From: "Rich Gauszka" 

It looks like Apple is now pushing Parallels in it's ads.

http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/07/07/windowsmac/index.php

The productivity issue might help explain some aspects of Apple's new ads.
In its new "Get a Mac" campaign, the "Touche" ad
promotes Parallels, rather than Boot Camp, as an option for people who want
to run Windows on their Macs. It further promotes Parallels on its
"Get a Mac - Run Windows" promotional page. Wolf, who had not
seen the page prior to speaking with Macworld, says that while he thinks
there is much to be said for dual booting, he was glad to see the company
pushing Parallels.


"Robert Comer"  wrote in message
news:44b28345$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Bummer!
>
> --
> Bob Comer
>
>
>
>
>
> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
> news:44b2827c{at}w3.nls.net...
>> It looks like Apple just squashed the rumors of built-in virtualization
>> for their upcoming Leopard release
>>
>> http://www.macrumors.com/
>> Specifically, Wolf asked Phil Schiller about Apple's plans for
>> incorporating "virtualization" software in the next
version of Mac OS X
>> (Leopard):
>> [Phil Schiller] said 'absolutely not, the R&D would be prohibitive and
>> we're not going to do it. Our solution is dual boot.'
>>
>>
>>
>> "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
>> news:44a6ec53$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> One thing you can bet on is it will come, but how quick I don't have any
>>> idea on when for the Mac.  (Windows getting it is a for sure as well)
>>>
>>> --
>>> Bob Comer
>>>
>>>
>>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
>>> news:44a6c798$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>> There are rumors of virtualization built into OSx 10.5 Leopard.
>>>> Unfortunately we won't know for sure till Jobs does his
show and tell
>>>> in August.
>>>>
>>>> Right now there are just the rumors ( will Apple acquire Parallels?,
>>>> develop their own? , .....)
>>>>
>>>> http://www.applematters.com/index.php/section/comments/1226/
>>>>
>>>> "/m"  wrote in message
>>>> news:7fcda29fim1h5thebqt9q6jurmnvenn7e6{at}4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sat, 1 Jul 2006 12:25:49 -0400, "Robert Comer"
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>That's based on the Linux based
"emulator" by Codeweavers.  I really
>>>>>>wouldn't put it in the emulator or virtualization
camp, it's pretty
>>>>>>basic
>>>>>>and limited in what it can run.  Think of how Wine
runs in Linux and
>>>>>>you get
>>>>>>the picture.  Personally, I wouldn't bother with
this one and go for
>>>>>>something like VMWare when it comes out. (I don't
know how the
>>>>>>Parallels
>>>>>>product works.)
>>>>>
>>>>> I look at Wine as a Windows API emulator, not a CPU
emulator; and I
>>>>> agree with you regarding Wine vs. CPU emulators and VMs.   I'm
>>>>> planning
>>>>> to go with VMs.  Your comments here (on this, and many
other threads)
>>>>> have shown me the light regarding the usefulness of
VMs. (thanks, btw)
>>>>>
>>>>> For now, I am unfortunately comfortable with the
configuration I have:
>>>>> media stuff on OS-X, most everything else on W2K. 
Anything new I
>>>>> start
>>>>> to do goes on OS-X.  Eventually, the move of the W2K
environment to an
>>>>> OS-X VM will occur.   Not sure when that will happen, this is
>>>>> bicycling
>>>>> season in these parts and any spare time is spent
pedaling my butt up
>>>>> and down the hills of southwestern Connecticut.  :)
>>>>>
>>>>> /m
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5