The Mac Observer

Skip navigational links

DealsOnTheWeb Daily Deal: J&R Computerworld.com: Free Shipping on TVs 42" and Under - Extended

Just a Thought - Visualizing Apple Virtualization

by

- May 26th, 2006

You know, waaaaay back when computers ran MVS and UNIX, and computer makers had names like IBM, Honeywell, Univac, and Burroughs, virtual systems and thin clients were the normal way of doing business. Of course, we didn't call them virtual systems and thin clients, mainframes had terminals (dumb terminals usually) and Unix systems ran X-Servers and connected to X-Stations.

X-Stations were a lot closer to what we think of as thin clients today, these terminals could display graphics, deliver sound (usually no more than beeps and clicks, but such was the state of technology back then), and had advanced user interfaces. Colorful windowed screens, multiple user sessions, and multitasking were the work environment back then. In fact, much of what you can do on today's Linux and Unix systems you could do 10 (or more) years ago on X-Stations.

One huge advantage of working virtual in today's thin clients, as well as X-Stations of yore, is whenever a station died a user could simply replace it or move to another station, log back in, and start working again. X-Stations were relatively cheap so there were plenty around to replace the occasional misbehaving terminal.

Today, if your PC dies (See inset for Vern's Crash Theorem), you are pretty much screwed unless you were smart enough to back your data up, and even if you did you might not recover everything. In a robust virtual environment you could pour root beer over your thin client an hour before your deadline, and pick up where you left off on another station. The only thing you'd lose is the time it took for you to find another station.

Speaking of losing data, back then, losing data to malware was unheard of. Those big iron systems had decent security and ran continuously, all day, everyday, 365 days a year, and access was always available, often even during system maintenance. System uptimes were measured in months, and there were true stories of servers running, untouched and un-crashed, for years. It was a great way to run a business, and it was all made possible by virtualization.  

I should explain that there are several definitions that can be applied to the term 'virtualization', but in this instance it means the ability to access one or more operating systems and the applications that run on them. I'll also add the notion that this access can be done in parallel, where two or more OSes are available for use at the same time, or in tandem, locally or from a distance, such as from a thin client.

The PC nearly put an end to the virtual desktop; small, fast processors and a wealth of useful 'personal' applications, and the promise of a reduced IT overhead made PCs the must-have systems in business, and that carried over into personal use.

Now virtualization and thin clients, after several false starts, are making a major comeback. Mactels, with their dual processor engines, seem to be the perfect platform on which to run 2 or more OSes. With applications like Parallels Workstation and Boot Camp, and with the rumored inclusion of built-in virtualization components in the next release of OS X (10.5, codename; Leopard), Apple seems to be embracing the notion that OS X can, and should be, run anywhere.

Consider, for instance, what the Intel version of Apple's pro desktop lineup and servers might be like. If 64-bit processors are used, and if the rumors are true that virtualiztion component are in OS X 10.5, then it is conceivable that Apple could be readying a new class of computers, one that makes use of virtualization in the sense that IBM did with its UNIX and X-Stations. 

In other words, in conjunction with the release of the new pro desktop and servers, Apple could also offer us under-powered devices running a subset of OS X meant to be used while away from home or office. Upon returning, your 'MacBook mini' would bind itself to the Mac or Windows desktop or server you have running in a computer room somewhere. You can then log in and run a OS X or Windows virtual desktop, via a thin client, using the full power of the server. Any data or files that were changed while you were away, be it on your MacBook mini or on the server, gets synced automagically.

Virtual nirvana.

Apple, known for innovation and its ability to take existing ideas and breathe new life into them (USB, Bluetooth), might be readying such a system even as we speak. Of course, I'm only hypothesizing, but consider this:

  • The new MacBooks are very nice, but they are not lightweights; at 5.2 pounds (2.36 kg), MacBooks are portable, can't compete with Windows-only UMPCs in weight and compactness.
  • Intel has also proposed versions of the Ultra-Mobile PC, but one of its versions comes with a keyboard, which I believe is a must for any truly usable business device.
  • Intel makes the graphics chip set in the Mac mini and MacBooks, this same chip set, along with the processors that power the UMPC, could be more than more than enough to give the MacBook mini processing horsepower to let you work while away from your home domain, and graphic horsepower to let the MacBook mini act as a fully capable thin client once you are at home or in the office.
  • Just as the Mac mini provided a means of Mac ownership for those looking for a low cost solution so would this MacBook mini become an inexpensive portable solution, and becomes the basis for a revitalized way to use computer resources.

Such a system would be embraced by small businesses if Apple marketed them as turn-key business systems similar to how it markets turnkey scientific server systems. If they package a server preloaded with business software licensed for multiple users and  2 or 3 MacBook minis, and suddenly Apple is into small business in a big way.

There is a possible dark side to all of this wholesome virtual goodness, however; Virtualization also means that my fictitious MacBook mini could connect to servers running Windows XP or, eventually, Vista. Owners of regular Macs and MacBooks wanting access to Windows apps could just as easily fire up XP, either from Boot Camp or in parallel.

The problem is that Windows is still susceptible to all manner of malware, and could be the perfect avenue to introduce digital nastiness into OS X. All it would take is one virus or trojan horse infecting shared resources, hard drives especially, and not only will your virtual Windows die, but so may your virtual OS X. Even malicious code that has been neutralized by Windows virus scanners may be made to leave a little some-some that might affect OS X.

After maintaining a virus-free record for so long, Apple could find that virtualization circumvents any security measures it might have in place and makes Macs PCs equals in the worse way. No matter how it becomes infected, once a virus is loose in OS X, Apple's reputation for providing a malware-free OS in OS X will be lost forever, and that is one of the Mac's main selling points.

Of course, all of this is dependent on which path Apple will take with the pro desktops and servers. It is my opinion that Apple needs to do something ratchet up high end sales. On the other hand, embracing virtualization in any form may be too risky.

We'll just have to wait and see.

is a writer who currently lives in Orlando, FL. He's been a Mac fan since Atari Computers folded, but has worked with computers of nearly every type for 20 years.

You can send your comments directly to me, or you can also post your comments below.

Most Recent Columns From Just A Thought

The Just A Thought Archives

Observer Comments

Show: Subjects Only | Full Comments
Close Name:Guest
Subject: Definitely Possible

I totally agree with you about the feasibility. I like the idea of Apple allowing other OSes to run via "virtualization" with the same limitations of Classic to give switchers a way to run their proprietary apps and slowly migrate to OS X just like the OS 9 folks did. If so many folks switched due to boot camp, I can see that number exploding if Apple does virtualization which would be much more popular than buying a third-party product (a la Parallels) to hope it might be half as nice as what Apple could do.

Close Name:JonGl Posts: 113 Joined: 12 Jan 2006
Subject: Feasible, but not likely

And also, why would someone put up with a subset of X when they could have the whole thing? This is what makes the UMPC so tempting to so many people--a handheld computer with full desktop capabilities... _that_ is the holy grail for many people--and I think, myself included. What I would like to see, however, is not OS X on the handheld, but an optimized OS X on the handheld, more like the Newton, in fact. It wasn't the OS, per se, about the Newton that I love (still have and use my last one--2100) but its the perfect handheld, pen-based OS. It would be even cooler if the OS could be optimized for finger use, as well as stylus use. _this_ would beat a thin client any day! Now, take this home, plug in a keyboard, and the handheld features are hidden, plug in a monitor, and the small-screen features are hidden, and you have the full-blown desktop. This is what will (and I say will, not "would") make the future "thin" client the killer. AIMOO (all in my own opinion), of course.

Close Name:Mikuro Posts: 457 Joined: 15 Jun 2002
Subject: Virtualization vs. virtualization

I don't see how these two definitions of "virtualization" have anything to do with each other. Is there some technical aspect I'm missing?

It seems like there's been nothing stopping Apple from doing a mini-terminal setup at any point in the last 5-10 years or so. So my question is, why now? Why does the "virtualization" of running two OSes on the same machine change anything? It doesn't seem to me like terminals/"thin PCs" (that's a new term to me, so forgive me if I'm out of touch) use that kind of virtualization at all — they just communicate with a remote machine that does the gruntwork, right?

Semantics aside, I think both types of virtualization would be great.

Close Name:Guest
Subject: Re: Virtualization vs. virtualization

Quote
Mikuro wrote:
I don't see how these two definitions of "virtualization" have anything to do with each other. Is there some technical aspect I'm missing?

It seems like there's been nothing stopping Apple from doing a mini-terminal setup at any point in the last 5-10 years or so. So my question is, why now? Why does the "virtualization" of running two OSes on the same machine change anything? It doesn't seem to me like terminals/"thin PCs" (that's a new term to me, so forgive me if I'm out of touch) use that kind of virtualization at all — they just communicate with a remote machine that does the gruntwork, right?

Semantics aside, I think both types of virtualization would be great.


I agree that there has been nothing technically that prevented Apple from making a thin client, at least not since the introduction of OS X, however, there really was no good reason to do it either.

If you'll remember the Internet Appliances of a few years back you'll recall that the state of technology then was good enough to allow them to be made, but not good enough to let them be popular. That's because people were not getting enough bang for their buck.

You were tied by wires and cables and could only do a few things (email, surfing, maybe one or two other things).

Now, a thin client that doubles as a mobile device makes it worth trying, and it is compelling enough for people to see value in it.

As for the definitions; Yes, but also remember that it could connect to several remote machines, each running a different OS (in Unix I could connect to a Sun, HP-UX, AIX, and others, on mainframes it might connect to VM/CMS or MVS). There's really nothing different today in concept, except that now, the different OSes might run on the same server.

Vern Seward

Close Name:Intruder -   TMO Mac Specialist Posts: 3149 Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Subject:

The old Mac Classic was designed to also be used as a thin client, which is why it also had a full system (6.0.3) in ROM. Could then be operated as a drive-less system by holding down cmd-opt-x-o at boot.

Not sure if anybody ever did it, though.

Close Name:Guest
Subject: complete nonsense

have to agree with Mikuro. They are talking about 2 totally different things here.

If you have 4 OS's in virtualization on your mac and it fails, the you have lost 4 operating environments. What good is virtualization then? I still dont have the options for logging in at another terminal.

Running a thin client like an X-station has been an option for a long time and the change to intel hasnt opened up any new options, its just a different processor.

great technologies, both of them, just shouldnt be in same article.

Close Name:Guest
Subject: Re: complete nonsense

Quote
Anonymous wrote:
have to agree with Mikuro. They are talking about 2 totally different things here.

If you have 4 OS's in virtualization on your mac and it fails, the you have lost 4 operating environments. What good is virtualization then? I still dont have the options for logging in at another terminal.

Running a thin client like an X-station has been an option for a long time and the change to intel hasnt opened up any new options, its just a different processor.

great technologies, both of them, just shouldnt be in same article.


That you can run mutiple OSes on a Mac is a side issue relevent because, instead of having separate servers for each OS, you can now run them on one. The thin client is the main point.

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make about the OSes on a Mac that crashes; it doesn't matter whether you are using the server locally or remotely, or whether it has multiple OSes on it or not, if it crashes, it crashes.

The benefit is in using a thin client; if it crashes then you just move to another, as I've explained.

Am I missing something?

Vern Seward

Close Name:hangtown Posts: 112 Joined: 03 Dec 2005
Subject: Re: complete nonsense

Quote
Anonymous wrote:
If you have 4 OS's in virtualization on your mac and it fails, the you have lost 4 operating environments. What good is virtualization then? I still dont have the options for logging in at another terminal.


1. You do have backups?

2. Honestly, how often does your mac "fail" or crash?

Quote

Running a thin client like an X-station has been an option for a long time and the change to intel hasnt opened up any new options, its just a different processor.


For people working at home with one mac, who need to or want to use multiple oses, the thin client idea doesn't seem like a real good solution.

They both have distinct uses where they are better than the other option and also uses where they are not as suitable as the other.

Close Name:VSeward -   TMO Staff Posts: 972 Joined: 28 Jun 2001
Subject: Re: complete nonsense

Quote
hangtown wrote:
For people working at home with one mac, who need to or want to use multiple oses, the thin client idea doesn't seem like a real good solution.

They both have distinct uses where they are better than the other option and also uses where they are not as suitable as the other.


Normally, I'd agree with you, there really is not compelling reason to want a thin client at home, unless you want to work out on the patio while your Mac is inside. I think the big difference is the alternate use of the thin client; it doubles as a mobile device.

There still may not be a lot of use for such a device initially, but I think Apple could make a case for selling Macs in a whole new wa; by shifting the profits to servers (or boxes that act like servers) and selling these small MacBook-minis. The core system (server) would support services for the home users (music, movies, games, and more) that users might pay monthly or yearly for. Sort of like .Mac on steroids.

The real profits would be allowing other vendors to sell services through .Mac. That revenue stream could be a lot more stable.

As long as Apple can maintain an easy to use, secure environment, and if they can figure out a way to make Mac ownership cheaper, such as with the MacBook mini I propose, then they could stand to make tons of money, and actually threaten Big Redmond.

At least, I think so.

Vern Seward

Comment on this Article


You cannot edit your comments.   You cannot delete your comments.
Log in | Register | Having Problems? Reset TMO Cookies & Try Again
Username:   Password:   Log me on automatically each visit   

You are not logged in, and this post will appear as "Guest." Log in with your username and password from the TMO forums. If you do not have a username, you can register here.
Please note that guests are limited to including a maximum of two URLs per post.


Post A Comment
  Subject


  Your Comments



Please enter the word exactly as you see it in the image above. Registered users aren't prompted for this. Having trouble reading the image get a new one.


Recent Headlines - Updated Saturday, November 29th, 2008

Sat., 9:00 PM
Podcast - Apple Weekly Report #135: Apple Lawsuits, Banned iPhone Ad, Green MacBook Ad
Fri., 12:45 PM
Podcast - Mac Geek Gab #178: Batch Permission Changes, Encrypting Follow-up, Re-Enabling AirPort, and GigE speeds
Thu., 1:30 PM
iPO Review - Scosche kickBACK iPhone case
7:00 AM
Happy Thanksgiving from TMO!
Wed., 6:00 PM
TMO Appearances - Nancy Gravley Joins MacJury Gift Guide
5:15 PM
TMO Visits The Bay, a Premium Apple Reseller in New Zealand
3:25 PM
iPO Oh the Games You'll Play - iPhone: The Wii of Handheld Gaming Devices?
2:15 PM
Sonnet Releases Simply Fast FireWire 800 to 400 Adapter
1:10 PM
Mac Gaming News - Disney Plans 1st Annual PotC Online Thanksgiving Event
12:05 PM
iPodObserver - UK Shuts Down iPhone 3G Ad
11:15 AM
TMO Appearances - Jeff Gamet on MacJury Gift Guide
10:30 AM
TMO Contest - TMO Announces Macworld Expo Pass Winners
9:50 AM
PhotoCopy 1.1 Adds iPhoto Event Support
9:15 AM
Acclivity Buys MYOB US
8:30 AM
Review - Bento 2 Holiday Pack
7:50 AM
Microsoft Offers Black Friday Office Discount
7:30 AM
iPO Quick Tip - iPhone: Google Street View
 

The Mac Observer Reader Specials

Apple Stock Quote

  • AAPL: $95.91. Change Today: +3.44.
  • (Prices delayed up to 20 minutes.)
  • Discuss in our Apple Finance Board

Hot Topics

Top Deals From DealsOnTheWeb