Intel iMac disassembled...

[belvdr]

Um... I think you aren't grasping the point. It doesn't matter that VPC only emulates a P3. On an Intel Mac, it won't have to emulate anything. It also won't have to "support" DirectX.

Windows, Direct X etc... will all run natively on the Intel Processor and directly support the hardware. It won't have to "emulate" Direct X, it will be _running_ Direct X.

arn

Running any of the newer games means having DirectX available. It can try to run DirectX all it wants, but if it doesn't have direct access to a video card, then it does no good. Virtual PC 2004 only emulates an 8MB video card, which cannot support anything graphically intensive.

I agree that the native instruction set is there, but you're still not going to see anywhere near native speeds of the processor in a VPC environment.

 

[AidenShaw]

On an Intel Mac, it won't have to emulate anything.

This is subject to debate.

The virtual processor seen by the virtual machine is not identical to the real processor - so strictly speaking it is an emulated processor.

A few x86 instructions actually do need to be emulated, but most are processed directly by the real processor.

But only Apple fans get into heated debates about whether VMware/VirtualPC/VirtualServer or whatever "emulates" the CPU.

Windows, Direct X etc... will all run natively on the Intel Processor and directly support the hardware. It won't have to "emulate" Direct X, it will be _running_ Direct X.

Sorry, arn, but you got this one wrong.

The virtual machine sees an emulated S3 Trio card, no DirectX. The first pic is the VM, the second is the host machine. Big difference.

 

[arcsbite]

 

[arn]

Running any of the newer games means having DirectX available. It can try to run DirectX all it wants, but if it doesn't have direct access to a video card, then it does no good. Virtual PC 2004 only emulates an 8MB video card, which cannot support anything graphically intensive.

I agree that the native instruction set is there, but you're still not going to see anywhere near native speeds of the processor in a VPC environment.

See below....

Sorry, arn, but you got this one wrong.

The virtual machine sees an emulated S3 Trio card, no DirectX. The first pic is the VM, the second is the host machine. Big difference.

These screenshots from Windows VPC? Hmm... guess I'm wrong with the current VPC. But is there a technical limitation in preventing Windows from "taking over"?

arn

 

[AidenShaw]

These screenshots from Windows VPC? Hmm... guess I'm wrong with the current VPC. But is there a technical limitation in preventing Windows from "taking over"?

Not impossible, just quite a bit of work.

Currently, VMMs (Virtual Machine Monitors) emulate a physical graphics card - with VGA mode, boot support, ... Currently in VPC, that's an old S3 Trio.

Any O/S with a VGA driver (which would be virtually every x86 O/S), or an off-the-shelf Trio driver, can run.

The off-the-shelf driver treats the device as a real S3 card, handling interrupts, filling the frame buffer, everything completely standard. The VMM, underneath, takes these manipulations and translates them into higher level graphics ops for the real card (for example, when the VM moves some pixels into the frame buffer - the VMM figures out what the emulated device was told to do, extracts the pixels from the emulated frame buffer, and then sends them on as a driver call to do an update to a region of the window). The real graphics driver then moves the pixels to the real frame buffer.

When you install the VM support s/w (VM Additions for Microsoft, VMware Tools for VMware), it will also load a modified version of the driver (note the string "VM Additions S3 Trio 32/64" in the thumbnails) that bypasses some of the low-level stuff for better performance. In this case, maybe the "write region of frame buffer" is sent directly to the VMM as a special message, and the VMM sends it on to the real graphics driver. This would avoid the step of the VMM having to figure out what's happening in the emulated frame buffer - speeding things up.

To do something like DirectX, you'd need to do either:

- emulate a DirectX capable 3D card (d'oh). This could be done as true emulation, or with a special driver that directly passes the hardware-level DirectX commands to the VMM (like the frame buffer example)

- replace the standard DirectX (and/or OpenGL) libraries in the VM with special VM-aware DirectX libraries. These could pass the high-level DirectX calls through the VMM to the real DirectX libraries on the host - bypassing all the emulation.

Apparently, no one has come up with a monetary justification to do all the work that either of these solutions require.

Note, however, that VMware has made a first step, with unsupported Direct3D in VMware 5.5 (http://www.vmware.com/support/ws5/doc/ws_vidsound_d3d.html).

 

[ender78]

Looks like someone told a lot more than "a little white lie". Booting Windows at least in a dual boot scenario should be as easy as pie. I went over to a local Mac dealer's shop and tried to see if I could get Vista to install. We unfortunately had little progress. I took a copy of both Windows Media Center Edition [MCE] and Build 5270 of Windows Vista and none will boot. I found some instructions on the osx86project.org forums that suggested
using "bless"

http://forum.osx86project.org/index....c=6956&st=100#

I have followed those instructions , best I can with no luck. The copy of MCE that I found has no EFI or BOOT directories while Vista does. I played around with some of the paramaters for boot volumes and files and had no luck.

Booting with 'c' 'd' 'option' keys pressed does NOT work.

Shame on you Apple for saying that you will not stop anyone from running windows. If such as the case, I should have been able to nuke my OS X partition [should I have chosen to, I of course never would] and install Windows Vista.

I'm also surprised that as of yet, no one has gotten Windows to install on the iMac. I know a lot of people are still waiting for their machines but one would think that someone had gotten it to work already and such news would have gone around the web.

VPC is a future option. I do want the ability to run Windows XP/VISTA nativetly on the hardware with no emulation layer. VPC or emulation will suit the average user that has a Windows application that is not graphic or processor intensive but Windows power users will need dual boot.

 

[mdavey]

Shame on you Apple for saying that you will not stop anyone from running windows. If such as the case, I should have been able to nuke my OS X partition [should I have chosen to, I of course never would] and install Windows Vista.

They did also say that they wouldn't do anything to expressly make it work, either. It is probably simply a matter of flashing the EFI with a version that includes the specific modules that Vista needs. Of course, doing so will probably invalidate your warranty and I suspect that Apple will be dissuading authorised resellers from undertaking such mods.

All of which leaves Vista-on-Mac in pretty much the same DIY boat as Linux. Probably not a bad thing.

 

[GuyClinch]

a few comments..

1) Yes the interior matters? Why? Better airflow, cooling, and upgradability. That's why it's hard for people who build their own PC's to go to a Mac. With the right set up you have VERY easy access to your computer and can upgrade every part of it at will. How apple cripples your upgradability - it's so 1984.

Personally I would pay $500 bucks to run the MacOS on my PC - but alas I don't really have that choice. If you want an apple you get stuck with inferior hardware.

You really DON'T want to have to take your hardware to your "apple dealer" with a good easy to access PC anyone can EASILY fix and upgrade their system without much trouble. Many PC cases now feature tooless designs and more. Why pay all that money when you don't have to?

2) These iMac things are like overgrown notebooks and I don't think it's fair to expect the same good looks you do out of a regular machine.

3) Some PCs DO have VERY NICE interiors. You have to pay for it though - either through work or doing it yourself. While the G5 Powermac was nice (at least the first ones) with a nice Lian-Li case and good cabling you can put together a great looking system. Or you can buy one from a premium PC builder. And no Dell is not a premium builder they are a high volume company.

Pete

 

[belvdr]

See below....

These screenshots from Windows VPC? Hmm... guess I'm wrong with the current VPC. But is there a technical limitation in preventing Windows from "taking over"?

arn

Apologies for going through the roof on those last posts. It's been a long weekend for work, and I'm getting crazy without sleep.

I noticed today that VPC 2004 emulated/possessed/whatever a P4 when I launched NetBSD. It's weird, because I would have sworn it said P3 on my laptop.

I wonder if it has to do with the fact that I have a P4 in my desktop (where VPC emulated a P4) and a Pentium-M in my laptop (where it emulated a P3).

Geez, now I'm confused.

 

[AidenShaw]

I wonder if it has to do with the fact that I have a P4 in my desktop (where VPC emulated a P4) and a Pentium-M in my laptop (where it emulated a P3).

More likely that your version of VPC didn't know exactly how to decode the processor type reported by the Pentium-M, and decided to call it a P3.

Software is usually much more concerned with the capabilities reported by the CPU (does it have SSE/SSE2/SSE3) than by worrying about displaying a description that matches the current marketing model name for the CPU. I've seen Pentium M systems that some software says is a "Pentium Pro", and other software on the same system says "Pentium 4". It's just a mistake in mapping the hardware ID to the marketing name.

 

[generik]

I'm also surprised that as of yet, no one has gotten Windows to install on the iMac. I know a lot of people are still waiting for their machines but one would think that someone had gotten it to work already and such news would have gone around the web.

VPC is a future option. I do want the ability to run Windows XP/VISTA nativetly on the hardware with no emulation layer. VPC or emulation will suit the average user that has a Windows application that is not graphic or processor intensive but Windows power users will need dual boot.

Well when VT based Macintels become more common we probably won't need "dual boot" anymore, why bother? Just boot Windows in VPC at near native speeds!

Of course.. if Darwine and Transgaming Mac become more mature, it will be time to SERIOUSLY look at MacOS

 

[AidenShaw]

Well when VT based Macintels become more common we probably won't need "dual boot" anymore, why bother? Just boot Windows in VPC at near native speeds!

This is possible today without VT - just look at Virtual PC (for Windows) or VMware.

Both of those do a good job of running code at "near native" speeds. (And both have extra overhead for I/O and simple graphics (no h/w 3D supported).)

And, btw, VT implementations put VT under all the O/S, so you'd have both OSx86 and Windoows running in virtual machines above the VT layer.

 

[arcsbite]

 

[Counterfit]

1) Yes the interior matters? Why? Better airflow, cooling, and upgradability.

Upgradability has never been a major selling point of iMacs (especially the G4s). And there are other ways to cool a computer than with huge open spaces. Look at F1 cars, very very restricted internally, but they manage to keep the engines cool.

Well, at speed anyway, it's a little hard to keep air flowing through the radiators without fans...