Comments on: Why Hasn’t Apple Acquired Parallels? http://www.psynixis.com/blog/2007/06/08/why-hasnt-apple-aquired-parallels/ Simon Brocklehurst's Technology Blog Sun, 23 Nov 2008 10:28:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: simon http://www.psynixis.com/blog/2007/06/08/why-hasnt-apple-aquired-parallels/#comment-70721 simon Fri, 08 Jun 2007 16:02:13 +0000 http://www.psynixis.com/blog/2007/06/08/why-hasnt-apple-aquired-parallels/#comment-70721 Well, I have no idea if ZFS will be the default file system in Mac OS X (and that's not what I took from Jonathan's presentation). I guess, if Apple can get their port working well enough, it will be the default. If it doesn't, it won't. There's nothing <i>intrinsic</i> about ZFS that makes it "unsuitable" as a consumer file system though, I don't think. It's easy to confuse particular implementations with intrinsic properties - and I've seen a lot of people doing that in recent months. I believe that Apple has written a pretty nice GUI on top of ZFS that makes it rather easy to use (consumers don't like command line interfaces). I'd expect Apple to do something interesting in the home storage area if their ZFS implementation is up to scratch, 'cos it opens up some pretty interesting opportunities for large-scale (multi-TB) storage in the home. Well, I have no idea if ZFS will be the default file system in Mac OS X (and that’s not what I took from Jonathan’s presentation). I guess, if Apple can get their port working well enough, it will be the default. If it doesn’t, it won’t.

There’s nothing intrinsic about ZFS that makes it “unsuitable” as a consumer file system though, I don’t think. It’s easy to confuse particular implementations with intrinsic properties - and I’ve seen a lot of people doing that in recent months. I believe that Apple has written a pretty nice GUI on top of ZFS that makes it rather easy to use (consumers don’t like command line interfaces).

I’d expect Apple to do something interesting in the home storage area if their ZFS implementation is up to scratch, ‘cos it opens up some pretty interesting opportunities for large-scale (multi-TB) storage in the home.

]]> By: Asam Bashir http://www.psynixis.com/blog/2007/06/08/why-hasnt-apple-aquired-parallels/#comment-70701 Asam Bashir Fri, 08 Jun 2007 15:11:39 +0000 http://www.psynixis.com/blog/2007/06/08/why-hasnt-apple-aquired-parallels/#comment-70701 PS, didn't hear your views on the slip up by Schwartz publicly stating ZFS+ is option on Leopard, http://www.sun.com/jsp_utils/rvideo.jsp?video=74cd4547-01df-440b-823d-48878ae34c73 We've known that ZFS+ was an option since it was showing up in options (although it was disabled) but the confusion at the moment is if it will be the default file system as stated by Schwartz or just an option. Making it default would cause problems with consumers we think and not Apple style to make such a huge jump as opposed to slow phasing in like the HFS to HFS+ and journeled systems. But as an option, sure to please a lot of sysadmins in Enterprise.... PS, didn’t hear your views on the slip up by Schwartz publicly stating ZFS+ is option on Leopard,

http://www.sun.com/jsp_utils/rvideo.jsp?video=74cd4547-01df-440b-823d-48878ae34c73

We’ve known that ZFS+ was an option since it was showing up in options (although it was disabled) but the confusion at the moment is if it will be the default file system as stated by Schwartz or just an option. Making it default would cause problems with consumers we think and not Apple style to make such a huge jump as opposed to slow phasing in like the HFS to HFS+ and journeled systems. But as an option, sure to please a lot of sysadmins in Enterprise….

]]> By: Asam Bashir http://www.psynixis.com/blog/2007/06/08/why-hasnt-apple-aquired-parallels/#comment-70691 Asam Bashir Fri, 08 Jun 2007 14:42:27 +0000 http://www.psynixis.com/blog/2007/06/08/why-hasnt-apple-aquired-parallels/#comment-70691 Quake 4.exe in Parallels, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWU4DTOP9ys Quake 4.exe in Parallels,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWU4DTOP9ys

]]> By: Asam Bashir http://www.psynixis.com/blog/2007/06/08/why-hasnt-apple-aquired-parallels/#comment-70689 Asam Bashir Fri, 08 Jun 2007 14:36:34 +0000 http://www.psynixis.com/blog/2007/06/08/why-hasnt-apple-aquired-parallels/#comment-70689 Parallels is the clear winner for consumer solutions, but VMWare and Crossover not doing a bad job for enterprise and gamer markets respectively. Virtualization is very advanced and very healthy on the Mac OS X platform.... Parallels is the clear winner for consumer solutions, but VMWare and Crossover not doing a bad job for enterprise and gamer markets respectively. Virtualization is very advanced and very healthy on the Mac OS X platform….

]]> By: Asam Bashir http://www.psynixis.com/blog/2007/06/08/why-hasnt-apple-aquired-parallels/#comment-70688 Asam Bashir Fri, 08 Jun 2007 14:34:34 +0000 http://www.psynixis.com/blog/2007/06/08/why-hasnt-apple-aquired-parallels/#comment-70688 Parallels v 3 is screaming, support for Direct X and Open GL acceleration. It's really is an amazing product that screen shots will not give justice to, you have to see it in action, especially in Windows coherence mode where you loose the Windows desktop and just get the .exes in floating windows. The reason Apple hasn't bought Parallels is simple, it would strain it's relationship with Microsoft. It would have to deal directly with Microsoft and negotiate bundling of Windows products. Apple has to keep up very good relations with Microsoft and the MacBU, ensuring continued development of Office. If Parallels was integrated into the core of Leopard, then what would stop Microsoft using the argument that its Office.exe product would work fine in Leopard so why bother developing a Mac OS X version. MS is a monster that needs to be treated with caution, it could turn rabid at anytime. Jobs had to be very diplomatic in the recent interview with Walt Mossberg, you can imagine what Jobs is thinking behind the scenes but he had to grit is teeth and play the part, http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid452319854/bctid958634947 Full hour and half interview video available as 1 GB download in iTunes, http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=256972720 Parallels v 3 is screaming, support for Direct X and Open GL acceleration. It’s really is an amazing product that screen shots will not give justice to, you have to see it in action, especially in Windows coherence mode where you loose the Windows desktop and just get the .exes in floating windows.

The reason Apple hasn’t bought Parallels is simple, it would strain it’s relationship with Microsoft. It would have to deal directly with Microsoft and negotiate bundling of Windows products. Apple has to keep up very good relations with Microsoft and the MacBU, ensuring continued development of Office. If Parallels was integrated into the core of Leopard, then what would stop Microsoft using the argument that its Office.exe product would work fine in Leopard so why bother developing a Mac OS X version.

MS is a monster that needs to be treated with caution, it could turn rabid at anytime.

Jobs had to be very diplomatic in the recent interview with Walt Mossberg, you can imagine what Jobs is thinking behind the scenes but he had to grit is teeth and play the part,

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid452319854/bctid958634947

Full hour and half interview video available as 1 GB download in iTunes,

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=256972720

]]>