Leopard

Ooh.. and the rumors begin (or continue, rather).

Link



primary concnern is security
it gets switchers
no need to dual boot .. heh heh heh

I think Apple could pull it off with strenous security measures.

Among other things, I think Leopard will also have a great new finder based off spotlight.

<discuss>

It would be the first "consumer" attempt at virtualization and would allow the use of Windows on a Mac in a supportable fashion of sorts. Apple would not have to support or sell Windows, merely support the virualiations mechanism.

Security would also be my primary concern, though for this to perform well it will need lots of memory. 1.25 GB at the least, really I would not be happy under 2GB.

Finder is the odd bird of OS X. I am not sure why it is still around in its current incarnation. I am not sure how I would improve it, but I know it could be done better. (The continuing tirades on the Finder have some ideas, PathFinder others, and maybe some elements of the delayed FileRun.)

I have littler ambitions. first make spotlight smartfolders accessible as file system folders. I would like to be able to navigate to them in terminal just as I would any other folder. second improve the interface for building queries. Fine, leave a default one so people can wade in the kiddie pool, but give me the deep end. Look at MoRu as an exmple of what I mean. Not that is a useful Spotlight query engine.

Quartz 2D Extreme would be nice. Most thought it would be in Tiger but they just taunt us by having it there but disabling it.

I feel I should be able to think of more but that seems to be all that is coming out of my head. If I did not have QS I would probably complain about Finder more, or maybe I would use launchbar or butler. <shrug>

Long way to go till August though.

The rumors about virutalization have been floating around for 6 or 8 months now. This article is the first that I have seen to give the capability a name. Many wondered why Apple chose to go with the EFI knowing full well that Windows would have issues, and I have always believed that this was why. For those Mac users who want to run Windows, for whatever reason, this will be a godsend. To those Windows users switching, this will be a nice fallback to something familiar. There will always be the crowd that simply wants to run Windows on Mac hardware, and they have their hack to do so.

I will use this (if it happens) for those odd programs that are Windows only. I don't want to see Windows, I don't want to hear Windows, I don't want to speak Windows.

Catch my drift, Apple? No Windows.

Just click on a Windows App. Boom. It works. It would totally get rid of the argument "but my software won't work on a Mac ... whaaaa"

Pierre said:

I will use this (if it happens) for those odd programs that are Windows only. I don't want to see Windows, I don't want to hear Windows, I don't want to speak Windows.

Catch my drift, Apple? No Windows.

Just click on a Windows App. Boom. It works. It would totally get rid of the argument "but my software won't work on a Mac ... whaaaa"

Click to expand...

but wouldnt we run the risk of companies not developing mac versions if the windows version can run on a mac?

Even worse, you would have to deal with all of the crappy Windows software out there causing havoc on your Mac like it does on Windows.

No thanks, they can keep the windows garbage, if the software developers don't want to write a Mac version, then it's their loss not ours.

I, frankly, don't like the idea. Like most Mac users, I switched to get away from windows, besides the beautifulness of a Mac. Now basically running a joint operation is, to me, pointless. Yes, you'll be able to run Windows programs, but if you wanted to do that so bad, go back to Windows. This virtualization is going to make Macs virus centrals!

Perhaps, but the viruses will only impact the Windows partitions, not the Mac side.

But with the virtualization, you will be ab;e to run windows apps without restart or using a boot loader, the programs just run. So it might affect he Mac OS as well

Pierre said:

Just click on a Windows App. Boom. It works. It would totally get rid of the argument "but my software won't work on a Mac ... whaaaa"

Click to expand...

Sometimes it isn't that easy on a real PC. :mac:

baggss said:

Perhaps, but the viruses will only impact the Windows partitions, not the Mac side.

Click to expand...

Oh yer your such a expert

If a PROGRAM can run, then a virus can run too effecting the OS it is running on, (Mac OS X). A virus is, after all, just a program.

Les Exposé said:

Oh yer your such a expert

Click to expand...

Care to explain that or you just being an ***?

aantoine90 said:

If a PROGRAM can run, then a virus can run too effecting the OS it is running on, (Mac OS X). A virus is, after all, just a program.

Click to expand...

Care to explain how a Windows virus is going to infect the Mac side?

Les Exposé said:

Oh yer your such a expert

Click to expand...

So much about an intelligent post...

Fact is that on a Mac with both system installed, the OS X part still remains an HFS+ partition, which can't even be seen by Windows, thus by any virus.

Though it might be possible to write a virus or malicious software that is able to write to a HFS+ partition, it would take a lot of expertise, and it would be very time consuming.

So nobody will even care...

aantoine90 said:

If a PROGRAM can run, then a virus can run too effecting the OS it is running on, (Mac OS X). A virus is, after all, just a program.

Click to expand...

Even if the program runs in a virtualized environment, it wouldn't be able to interfere with files on a HFS+ partition.
Technically the program (incl. virus) will run under the Windows OS, which has no access to the OS X partition.

Nobody would care, because how many people effectively have a Boot Camp setup to start with. So who'll write a virus for those few thousand. (Few hundred at the moment.)

Besides, making a code to exploit a windows hole to go and exploit a hfs partition and THEN try exploit OS X (which in itself is a task getting harder by the week) is a bit far fetched to think someone will do that.

I don't get why anyone would be against virtualization in a Mac OS. Clearly it is a useful tool to some, and if you don't like it you don't have to run it. It could also easily be an add on application (like X11 is today) so you don't have to install it unless you want to. Am I missing something?

wouldn't the most secure thing to do is put xp on is own HD so virus wont spread?

I suppose if you really want to understand spread of virii from a 'virtual' machine session to the host terminal as it were, you could look up on Google or the likes the incidence of this happening on non Apple VM systems.

E.g.: VMWare hosting Windows on a Linux machine.

Vicky