had a talk with Phil Schiller at the opening of the 5th Avenue Apple Store, and I asked him the question, ‘will Apple include a virtualization solution in [the next version of Mac OS X] Leopard.’ He said ‘absolutely not, the R&D would be prohibitive and we’re not going to do it. Our solution is dual boot.’

    Didn't Apple once say something similar about x86?
  • imikedaman, on 10/12/2007, -5/+26“I am so pleased to see [Apple promoting Parallels],” said Wolf. “I had a talk with Phil Schiller at the opening of the 5th Avenue Apple Store, and I asked him the question, ‘will Apple include a virtualization solution in [the next version of Mac OS X] Leopard.’ He said ‘absolutely not, the R&D would be prohibitive and we’re not going to do it. Our solution is dual boot.’

    http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/07/07/windowsmac/index.php
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23It wouldn't surprise me if Apple bought Parallels. It would fit in nicely with the Spaces feature in Leopard.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16@ulyssesyt

    Companies never, EVER lie and they also love to spoil surprises.
  • theone3, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15"Microsoft now has a serious threat."

    Actually it's fantastic - people will buy retail copies of vista business or ultimate (the only editions that work in a VM) which net significantly more profit than bundled OEM copies of home premium ever could.
  • zenmouse, on 10/25/2007, -7/+19Apple's secret feature will be running windows programs directly from the OS X environment.
  • steveng, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19Do keep in mind, for now at least, that Parallels requires that you buy Windows. This may actually be better for Microsoft considering they make less money on OEMs than they do selling Boxed copies of Windows, unless Hell freezes over again and Apple becomes an M$ OEM.
  • theone3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12(got cut off)

    As far as parralels having new features - parralels for mac is becoming their (parallels inc.'s) cash cow - of course they're going to develop and intergrate it as much as possible - they've got competition on their back (vmware) and while they had a head start, they need to stay competitive.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Most likely in Spring 2007. It might come out at MacWorld, but I doubt it, although there is time left to launch a sneak attack on Microsoft.
  • randomgeek, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Or VMware. I've used VMware in both Windows and Linux for a long time. When I think "virtualization" I think VMware. Parallels is by far a better, faster product with a lot more features. What they need to do is get the mindshare before VMware breaks into the OS X market.
  • bieber, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Yep. I can totally believe you're involved in marketing and packaging a large-scale commercial software product. I mean, you obviously have the necessary English skills...
  • manitoba98xp, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12You mean similar to "Coherence" in the latest Parallels beta? :p
  • magicRob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5If you got on board early, it was only $49 :) Bargin of the century, and even though those early versions weren't super fast and lacked some features. I was a bit worried that it would be a dud. Thankfully each new release has been faster and the features keep getting better. Best $49 i've ever spent.
  • edogg, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8It depends on how you look at it. Parallels for Windows/Linux is only $49.99, but it doesn't come with Compressor, which is another $49.99. The Mac version of Parallels includes Compressor for its $79.99 price tag. I'm not sure why Parallels chose to bundle and price it this way, but it is at least an explanation for the higher price.
  • jasondefaoite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@mrch0mp3rs

    EFI itself supports a legacy mode such that OS without EFI support can still boot (XP for example). The problem was Apple removed this feature from the EFI used on the intel macs, I guess expecting Vista to support EFI.

    I'm guessing here, but I doubt apple are using the same hack from the open source community for boot camp. Apple always had it in their power to update the intel macs with an EFI supporting this legacy mode, and did so strangely enough soon after Microsoft announced EFI support on Vista was pulled.
  • fyngyrz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I vote this as a rumor "too good to be true."

    Apple's smart... but are they *that smart*?

  • justinlarsen, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7ya good point, and lets have trial versions or AOL and Compuserv on there too. Apple can be just like dell.
  • bledwhite, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8i wanted to buy this as well, but may wait and spen the money on Leopard instead.

    Anyone know when Leopard comes out?
  • aristotle0dude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4No. Apple has not bought them out. Nor do they intend on integrating virtualization directly into the OS.
  • nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@adstretch:

    Why bother re-writing every Windows library (including everything in Vista, ie. .NET, DX10, etc) when you can just point people to MS's implementation of Windows? Everybody's happy that way because Apple sells hardware and MS sells Windows licenses. Do you have any idea how much effort it would take to re-write all of Vista, if that's even legal? The WINE project has yet to reproduce all of Windows XP's functionality and that's after 10+ years of development. Sure Apple is big, but it would take a formidable amount of resources to do what you're talking about, an amount I can pretty confidently say no _company_ is going to allocate to a project like that. Legal fees alone would run in the tens or hundreds of millions (fighting MS in court over their "IP").

    Even if Apple didn't start over, where could they start from? Mono and WINE are GPL, and Apple doesn't take that kindly to the GPL. (gcc is a notable exception, i'm sure there are others)
  • mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3personally, I think they should be working on co-hosting windows on mac. All of the Core Duo 2 processors support OS virtualization at the hardware level... each OS will believe itself to be running on the "bare metal" and not under a VM. Parallels is in the unique place to attempt to implement that... they'd need Apple's help, but it could be interesting. Then you wouldn't have to "dual boot" but you could "switch" to the already running Windows OS on the fly with a keyboard command. Then games would always be running full speed. With a little driver help and file system magic (Apple is good at) the systems could be made to have user data "look" seemless even though it is under different host OS and file systems. It's what Microsoft SHOULD have been doing for Vista backward compatibility... then they could build new and shiny and VM the rest.. but didn't. They bought Virtual PC thinking they could steal the advantage from apple but also because they see it comming as well.
  • colincornaby, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Parallels already said they're charging for the next version. As for Boot Camp support, they're just trying to make it so that people who are already using Boot Camp can try and buy Parallels.

    As for costs "only" $80, take a look at their site. The Mac version is quite a bit more expensive than the Windows/Linux versions of Parallels.
  • Jedeye459, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Parallels should be working hard... If they have not been purchased they need to convert as many people as they can incase apple announces their own vm technology.
  • N1XUK, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Doesn't Apple have access to the windows API from some old agreement with microsoft?

    Why not cut out the middle man, ditch parrallels/bootcamp and have the option to run windows apps direclty with some hidden background code. Why waste cycles/memory running a windows os when what you want is the application only.

    Sure the API itself is copyrighted, but having your own code that does the same task isnt a crime.

    Having a WINE esque app running must be less demanding then an entire other OS.
  • Ireland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I'm thinking March at the latest, but Apple likes to catch people off guard, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if Steve said "boom" at Macworld.
  • myheaditches, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5And VMWare is heading to the Mac:
    http://www.vmware.com/news/releases/mac.html
  • AssProphet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4All macs come with trial versions of MS Office and iWork among other trial software. So don't act like this is a new idea for apple.
  • tagliare, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Like the other guy said, Parallels for Mac includes compressor, that's why its more expensive. Also, Parallels is offering free updates for one year now.

    http://www.parallels.com/products/special_offer/
  • blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Joke aside I really wonder what he got for CoverFlow. I mean it wasn't much of a technology.They could probably have rewritten themselves (and I suspect they did) in a few days. So they paid for the idea, and not to get sued I guess.
  • streak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Parallels is giving away upgrades in an attempt to beat VMware to the (marketshare) pass. If enough consumers feel committed or devoted to Parallels by the time VMware finally makes its "Fusion" offering available, insufficient marketshare will remain for VMware in the Mac OS X arena. Parallels would then have a cash cow that it can milk to become more competitive in the Windows and Linux arenas. You can bet that, if VMware for some odd reason gets pushed off Mac OS X, those Parallels upgrades will instantly be no longer free.
  • DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Why not just buy a Mac + Parallels? I mean, why does having an $80 program already installed make it that much more compelling than buying the two separately?
  • kethraal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Sound Jam"

    IIRC (and I may not) Sound Jam was available up until Apple released iTunes. In fact, nobody really knew iTunes was coming until 1) C&G pulled SoundJam and 2) iTunes was announced.

    Perhaps the same thing will happen here?
  • SgtBeavis, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Well, Apple hasn't purchased Parallels. At least not yet. While Parallels is a privately held company, Apple isn't. Apple would have to report an acquisition like this to its shareholders.

    However, it would make perfect sense for Apple to do this. The more they offer support for Windows (and other OSes) the easier it is for WinTel users to make the switch. It might even allow Apple the chance to offer a server end virtualization product on the XServe. Microsoft will be offering a hypervisor level virtualization solution in Longhorn that will attempt to compete with VMware ESX. If Parallels can move forward with their Enterprise Server product and make is run on XServe, Apple will have a new opportunity to invade the datacenter.
  • MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Any idea on how much a huge undertaking implementing all of win32 _flawlessly_ would be? (WINE has been at it for aeons, and It doesn't work for everything.) I don't see Apple releasing a win32 layer that doesn't work 100% of the time. (Though you might not say the same after their iTunes 7 release....)
  • AssProphet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ulyssesyt

    They don't have to buy the company if they buy the Intellectual Property for the Mac version of Parallels. And they can have an NDA until Leopard, just like they did with coverflow.
  • blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It was actually 39$, and I am glad I paid them at the time.
  • ulyssesyt, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8@ SleepJunkie,

    you can't be a publicly traded company and "secretly" buy another company. every such transaction is public record.

    so--they haven't bought anything.

    next?
  • swaxhog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Parallels is a desktop product. MS's focus is against VMware and the server virtualization market. They are two completely different beasts and VMware is way out ahead still.
  • nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1no but you see the point. they've been working hard on WINE for 10 or more years and they have yet to reproduce Win95 fully. The point is that in order for Apple to ship something like that they would have to support WinXP at least, probably Vista and WINE couldn't do that in 10+ years, so...
  • NeoRicen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's not, Apple has said numerous times dual booting is their solution.
  • yonah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I would love Parallels to be a part of Leopard, but I doubt it. They are selling the Parallel packages for "special holiday discounts" with 1 year free updates on parallels.com. Wouldn´t that be to fool your customers, if you most likely will be getting it in few months anyway?
  • fyngyrz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The mac has no particularly notable shortages for network applications -- browsers, etc. So there's no need to run Windows networking out on the Internet in the usual "bite me, I'm infectable" manner. You can browse, hunt for files, run IM software, telnet, SSH, you name it -- all under OSX. Plus, it works better than windows.

    So you're free to use the Windows virtual machine in a far safer manner (and Parallels can help with that by limiting the network access.) In my case, for instance, it was graphics applications that kept forcing me back to a Windows desktop. Now they run on my Mac. My dedicated Windows machine is going to get a new life as a linux fileserver as a direct consequence.

    One of the tricky things here is that OSX really *is* a lot better environment than windows. If you can find (or afford) the Mac version of anything that is available for OSX, I can just about assure you that you'll end up preferring it. I've been a Windows user since 1992, a linux user since RH6 came out, whenever that was, years anyway, and an OSX user for about two years. OSX is better. A lot better. Period.

    Because of this, Parallels is, for me, a bridge to the "can't replace this" applications. Most users won't have a lot of those. Money could make some apps irreplaceable, sort of, but that doesn't mean it won't be clear that the Mac apps are better. For instance, I browse with OmniWeb and trust me, neither Firefox nor Explorer nor Opera (nor Safari) will be replacing *that* anytime soon. There is no comparable Windows browser, and I'm *not* downgrading my browsing experience. See what I mean? No need to go to the virtual machine for Internet work. Therefore, no viruses, adware, spyware, etc. No risk. Even though it's Windows. It is, after all, Windows safely ensconced in a sandbox.
  • gerkin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's not Apple's style to buy out someone like this and then have them run it all in public. Apple's are a secrective fruit. They simply wouldn't be developing their "secret" for the next OS release publicly. Had they done this it would have been like Sound Jam or Edit DV and it would re-emerge as a different beast.

    While Apple may not be developing virtualization in their OS, who says they are not working on it at a hardware level? Wsn't this something Intel was saying could happen at some point at the hardware level ... to run multiple OSes at the same time?

    Now THAT would be news if it worked well. Who wants software to do juggling if the hardware is capable. Not saying that this is their "secret" feature for Leopard or anything, but saying I bet there is R&D man hours being spent there regardless of what any Apple execs might say.
  • gerkin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Re: how Coherency is implemented, it seems to be not much more than an interface hack between the windows 'desktop' and Finder.
  • ardenr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1aristotledude has just taught you all a valuable lesson in how people take statements said as if they were fact as fact. So, I'm gonna digg him up too.
  • Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I've been thinking about maybe making my next computer a Mac. I haven't been paying much attention to utilities like parallels. It sounds like exactly the sort of application that would convince me that it would be okay to switch. There are a couple of Windows-only applications that I can't get rid of yet. If I knew they could run on a Mac with no problem, a Mac may be in my future.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1because mac apps are still better than their windows counterparts these days...with a few exceptions.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 112 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.