digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Run Windows and OS X at the same time with OS X 10.5 Leopard

macrumors.com — According to this article the next version of OS X will include technology that will allow Mac's to run more than one operating system at the SAME TIME! No more dual booting - when you need to open that Windows app just instantaneously switch over to Windows. When you are done, go back to OS X.

Who dugg this? Made popular Mar 24, 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.

106 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • thedak, on 10/12/2007, -11/+42"Ya, just like OS 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4 dominated XP.

    Oh wait..."

    sales determine how good a product is now? So does that mean linux is completely useless on the desktop because not many people use it? That Dells are the best laptops on the market because they move the most units? The product can be better without selling better, it is still based on personal preference. If that is true it should be a very nice OS.
  • chrislund, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18the new intel-based macs don't support classic. the ppc macs will still run classic, of course, but those obviously won't run windows.
  • kwojniak, on 10/12/2007, -10/+23Leopard is going to completely dominate Vista.

    The only negative part about this news is VMware Workstation for OS X is probably never going to see the light of day. VMware is excellent and I do hope they eventually release an OS X version.
  • WalterDirt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14"While Booting Windows on XP is now possible"

    You can't know how relieved I am that this feature was finally included.
  • lepton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Most Mac owners don't really _want_ to run Windows, but they want to run some specific application that is Windows-only. Some want a game that isn't on the Mac yet (or doesn't run fast on the Mac because its optimized for Windows).

    Others, like myself, have a couple of Windows programs we need to run at work. I bring my laptop to work and use it. I use a lot of Mac apps there, but I've got those stupid Windows apps too. So, I run Virtual PC. Luckily my Windows apps don't need much CPU, but they are still pokey. I want to bring my MacBook Pro in, and run a Virtual PC equivalent so I can run the Mac and Windows apps at the same time. So, this is what I'm waiting for!

    My guess is we will see a VirtualPC-like app around the time Vista comes out, and it will be sold as a software package bundled with Vista.
  • Flankk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14"Leopard is going to completely dominate Vista." This statement is flamebait.

    "sales determine how good a product is now?" Nobody was talking about "how good" anything was. It was stated that Leopard would dominate and if you know anything about statistics you'll find sales do, in fact, determine this.

    As much as I like OS X, it's just foolish to think anyone is going to dominate MS in their monopolized corner of the software industry. It will happen, eventually, only by a very gradual means.. not a revolution.
  • bnoble, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Whoa! A KVM switch? Are you living in the future?!?!?
  • brandonhines, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Apple is a *hardware* comapny after all...
  • daeken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Paravirtualization refers to modifying the Guest OS (running in the VM) to not use protected functions, so you don't need to hook the low level functions manually (by dynamic recompilation) or using hardware virtualization such as Intel's Vanderpool.
  • coolbru, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Have you not heard of WINE?
  • dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7TheDak: I don't think he was suggesting that 10.5 was useless (or linux, for that matter), I think he was suggesting that it wasn't going to dominate the market the way Windows always finds a way of doing. You know, like he said. *shrugs*
  • chrislund, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8nxusername:

    leopard will be supporting ppc macs. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X#Mac_OS_X_v10.5_.22Leopard.22

    apple is still selling powerpc machines, and when leopard launches next year, it'd be rather silly of them to leave people behind with machines not even a year old.
  • shadus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6/me has flashbacks of OS/2 2.1 running Windows applications. The more things change...
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Wow, sometimes I don't actually realize how completely uninterested I am in running Windows on my Mac until I come across an article like this. This would make it so easy, yet I could care less. But to each his own, I guess.
  • brandonhines, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5So you're going to run two OSes plus a demanding piece of software? I don't think so. This could be used for other apps, but I do not see games running at breakneck speeds or resoultions.
  • Lumiras, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You know, this is convincing me more and more that Apple will start to support Windows more and more.
  • securitymonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Uhhhh. Disney merged with Pixar. The only thing Apple has in common with the whole deal is that Steve Jobs is the CEO of Apple *and* Pixar.
  • teece, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Don't get too excited -- Leopard is months away, and the rumors that you will hear about Apple's next product can be quite outlandish. We have no idea if this is true, really, and we won't until August.
  • richardiscool, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I think they make software too - don't they have their own OS or something?

    ..

    *rolls eyes*

    Apple is a computer company.
  • brandonhines, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yes, I have heard of WINE. But he's not talking about emulation. He's talking about dropping an EXE somewhere on the hard drive and running it natively.
  • trance, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I don't think that'll happen as long as Apple continues to set the bar so high in the OS market. Don't forget that the tight integration of software and hardware will continue to be a major selling point and source of great software from Apple. Many IT folks continue to convert for the ease of administration and the lack of security/virus headaches. Apple's server product continues to improve and, especially in the storage market, gain market share (yes slowly, but still surely). Time will certainly tell, but I think they have many more interesting products up their sleeve and the option to run Windows and Linux is just icing on a cake that is getting better and better with each iteration.
  • whiskeyclone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Can't wait for Dvorak to get hold of this story and link it in with his now [in]famous 'Apple will move to Windows OS now they are using Intel' arguement.

    I'm guessing his stance would be that of weening the Apple buyer off OS X.

    Personally I think its more a way of cementing Apple's OS by making it almost totally universal - so long as Apple continue tie their OS license to their hardware buying and Apple computer will be the only way to be able to take advantage of everything different OSes have to offer - that would be more than justification for the premium prices for Apple hardware and would be great for the consumer. My desktop machine runs OS X, my laptop runs XP - it would be nice to be able to sync everything easily across the board when I'm on the go (I'm a student and there is no way I could have afforded an Apple notebook at the same sort of spec as my HP). Also, support for mobile devices (I have a Rzr V3x but can only convert video for it and sync under Windows) and devices like webcams would make average Joe Consumers life a lot simpler.
  • Flankk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I find it humorous that people are burying this guy's comment. Are people that offended at just the thought of compatibility between Microsoft and Apple? How about a merger?

    Gah! I think I'll curl up in a corner and weep now.
  • skinfitz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Oh they finally made Taligent? They were talking about that around 15 years ago.
  • cogen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I agree.

    One of the reasons I haven't given Apple's OS a thought is because I'm a rabid gamer and a lot of free, little engineering programs are only available for a windows environment. Though, I have used Macs for some things (music creation on Digital Performer), and they are quite sexy.

    Being able to have both on the same machine sounds great to me, though would that compromise the famed smoothness and stability of a Mac OS running on Mac hardware? Honest question, I'm ignorant of this.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Apple will steal huge amounts of market share if the new version of VPC (or Chameleon) runs Windows at ~ 90% of the host. I don't see why that is far fetched, since the reason VPC now runs faster than pure emulators such as Q is that it still relies on OS X for most of it's functionality.

    There's several good things to running a fast install of XP alongside Mac OS X. For one, developers such as myself will get to browser test on several platforms at once. But, let's not forget people who'll start using Windows carelessly and forget that they're still targets for spy/mal/grey/ware & virii. This shield of protection for being a Mac user only goes so far! :)
  • ctishman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Being that Microsoft is primarily a software company, I really see them having no problem with this, as it would let them sell more copies of Windows. On the other hand, Microsoft can't really develop it on their own (as Virtual PC), as it would piss of all of their current hardware vendors such as Dell, HP, etc.

    My question is this: Would having Windows (or Linux, I guess) running in virtualization on a Mac cannibalize OS X development? I can think of more than a few major software companies that are on the edge and would gladly say "just get Windows to run our software".

    Edit: In a broader sense, I can see this leading to the nullification of OS exclusivity in general, which is a good thing IMHO.
  • drivenfaroff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I have no use for windows besides some gaming. Only if developers would now start releasing them for intel macs at the same time as the windows release there would be no real reason for windows then :)
  • joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3FTR, Windows and OSX are updated pretty much at the same pace. With windows, you just have fewer major upgrades at a higher price over a longer period and with OSX, you have more frequent, less expensive, intermediary upgrades.

    XP is a pretty stable OS, I must say. Ugly, but the best flavour of Windows I've run yet.
  • TrueVox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I can't agree more. I too was always fearful of my ability to boot windows on my XP setup. :D
  • brandonhines, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4You're asking for OS X to run Windows software? That's a stretch...
  • bnoble, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3At the cost of what system resources?
  • lepton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think it will actually HELP sell OSX and Macs, because the masses can truly see and use both OS systems side by side on the same hardware. OSX is great, not because of its checklist of features, but because of the thousand of little things that just work, that are intuitive, that make life with the computer easier. Windows folk can live with OSX for a while and see the big picture. I think it will make converts to OSX.
  • Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No.
  • miker71, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What a great idea! It worked for OS/2.


    Right?
  • deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Still, though, Intel based Macs DO NOT support classic.
  • GuyNextDoor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Seriously, my XP machine just had an explorer.exe crash for the first time in 6 months the other day...I can't quite figure out why people still bash XP so much - it's stable, and there are apps out there to give you some of those really nice graphical bells and whistles. I love the Mac OS, but I'm not gonna pull the l33t attitude about the whole thing. Sure, right now I think OS X is "better" in that I enjoy interacting with it, but both my Mac and my Windows pc run with a great amount of stability. I love how Mac somehow manages to convince people to buy a new OS release every 1-2 years, while Windows upgrades once every 5-6 and people can't whine enough that it isn't a big enough step in the right direction.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah, but I never got into the PC gaming market at all. So I guess that's where my interest flies out the window(pun intended).
  • dongiaconia, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4This is what the term Paravirtualization means, right? Virtualiztion is what is happening right now with dual booting, and paravirtualization is when you don't need to reboot. Or does anyone know differently?
  • cab1024, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wine Is Not Emulation software. But it also r won't unun on PPC. Though thius webiste is not doin a very good job with Firefox on a G5 either. Not my mispelllingss. I CAN"T SEE WHAT I"M TYPING!
  • omnivector, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Your dream has come true! http://darwine.opendarwin.org

    I actually ran a random windows binary (some keygen for adobe CS 2) the other day and it "just worked." I almost spit out my coffee. It's not going to run half life 2, but the linux version of wine can and i believe the mac version will be able to do this in a matter of time.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If Apple comes up with something like this. Many people will finally switch to Macs.

    http://www.mobilesquad.net
  • ajcannon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3That is really what I would like to see. I think it will eventually happen, possibly OS X 10.6?
  • durandal2005, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It just sounds like Xen virtualization.

    But I doubt this is true: why repeat the mistakes of OS/2? Developer's don't like rewriting code for a new platform (at least, I don't): if they can write to the Windows API and have it run anywhere, native OS X development is going to plummet.

    It would be far more advantageous to pursue some kind of software layer that let's developers write to the OS X API's and have it run on XP/Vista: anyone remember hearing about Dharma?
  • kosmicki, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Unless I want to install XP on my MacBook. KVM switch won't really help me there.
  • skimpson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1as long as Jobs is in control of Apple i do not see any major shifts between Windows and OS X...the whole way he built Apple as we know it today is that Apple makes the hardware and the software...its a complete experience, for instance the iPod and iTunes...they just work together...all you idiots who think Apple will ship computers running anything than Apple's own OS are just that...idiots.
  • inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't buy it. Some form of this rumor has come out about every version of OS X since 10.2. Tiger was supposed to be able to run Linux binaries and Panther was supposed to run Windows binaries. These rumors come up all the time but I cannot imagine, for the life of me, what Apple's motivation for doing this would be. Once you can run Windows reliably on OS X, you open your Mac up to all the headaches, viruses and nastiness that comes with Windows and Apple would have to support that. Also, it seems to me that lots of developers would opt to discontinue OS X versions of their software if the Windows version ran just as well.

    I don't see this ever happening. Not officially at least. I see very little benefit to Apple apart from picking up a few new switchers held back by one or two pieces of software. Eventually, as more people switch and OS X grows as a platform, that scenario (lack of software) becomes less and less likely. I just don't see what Apple gains by supporting Windows on Macs.
  • CalgaryTechGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm just saying...if you want to both windows and OSX software (of which, there is a lot of good on both sides of the fence), the ideal way is to have OSX run it natively (now I show my bias).

    Wine is an example of something that is close, but it still has compatibility issues. Running an extra OS through VMWare or Virtual PC works, but it has a lot of overhead.

    I will grant the logistics of doing so would be astounding...but I did say "To dream a little".
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm just wondering who didn't see this coming and who thought this was impossible? Step forward and be prepared to be whipped with wet noodles.

    How will this work? Have you never heard of VMware?
  • Maeseralf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1 I can't believe! Show me it! When! Where!
    If so, there is no reason for Vista any more, as you can get OS X over PCs too. I think even more that Microsoft will go over the Intel Macs, from now. The only problem with Apple's devices is by the moment they don't run PC applications fine. I am accustomed to Word-Perfect, and I can't find a Text Processor that performs the same in my Mac. On the other hand, my Mac is pretty fine for my desk (reliable, small, beautiful graphics, cool, easy to use... But it's not so ample as my laptop or my desktop PC for software and complements. I remember the old times, when Apple II rules the personal market, and now it is not the King. This chance will do the paradigm change again.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 106 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.