Dual Boot windows and OSX on intel-based macs

[elninojesus]

So Apple says that you'll be able to install windows on an Intel based Mac but you wont be able to install OSX on any PC (big suprise). You'll also be able to run Windows in a virtual PC environment at full speed. In the audio world this still seems pretty cool. Imagine being able to instantly switch between platforms for Windows only stuff. That may be optimistic but there are definatly some pretty cool possibilities.



Mark

[theblue1]

You'll also be able to run Windows in a virtual PC environment at full speed.

Your mileage will vary.


The wildly credulous media is still parroting the bs about Rosetta translation being undetectable and 'instantaneous.'

And, that couldn't be a whole lot farther from the truth. (Benchmark abstracts from thinksecret.com.)


Speaking of which, I just spent an hour or so of quality time reading through an analysis of the Dual 2.5 GHz Power Macs, some really interesting benchmarks, and an analysis of reasons why OS X Server performance falls apart under load with typical apps like MySQL and Apache, and a whole lot of insight into the architectural wonders of the PowerPC 970FX: No more mysteries: Apple's G5 versus x86, Mac OS X versus Linux

[streetbeats]

Originally Posted by theblue1

Your mileage will vary.


The wildly credulous media is still parroting the bs about Rosetta translation being undetectable and 'instantaneous.'

And, that couldn't be a whole lot farther from the truth. (Benchmark abstracts from thinksecret.com.)


Speaking of which, I just spent an hour or so of quality time reading through an analysis of the Dual 2.5 GHz Power Macs, some really interesting benchmarks, and an analysis of reasons why OS X Server performance falls apart under load with typical apps like MySQL and Apache, and a whole lot of insight into the architectural wonders of the PowerPC 970FX: No more mysteries: Apple's G5 versus x86, Mac OS X versus Linux

I dont think he's talking about Rosetta, which involves translating PPC code to run on Intel architecture.

I think hes talking about running native windows apps in a virtual PC with no processor translation needed...

[elninojesus]

Exactly, no emulation needed to run Windows.



Mark

[theblue1]

Well, when you do that, make sure you also boot up Windows in native mode to see what it can do, huh? (I realize that would prevent switching from OS X into virtualized Windows on the fly.)

Emulations -- even those now owned and developed by Windows own maker, MS -- run slow.

ThinkSecret is reporting that developer tests of Rosetta show disappointing performance, as little as about a 1/3 what one would expect from a Mac in native mode -- and worse, in cases where there are floating point operations (spreadsheets, some games, some video/photo processing, audio processing, etc.)


[ADDENDUM: I think I was out of sequence in my response, here. I tend to dawdle over writing my posts. Sometimes I'm behind the conversational flow -- as I appear to be, here.]

[stag]

Interesting thougth. elaborate more, please.

[streetbeats]

Originally Posted by theblue1

Emulations -- even those now owned and developed by Windows own maker, MS -- run slow.

Only when having to translate between architectures.

If I run VMWare or VPC on a Windows host on x86 architecture, I can run Linux or a.n.other OS compiled for x86 at near full speed - no translation between architectures is necessary.

If I run the same on a PPC architecture based host then translation IS necessary and yes it would run relatively slowly.

[XHipHop]

if this really works out, it'd be awesome to run different windows only programs on my mac and not have to have 2 computers in my control room.

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by streetbeats

Only when having to translate between architectures.

If I run VMWare or VPC on a Windows host on x86 architecture, I can run Linux or a.n.other OS compiled for x86 at near full speed - no translation between architectures is necessary.

If I run the same on a PPC architecture based host then translation IS necessary and yes it would run relatively slowly.

You may have something there -- but Linux is a VERY different beast than OS X or Windows.

At any rate, it would certainly be worth a fairly big performance hit to be able to quickly task switch between OS's, at least for casual uses.

If that worked well, it would, indeed, really be something.