digg

Leopard 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.

"While Booting Windows on XP is now possible"

You can't know how relieved I am that this feature was finally included.

This 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?

Yeah, I wrote it wrong on my digg column. Visualize, virtualize this!!! hehe. Great story! Or at least I thought so. Virtualization isn't about dual booting, but actually starting the slave OS like a program...somewhat like VMWare or Virtual PC without taking any performance hit. Downfall of this, will the industry follow Apple or do to it like they did with IBM OS/2.

/me has flashbacks of OS/2 2.1 running Windows applications. The more things change...

You know, this is convincing me more and more that Apple will start to support Windows more and more.

Wow, 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.

LAN+Windows box+Mac Box+KVM Switch.

/I win ^_^

To dream a little, have OSX run Windows executables (without the bugs and exploits) natively in OSX and then I will be sold.

Integrated virtualization.. make a lot of sense.

If the Leopard verson is to be expecting release in August than the advanced os of apple makes me not to want an upgrade for Vista in 2007 if the applications are running for same thing.

At the cost of what system resources?

Being 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 ***** 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.

Surely, this must mean that Apple are going to distribute a sort of basic-mini-OS, that is purely designed to run a vitalization layer, on which OS X and Windows and potentially other OSs will run on.

If this is the case then this is certainly a very interesting development, so-long as it is as stable, if not more stable than VMWare. Additionally it would be beneficial for it have improved memory management to that of VMWare. I'm looking forward to this.

Oh they finally made Taligent? They were talking about that around 15 years ago.

haha... joking aside (Lol)

BIll Gates should pheer his place in society, especially after reading this article

Can'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.

I 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 :)

Sweet sweetness!

No wait! that means Dvorak was right! .. in a really round about way!!!!!!!!!!!

Seeing as it's now official that the orginal source of this blurb is macOSrumors.com, THE most horribly unreliable mac "insider" site out there, I call BS.

Apple 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! :)

This is amazing if true. It's what I've been hoping would happen.

This will knock down a couple of the last 'switcher' hurdles:

- relicensing software for a new OS
- doing any sort of MS-centric app development.

I love my Mac, but do a lot of .net work these days. Even non-MS web developers will often have both a Windows box and a Mac. Having to buy software is a pain, since most major software companies STILL only license software per-machine, rather than per-user. So I always have to decide if I want the windows version or the Mac version.

Now it won't matter!

Seriously, 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.

Then what's the point of having Microsoft and Apple if they're both using each others O.S.' back and forth with full inter connectivity and backwards-compatibility? It's like Apple runs Microsoft and Microsoft runs Apple, so why don't they just become the same company. Apple used to be the underdog but now they're just becoming what they hated. It's like the Monty Python joke of Robin Hood stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, but eventually the poor become rich and the rich become poor, just like Apple starting out poor, but now they're rich from taking so much of Microsoft's stuff.

I like how they put 'reliable sources' in quotation marks. Says it all, really.
I don't understand how arbitrary BS these Mac rumor sites come up with makes it to the front page here. Of course it would be great if true. But the 'reliable sources' have proven pretty darn unreliable in the past.

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.

What a great idea! It worked for OS/2.


Right?

but will it run linux?

It 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?

Is it april 1st already ?

as 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.

I 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.

Let me see;
Well written Windows programs, which behave well in a Multi-User Windows environment generally have a Mac OS X counterpart as well. Word, Excel, PhotoShop, Illustrator, etc.
Poorly written Windows programs, which don't function well, even on XP,will probably not even work at all in a virtualised environment. Proprietary systems like InfoMedia MicroCat, PalmSource Palm Desktop and a glut of other third party products will probably cause all sorts of problems, which will all be blamed on Mac OS X.
Native software (or interpreted software, like Java), is always the only real option IMHO.

Does this mean that you could load OSX onto a PC?

This kind of thing killed native development in OS/2.

It's a dangerous thing. As small software companies have limited development funds, there will be little reason to develop an OS X native version of your software if the Windows version runs fine.

Apple should proceed with EXTREME CAUTION on this one.

Apple needs to pick an enemy: Michael Dell or Bill Gates. If Dell, they need to add XP as a BTO license option on new Macs. If Microsoft, they need to license OS X to Dell and other PC vendors. Either way, they need to pick an enemy and go for marketshare. I'd go after Bill. They seem the weakest.

/my $0.02.

This doesn't sound reasonable to me. I'd be extremely surprised if this happened.

Personally I think it is more likely that Apple will come out with dev tools that will allow developers to write once, and compile for OSX or Vista. On OSX these programs would probably run in a specific API "Red Box" on Mac systems. Ideally there would be no significant indication of this to the user.

I think Apple will try to encourage developers to use tools that would allow for EASY porting to OS X. from a business perspective this seems to make the most sense.

If Apple comes up with something like this. Many people will finally switch to Macs.

http://www.mobilesquad.net

RUMOR = inaccurate

John C. Dvorak farts in your general direction!

You think hes bad now...just IMAGINE how he's gonna be if he is right about his prediction..

how will this work?!??!

I wonder if it splits the dual core processor one for each OS or somthing

Step 1. Promote your hardware more than your software and have rumors like this fly around.
Step 2. .....
Step 3. PROFIT!

LOL. I think this could be true, a guaranteed 5 years at least of MS Office for Mac. Apple has to do something back now. To have the "ability" to perhaps buy an add-on to make windows exe's run seamless through OS X (perhaps the extra cost will be close or a bit more than XP Home Upgrade?)

If i'm a regular consumer and come to an apple store because I already bought my iPod, I like how Apple makes things "just work", so when I consider a new computer from them but I don't want to loose my $10.00 Cubis 2 Puzzle game, and lets say Microsoft Access or Visio, all this type of stuff comes to my mind. The Apple rep says "We believe that making the transition from Windows to OS X would benefit every consumer in the long run, since people as yourself know that not all programs will be made for our operating system, for an extra $79.99 you get a license for the core operating system from Microsoft and our software made with Microsoft so you can double click your Cubis 2 program and in seconds you can play it just like you would with a PC running windows XP (or Vista). Then when you need to make a family DVD or simple video editing you can use our software that comes free with all Apple computer purchases, something usually costing over $100.00 extra in software to make a Windows PC do. Since your buying a computer as well we have a rebate to bring it down to $49.99 extra, shall I ring this up for you?"

I would be sold! On a side note, has anyone else been seeing a lot more "Things that can be done on Windows XP" commercials on cable / satellite?

I'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?