This Question is Possibly Answered
1 "correct" answer available (10 pts) 2 "helpful" answers available (6 pts)
I doubt you would even see a hint of any product announcements like that here. 
Apple unfortunately is your biggest hinderance here not VMware.
So many future things are unknown such as Apple's plans for virtualization, e.g. adopting Intel VT chips, embedding a hypervisor, and OS X-x86 running virtualized on Apple hardware so other OS's could run as virtualized domain peers.
Even as a straightforward App on OS X, Player implementing all the features such as virtualized device drivers, network bridging, etc is quite an investment on an entirely new OS, which itself is currently beta.
Finally if Apple starts with its mini line as the first x86 boxen it will be some time before a decent install base of x86 customers exist to use Player.
Apple unfortunately is your biggest hinderance here not VMware.
So many future things are unknown such as Apple's plans for virtualization, e.g. adopting Intel VT chips, embedding a hypervisor, and OS X-x86 running virtualized on Apple hardware so other OS's could run as virtualized domain peers.
Even as a straightforward App on OS X, Player implementing all the features such as virtualized device drivers, network bridging, etc is quite an investment on an entirely new OS, which itself is currently beta.
Finally if Apple starts with its mini line as the first x86 boxen it will be some time before a decent install base of x86 customers exist to use Player.
I am afraid this is just FUD. Head over to
http://developer.apple.com/ and take a look at the
specs - the design, architecture and specification of
the machines is all there for developers to ingest
and get cracking with. Nothing Apple does between now
and the Intel Mac launch is going to stop you from
writing software for the platform.
OS X is not in beta and it is not 'entirely new'. If
you care to look at ADC and opendarwin you will see
that ports for x86 have been around since year dot.
Apple themselves have said that for every PPC OS X
release, there has been an internal x86 build - the
same in all respects.
I believe Richard was referring to the current x86 platform Developer Release being in Beta. To this point, he is correct. And, furthermore, Apple made MAJOR changes between the 10.4.1 Dev build and the 10.4.2 Dev build which broke ALL apps. If that doesn't constitute "change" and "unstable" I don't know what does!http://developer.apple.com/ and take a look at the
specs - the design, architecture and specification of
the machines is all there for developers to ingest
and get cracking with. Nothing Apple does between now
and the Intel Mac launch is going to stop you from
writing software for the platform.
OS X is not in beta and it is not 'entirely new'. If
you care to look at ADC and opendarwin you will see
that ports for x86 have been around since year dot.
Apple themselves have said that for every PPC OS X
release, there has been an internal x86 build - the
same in all respects.
VMware's strength lies in virtualizing x86 platform hardware. I'm fairly certain that they are keeping close watch on the Apple move to the x86 platform, and will most likely write a version of Workstation which will run on an OSX x86 host. I seriously doubt they would spend all the resources necessary to develop a version for the (dying) PPC platform. Of course, all of this paragraph is my own opinion/best guess and not any official VMware statement...
Rob
There's not much concrete I can say here, but I can make a couple of general
comments:
- We can never publicly discuss any upcoming product plans ahead of time.
- It is not very likely that we would pursue any products on the PPC (or any
other non-x86) platform at this time.
- Apple's move to x86 is obviously something we find interesting, and we are
definitely keeping an eye on it. Support for OS X as either a host or guest
OS are both theoretical possibilities, although a lot may depend on the way
Apple sets up the hardware requirements for OS X on x86. For example, if
Apple cripples OS X on x86 to only run in the presence of certain proprietary
hardware, that could present technical and/or legal challenges to supporting
OS X as a guest OS.
- Obviously, even if it becomes technically possible to support OS X, there are
a lot of factors involved and thus there's no guarantee that we will end up
doing so.
Hope that's at least partially helpful.
comments:
- We can never publicly discuss any upcoming product plans ahead of time.
- It is not very likely that we would pursue any products on the PPC (or any
other non-x86) platform at this time.
- Apple's move to x86 is obviously something we find interesting, and we are
definitely keeping an eye on it. Support for OS X as either a host or guest
OS are both theoretical possibilities, although a lot may depend on the way
Apple sets up the hardware requirements for OS X on x86. For example, if
Apple cripples OS X on x86 to only run in the presence of certain proprietary
hardware, that could present technical and/or legal challenges to supporting
OS X as a guest OS.
- Obviously, even if it becomes technically possible to support OS X, there are
a lot of factors involved and thus there's no guarantee that we will end up
doing so.
Hope that's at least partially helpful.
I think you're onto something here with ESX. As ESX creeps into the Citrix space, having the ability to host a bunch of OSX VM's for the graphics team is something that could sell a lot of OSX *software*. Plus the IT team doesn't have to worry about supporting another hardware platform. Hey if it was a good idea with Openstep (and it was), why are we about to be forced into buying locked x86 whiteboxes just to run this OS ? It's the interface the users care about, not the box under the desk. And the guys who *do* care what's inside the box (I'm talking about you there with the liquid-cooled dual-processor desktop rig keeping your room heated , would like the ability to pick out the best components and upgrade them at a faster pace that Apple would likely set.
Back on topic I still have a good working VM of OpenStep 4.2. I'm not sure if the statute of software limitations has passed yet, but if it has I'd be willing to donate it to whatever archive of VM's is being collected for VMware Player use.
CD
, would like the ability to pick out the best components and upgrade them at a faster pace that Apple would likely set.Back on topic I still have a good working VM of OpenStep 4.2. I'm not sure if the statute of software limitations has passed yet, but if it has I'd be willing to donate it to whatever archive of VM's is being collected for VMware Player use.
CD
