Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple to buy Parallels.
- Thread starter MRU
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think its gotta appear in Jan 07 mwsf as part of leopard.
It would be very nice if you could bundle oem windows xp from Apple at the same time.
It would be very nice if you could bundle oem windows xp from Apple at the same time.
kumbaya said:
lol... Vista programs? I think you are thinking too much like a mac user. Most programs should all work. Main problems you will find is running programs that came before Windows 2000.
Vista is hardly a service pack. Service packs are simply add ons to what the current OS has, Vista has been completely overhauled and was built virtually from the ground up now since they recoded everything, hency why the year delay. It is a much more robust OS than XP and OSX. Although the daily user wont be finding this to be true because doubtfully they will be buying the more expensive package that includes all the features.
wako said:
No. They said they plan to do a complete rewrite, but they dropped that. Vista actually uses much of XP's codebase, and essentially is just Windows Server 2003 with a fancy GUI and some extra bits and bolts.
MacRumorUser said:My grandmother always said, if youve got nothing nice to say, dont say anything at allYou wasted a whole post just to bitch about the thread title. Sheesh
Methinks you forgot your grandmother's rule with that second sentence. My grandmother always said, "Be honest with your feelings"...
dejo said:Methinks you forgot your grandmother's rule with that second sentence. My grandmother always said, "Be honest with your feelings"...
Yeah but my grandmother was off her face on Vodka & Gin
Raven VII said:
LOL... you just contradicted yourself or you are very well misinformed...
Vista code is indeed based off of another OS (Win2k3), however much of it was rewritten and alot of new features other than the "fancy GUI." Vista is mostly a built off of Windows 2003. For a common user you probably will not see how different XP and Vista are. This is simply because the common user wont be using half of the capabilities the OS has to offer. Much like how idiots buy XP Pro and wonder why they are getting hacked so easily when they have a bunch of server services turned on.
XP on the other hand is mostly written based off of Windows 2000.
wako said:
Microsoft did not "recode" everything for Vista. It would take soooo much longer than a year to write Vista. Have you been using Vista beta? It's not all that special. And you speak of the user's perspective and how it doesn't seem much different from XP. Well, isn't that what 95% of the world cares about? I'm a developer so I give a little on what's below, but the OS and it's perception of quality will be about the user experience. Why shouldn't it be??
wako said:
And Windows 2003 is a refinement of... Windows 2000. And so on. In other words, Vista isn't a rewrite. It's a refinement, not a complete rewrite. Microsoft once touted that Vista is going to be a completely new OS, akin to the jump between Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X. It simply isn't so.
i think that integrating something such as parallels would be a great idea. i also think that it would've been great if windows would have done what apple did, and completely redo its core api. offer something like a "classic" mode.
that would be cool. not enough to make me switch back, but it would be a step in the right direction for ms.
that would be cool. not enough to make me switch back, but it would be a step in the right direction for ms.
MacRumorUser said:
How can one product be 10x better than another product that does something completely entirely.
Come to think of it, the ease of use and features available with VirtualPC (such as 3D acceleration) were a lot better than what's in Parallels. If a native version of VirtualPC appeared, it would certainly trample all over Parallels.
MacRumorUser said:Yeah but my grandmother was off her face on Vodka & Gin
My grandma had a patch of wild marijuana in the land she owned. Mind you, only my half-brother "collected" and used it, but he's fine now.
wako said:
I know Vista is to be much better than XP but I've never heard that it will be more robust than OS X. Is this actually true? What about it is so much better than OS X? From what I can see, Vista will just be catching up to OS X.
jholzner said:
Vista Beta 2 is so robust, that it refused to work Microsoft Office 2007 when I tried.
Doubt it...
I really don't think Apple is going to buy Parallels. I don't think the actual virtualization code is that extensive, and Apple has a lot of low level kernel hackers. They know the Mach kernel inside and out, I'm sure if they are going to provide virtualization inside of Leopard, they already have the code written and integrated deep into the code base.
Sure, Parallels works great....compared to Virtual PC or QEMU. However, it's pretty far from a fully integrated virtualization environment.
- Kelson
I really don't think Apple is going to buy Parallels. I don't think the actual virtualization code is that extensive, and Apple has a lot of low level kernel hackers. They know the Mach kernel inside and out, I'm sure if they are going to provide virtualization inside of Leopard, they already have the code written and integrated deep into the code base.
Sure, Parallels works great....compared to Virtual PC or QEMU. However, it's pretty far from a fully integrated virtualization environment.
- Kelson
LOL !!! I may be right.
well after front page news that OSX wont feature virtualization, it certianly adds credance to my prediction that Apple will buy Parallels and use it, if not in OSX.5 but as a re-branded Apple product. (just like emagic buy out - logic)
Welcome Apple Parallels.....
well after front page news that OSX wont feature virtualization, it certianly adds credance to my prediction that Apple will buy Parallels and use it, if not in OSX.5 but as a re-branded Apple product. (just like emagic buy out - logic)
Welcome Apple Parallels.....
Call me slow, but how does this help your case that they will buy it? More importantly, how does what is said on the front page help you at all?
The guy said, "absolutely not, the R&D would be prohibitive and we’re not going to do it. Our solution is dual boot."
If anything, that goes against on what you believe.
The guy said, "absolutely not, the R&D would be prohibitive and we’re not going to do it. Our solution is dual boot."
If anything, that goes against on what you believe.
I still doubt it. If I were Apple, I wouldn't want to have to deal with the issues of supporting Windows and Windows apps. Better to leave that up to a small company like Parallels.MacRumorUser said:
B
'Get A Mac' advertising campaign, The fact that apple are promoting Parallels rather than their Bootcamp kind of goes against that idea though doesnt it.
Why would they suddenly promote dualboot again after already deserting it and adopting parallels for their campaign ?
Dual Booting / having to sort out drivers is not the easy - it just works - solution Apple products generally have come to embody. That's why I dont think they will really put that forward. Whereas Parallels does fit that Apple premise to a tee.
It helps my case, because it shows Apple Really Does Need a software application like Parallels, especially if they are not going to support virtualization out of the box in os X.5
Parallels could be a very lucrative Apple product, and remember it's their staff and skills that Apple will be taking on. The fact that they now have ruled out virtualization in 10.5 suggests to me that they havent the great deal of expertise of developers on staff in that area, and therefore the talents of the Parallels staff would be a VERY good proposition & aquisition for apple.
By buying out Parallels or coming to an exclusive agreement, Parallels can still work mostly independantly from Apple, but with the extra finance, R&D and most important of all
MARKETING BUDGET to really push its Product to be the same recognition as FCP or Logic....
Why would they suddenly promote dualboot again after already deserting it and adopting parallels for their campaign ?
Dual Booting / having to sort out drivers is not the easy - it just works - solution Apple products generally have come to embody. That's why I dont think they will really put that forward. Whereas Parallels does fit that Apple premise to a tee.
It helps my case, because it shows Apple Really Does Need a software application like Parallels, especially if they are not going to support virtualization out of the box in os X.5
Parallels could be a very lucrative Apple product, and remember it's their staff and skills that Apple will be taking on. The fact that they now have ruled out virtualization in 10.5 suggests to me that they havent the great deal of expertise of developers on staff in that area, and therefore the talents of the Parallels staff would be a VERY good proposition & aquisition for apple.
By buying out Parallels or coming to an exclusive agreement, Parallels can still work mostly independantly from Apple, but with the extra finance, R&D and most important of all
MARKETING BUDGET to really push its Product to be the same recognition as FCP or Logic....
Nah, I read their swich from Boot Camp to Parallels in the ads as "Phew! We don't need to support that dual boot stuff, let the little guys take the heat for a while."MacRumorUser said:
The drivers are mostly provided by Intel and ATI, and are made for non-Macs too...
B
