Rob Teichman wrote:
> You guys are forgetting that this Intel chip was built from day 1 with
> virtualization in mind, so it should "scream". I would think you could even
> have 1 core running one environment and the other core running a second
> environment
These statements assume you are running a hypervisor that takes
advantage of the hardware-assisted virtualization support. The VT-x or
Pacifica specs do nothing by themselves without a lot of extra support.
The support I'm talking about is what Xen coins as 'paravirtualization.'
Apple has made zero mention of a hypervisor but I wouldn't doubt there
is one hidden in there or in the works. In other words, it's not their
top priority.
Of the hypervisors on the market, none run on OS X: Xen 3.0 runs on
certain Linux distros, Parallels runs on Windows, VMware ESX 3.0 beta
runs on bare metal. Microsoft's hypervisor is said to be in development
on a timeframe likely in the Longhorn Server timeframe (your guess here).
Then...even with a hypervisor, running OS X in VM there are the issues
of what the virtualized hardware looks like to OS X, e.g. EFI vs. BIOS,
2D video vs ATI X1600, what NIC, and finally virtualized access to the
Trusted Platform Module. This is the sort of the opposite of running
Windows on EFI.
What's really needed short-term are ports of OS-on-OS virtualization to
OS X like VMware Workstation, Mac-on-Mac, and our favorite: VPC.
My guess is that an open-source offering will be first, then one or
several of the commercial offerings. This could also be an entirely new
opportunity as there is definitely demand for this.
>> Stay informed about: My dream come true?