Digg

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

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.

Bury

koregaonpark 1 year 236 days ago, made popular 1 year 236 days ago

1153 diggs
digg it

113 Comments
Who Dugg It?
Blog It
Email It

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.
- gxcdesign, 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.
- 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
- podgey22, on 10/12/2007, -16/+1But MS "supports" SUSE Linux in the same sort of way...
  
  Now if Apple bought the company behind Parallels... *That* would really be supporting it.
  
  But as it is, no. Parallels does not belong to Leopard so you can't say that it's leopard's secret feature.
- 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.
- spyyder, on 10/12/2007, -19/+3If Apple did decide to purchase parallels, I wonder if they would release a PC version that would allow OSX on PC. Sorta like a reverse bootcamp. I mean bootcamp alone has probably convinced many people to switch to Mac, like myself, so being able to try OSX on PC might do the same.
- Raian, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2It's also obvious that Microsoft is well aware of the fact and has begun to try and protect itself by starting the WGA program-- which could eventually block Apple from doing this-- But also something worth noting is that Apple and Microsoft came to another closed doors support agreement... so it will be interesting to see how all of this pans out... In the end it could be that WGA will block programs like parallels from having applications run in a layer on top of OS X, and allow Apple as a trusted Microsoft partner.
- klawz, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3quote
  If Apple offers true Windows programme integration, Microsoft now has a serious threat.
  /quote
  I disagree. If Apple opened up OSX to OTHER hardware platforms, then it would become a serious threat. Until then, it will be just as much as a threat as the Zune is to the iPod, almost nill.
- klawz, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3@ Kadis - I don't mean for this to sound the way it does, but if Apple wanted to be a true hardware company, why not make great hardware, and legally allow the OS run on any platform, remove the DRM, and just let it go - and make great hardware - you see this model work, and work well in other venues. Is Apple afraid that no one will buy the Apple hardware if the software isn't locked into the hardware? Is that what this boils down to? Not a troll question, like it sounds, but a legitimate one for people to ponder and discuss. I see a similar model in the Cell phone arena. Some provider locks in a specific model (such as the Razor) for a year or so, only to them - then later on licenses it. This mode works and works well when you have such a distinctive difference in the hardware (e.g. cell phone model) - but in Apple's case, that isn't there - and well, the Software is - so I concur Apple is a hardware company, but they'd not be where they are now if they were not also a software company.
- 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?
- dbr_onix, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1"If Apple offers true Windows programme integration, Microsoft now has a serious threat."
  If it's the same method as Parallels new feature, then it's quite the opposite : Since to run Windows in Parallels, you need a Windows license : Microsoft would infact have a large partner..
  
  Anyway, if Parralels did include 3D acceleration, and good (Well, better) intergration with OS X, I may consider a Mac to replace my laptop when it's time comes..
  - Ben
- 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.
- 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.
- cypherz, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2@klaws
  "Is Apple afraid that no one will buy the Apple hardware if the software isn't locked into the hardware? Is that what this boils down to? Not a troll question, like it sounds, but a legitimate one for people to ponder and discuss."
  
  Yes, it IS a troll. This has been discussed ad nauseum and the issue put to bed. Apple understands its market. They are a boutique computer. Without OS X they would be competing with all the other clones. The loss of the OSX distinction would put them out of business.
- mgkwho, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1I think Parallels just doesn't want to be in BootCamp's shadow.
  
  -=|Mgkwho
- samcrut, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Klawz... Apple's not a hardware company. It's that and a software company, and a music distribution channel, and a video distribution channel. There's no reason to try to say that they have to do just one thing. They're kicking ass in many disciplines.
  
  Theone3... Becoming their cash cow? It's done come. They've sold over 100k copies of Parallels at $80. That's called having a good year. =)
- adstretch, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1If Apple were to buy any app i would prefer it to be crossover. it would fit the apple ideal of "seamless" much better, installing win32 apps directly into OSX and running them without windows, (just the win32 api clone) though im sure the problem with this is the somewhat shady "reverse engineering" that the whole wine system uses, not that it isn't legit, but it's borderline enough that if apple bought it, it might draw some unwanted attention from M$. ive been running a lot of basic apps under darwine and would love to see that project expand, i like the idea of the win api without windows, its just a waste of space when all i want is the api so i can run games. then again crossover and darwine are severly limited in what they run, but as they grow i would expect them to gain over parallels seeing as they are cheaper (free for darwine, and 49? for crossover) and they don't require a windows disk, (which presumably will cost you money.
- 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)
- 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*?
- ActionableMango, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@nofxjunkee, "The WINE project has yet to reproduce all of Windows XP's functionality and that's after 10+ years of development."
  
  2006 minus 10 years = 1996. WINE was working on Windows XP functionality two years before Microsoft released Windows 98? Impressive!
- 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...
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?
- ckr4282, 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.
- 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.
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.
- Ireland, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Yeah like Coverflow was, now that guy is riding on a yacht.
  
  /British and Irish etc. please excuse my poor spelling of the word yaught, I'm translating here ;)
- 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.
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.
- 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.
- myheaditches, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5And VMWare is heading to the Mac:
  http://www.vmware.com/news/releases/mac.html
- 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.
gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6Even if it's not true it would be really cool if it was.
- EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -14/+7That sentence makes no sense. How can it be cool if it's true if it's not?
totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3can you imagine if microsoft ended up buying them?
- Jeffrey903, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1As awesome as Parallels for the Mac is, it really just helps Microsoft. People who use Parallels also buy a copy of Microsoft Windows (well, they're supposed to). Of course if Microsoft did buy Parallels, then it would be in the Vista license that you ARE allowed to use VM technology (and of course you can only do that with Vista Ultimate).
- justinlarsen, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3come on, are you seriously buying windows to run on your mac? Most people would use illegal copies of windows, esp for a secondary os to run 1 or two applications.
anamanaman, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6Apple would be crazy not to. They have a huge amount of cash, and what better way to invest? Give the entire business market a reason to switch to Mac OS X, with full backwards compatibility of their essential applications like Outlook.
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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/+2It was actually 39$, and I am glad I paid them at the time.
sabarsky, 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.
zenmouse, on 10/25/2007, -7/+19Apple's secret feature will be running windows programs directly from the OS X environment.
- manitoba98xp, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12You mean similar to "Coherence" in the latest Parallels beta? :p
- ulyssesyt, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7even though they've said "we have no interest in adding virtualization to the Mac OS, and that's the only way to run a Windows app directly under Mac OS?
  
  uh-huh.
- SleepJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16@ulyssesyt
  
  Companies never, EVER lie and they also love to spoil surprises.
- 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?
- cypherz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@manitoba98xp:
  "You mean similar to "Coherence" in the latest Parallels beta? "
  
  Maybe more like WINE or Crossover Office?
- 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.
JeffH, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3I don't think Parallels would let themselves be bought by Apple. They make most of their money off of their Windows/Linux version.
runningIDIOT, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1I don't think so - Parallels are also for Windows and Linux, altough they got most money from Mac version.
TheBodyPolitic, on 10/12/2007, -15/+2100% not happening. My company owns the publishing rights to parallels. look on the bottom of the parallels software packaging. it says nova development. So i can tell you guys this is not going to hapens
- TheBodyPolitic, on 10/12/2007, -10/+0and also yes there are alot of updates being released . but version 2 is currently in the works.. and i can give a lil info but not too much. the next version will support opengl sooo youll finally be able to run games in parallels
- 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...
- digitalsin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4For someone owning the publishing rights to such a successful product, you sure as hell aren't literate.
  
  Get a life troll
ulyssesyt, on 10/12/2007, -9/+91. this is the usual ploy to drive traffic to the blog, for *****'s sake.
2. if the company were bought, it'd be a matter of public record and you could discover it with a few minutes of searching.
3. Apple has stated, repeatedly, specifically, and clearly, that they have no interest in adding virutalization to any future versions of the Mac OS.
4. Apple spent a lot of cycles developing Boot Camp, because they do not want to support virtualization.
- mrch0mp3rs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1"4. Apple spent a lot of cycles developing Boot Camp, because they do not want to support virtualization."
  
  I might be wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure Apple spent no time developing Boot Camp, except for the sweet GUI and their hardware drivers. It was the OS community that came up with the workaround for EFI. That had to be the kinda hard part. Once the dual-boot haxie was worked out, providing drivers for Windows XP had to be pretty easy -- Apple had months to do that before my MBP came off the line.
- 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.
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.
glafira, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4How could they keep such a huge purchase secret?
- rcardona2k, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@glafira: Jobs could buy Parallels with change from his pocket.
- mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1petty cash... it's hidden in the books for those free ipods steve gave out last month!!
DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1I don't think this is going to happen.
Dolomite, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Virtualization environments have been available on many different platforms for many different years. Parallels mostly stands out in the Mac world because this is the first time we have been able to run Windows in a virtual machine at (near) native speeds. There is no need for Apple to purchase this company. Apple already offers Boot Camp as a way to run Windows on their hardware, so i don't see of what benefit it would be for Apple to own them.
- TheBodyPolitic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1we already offer trial versions of parallels for the end user to testdrive.
  http://www.novadevelopment.com/Products/us/wdm/default.aspx
  **sorry this should be a reply to the post directly below this one**
- digggggggggg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Other than the fact that boot camp is really a bootloader solution which requires a reboot, and parallels is a way to run them simultaneously on the same desktop?
thespace, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Actually a better option is to make a deal with Apple to provide a Parallels trial copy installed on every computer or some kinda deal on a copy of Parallels when you buy a new mac.
- 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.
- ardenr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2gotta digg ya down thespace, i don't want to get any trial crap on my next mac. do it right or don't do it, apple understand that.
- 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.
markwid, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0If it is true that Apple has purchased Parallels on the side, it is even better. Then Parallels will have full compatibility. Excellent!
Talguy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1This is a very smart move by apple. If they make parallels standard in leopard I am going out the next day and getting myself a mac no matter how much of a broke college kids I am and no matter what the compatiablity issues are with my schools network
- 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?
- Talguy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Well DaffyDuck it is just more of an incentive and I have already planned to get parallels when i buy a mac or just buy parallels and install it on my parents macs. But it will be a long time before i'll be able to get a mac since I'm a broke college kid
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.
- 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....)
- ashmodai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Parent is correct, under a 2001 agreement, Apple and Microsoft snuck a peek at each other's code, legally. This would theoretically allow both companies to use each other's API's. Now, since MS has no use for OSX API's (Hell, they don't even have OSX support for the Zune, go figure) they didn't much care, but it does allow Apple to use genuine MS API's under this agreement, so no Wine-esque debacles here, just pure MS software and therefore 100% compatability (for XP).
AceTracer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2That would certainly peeve the people that paid $80 for it, but no I don't think that's the case. If you read the Parallels blog you'll see even the developers are surprised when Apple mentions Parallels in their ads.
herschelaz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I won't like parallels until they make FAT32 support for the Boot Camp partitions.
lgc90, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I've been holding off my purchase of parallels in anticipation of an Apple buyout.

I'm still hoping for the secret feature to be the ability to run windows apps in the OS X environment, without even needing a copy of windows at all.
aristotle0dude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4No. Apple has not bought them out. Nor do they intend on integrating virtualization directly into the OS.
- 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.
kamilX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Here are some screenshots of Parallels in action:
http://www.parallels.com/products/desktop/ss/
rcardona2k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The real question is why doesn't MSFT buy Parallels to replace Virtual PC and have a better offering for Mac, PC and (cough) Linux??
- 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.
- rcardona2k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0MSFT is a HUGE company, they're effectively in every market. Microsoft could easily use the Connectix assets against VMware and Parallels for consumer virtualization. Any good ideas would be cross-pollinated between the code bases.
- msgyrd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Microsoft just recently purchased VirtualPC. It was a Mac only product originally, and now that MS owns it, it's pretty much been discontinued for the Mac and is only good for running versions of Windows on top of other versions of Windows. If MS bought Parallels, you would immediately see it's development cease for the Mac.
raccettura, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1I'm convinced two things are at play here:

1. Apple feels Parallels may be a target of MS for violating patents and copyright in some way... how is Coherency implemented? Might be to much of a target. I'm sure MS is keeping a close eye on it.

2. Why not let them develop a little more in a more rapid small-business manner, then buy them out. Just let it mature. If it looks like it's free of liability and worth the money, then pick it up. No reason to buy before it's ripe. Only possible threat here would be if MS bought them to control another virtual windows on Mac.
- 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.
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.
- 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?
- danwarne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1SoundJam was a bit different though -- the guy who made it already worked at Apple. To other posters who say an acquisition would have to be reported to shareholders -- who's to say Apple hasn't just entered into an exclusive licence for the technology or something. It certainly wouldn't have to report that to shareholders -- it would be doing those sorts of deals every second day.
- kethraal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"the guy who made it already worked at Apple."
  
  Really? As I remember, it was three people (Jeff Robin and two others), and they continued working for Casady & Greene even once Apple bought SoundJam. Their development went to Apple, instead of being released, but I don't think they were employees.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoundJam_MP
romeosc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I always felt Leopard would support running Windows programs directly! Apple had to offer Bootcamp to keep the community from running hundreds of programs to do same thing.
NeoRicen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's not, Apple has said numerous times dual booting is their solution.
deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's not gonna happen. There's no reason to bundle Parallels in at the OS level. The reason we're getting so many free features /w Parallels is the fact that VMware is coming out on OSX soon. They're trying to build market share while they're the only game in town.
- SgtBeavis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I agree. I've been beta testing Fusion and it has A LOT of nice features that the current version of Parallels doesn't (such as supporting dual vCPUs)
  
  However, the next version of Parallels does appear to have most, if not all, of the offerings that VMware has in Fusion. Showing off these features in a public beta is only going to help grow their brand in the Mac world.
  
  BTW, VMware is rumored to be putting Fusion into a public beta, sometime very soon.
Zanneth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This speculation is inaccurate. Phil Shiller flat-out said that there will never be native support for Windows apps in Mac OS X, so speculations of this sort are highly unlikely. The only thing that may happen would be Apple paying Parallels to make sure something like this DOESN'T happen.
soapsuds, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I suspect that Apple may wish to "keep their hands clean" of any legal and support issues surrounding virtualization, as well as not wanting to disturb their detente with Microsoft (i.e., keeping Office for Mac alive). With both Parallels and VMware entering the vacuum left by the departure of VirtualPC, it seems clear that making virtualization for Windows on MacIntels is a viable 3rd-party business. I could see Apple working behind the scenes to help these guys out, though, or at least making some effort not to break their software with future OS releases.
- gulmargha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Apple's détente with Microsoft was nothing to do with Mac Business Unit. I don't know how the rumor got started that Microsoft only keeps the MacBU around for kicks, but having talked to people who work there, its a thriving independent arm of Microsoft, and is extraordinarily profitable. xBox is not profitable. Since Microsoft is a public company, it would have to explain why it would can the profitable Mac Office and keep the unprofitable xBox.
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.
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.
digitallysick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1One thing i can say for apple, when the consumer speaks, apple listens, apple knows everyone wants this, and so it will be. Everyone wanted an iphone, it will be. Its an easy plan for apple, find what people want, and give it to them.
blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Maybe more like WINE or Crossover Office?"

WINE is a wonderful project and all that. But on the whole, when you just want things to work and you don't care much if you have to buy license of XP home to run them, virtualization is perfect. Wine is kinda the linux of windows apps. They work but you have to spend days trying to get them working.
- plagiats, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh come on, how can you say such a lie ? Getting wine installed is 3 clics away. Then launching a .exe is a double-clic away. If your application is a classic window program (I mean : not a video game or complex 3D program such as Solidworks) it might just run out of the box. For example, the fractal creation program that was on digg the other day runs perfectly. DVDShrink too. Rapidget anyone? Works flawlessly.
  
  If not, Google and wine's app database are here. In less than 5 minutes you know if your app will run.
  
  When you just want things to run, you give Wine a try. It might work, and you might just be happy with it.
inexplicable, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Ok, I'll be honest, I haven't read every comment here so I *may* be repeating but here goes: I think that whilst this seems like an obvious and attractive 'secret' Leopard feature it would be crazy for several reasons.

1) If Apple really did integrate Windows apps into OSX so well that they appeared damned near seamless, then why develop for Mac anymore? Wouldn't Adobe, Microsoft et al simply concentrate their R&D budgets on making killer Windows versions of apps and leaving Mac well alone? In effect OSX would be relegated to a window manager.

2) How would they deal with the issue of spyware / viruses? What checks would be in place to stop a rogue program trashing the virtual PC? In Parallels / BootCamp there isn't one. It's windows pure and simple, you infect it - your problem, but at least your OSX installation is still in tact.

3) As previously mentioned in this thread there are all sorts of headaches with licencing, compatibility and emulation.

4) Is there really THAT much of a demand? We already have BootCamp and Parallels (which has a new 'Coherence' mode that integrates pretty well).

Just my thoughts!
- 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.
- mGee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1because mac apps are still better than their windows counterparts these days...with a few exceptions.
mGee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This is exactly one of the major features that will be kept secret until official release. No doubt.

I also suspect a major overhaul of the finder... perhaps Apple will purchase Path Finder?
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?
iNunchuk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Uhh, isn't there a law that requires any company to publish that they've been bought by another company? Martha Stewart Case rings a bell..
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Is Parallels Leopard’s Secret Feature?

Login or register to add a comment