I wonder if I can do something like this with VMware player and Ubuntu.
You can get close, but forget about the gaming. The thing that makes VMWare Fusion so exciting is that you can combine it with Boot Camp. Basically you would install Windows on a separate partition on the Mac Pro and dual-boot, the same way you would with Linux. If you need to play a game seriously, you reboot into Windows, and it runs Windows directly on the hardware at full speed for your gaming action. However, while you are running OSX, you can still run the applications on that very same Windows partition via the VMWare. Supposedly it can run DirectX9 games. Even if the performance on them is weak, you have 8 cores and a high end video card backing you up.
I'm going to check the return policy on this stuff. This is a situation where I would love to try before I buy.
Just so everyone knows, Apple's return policy is crap. If you make a custom order in any way, you can't return it unless it's DoA. Since I want the Nvidia video card instead of the ATi, that's the end of that. Also, even if you can return something, you can't return it if it is opened. I'm going to probably go to the Apple Store in a few weeks after all the crazies who buy whatever is going to be announced at MacWorld this week have cleared out. I will make a decision after I see with my own eyes the games running in VMWare Fusion.
Just so everyone knows, Apple's return policy is crap. If you make a custom order in any way, you can't return it unless it's DoA. Since I want the Nvidia video card instead of the ATi, that's the end of that. Also, even if you can return something, you can't return it if it is opened. I'm going to probably go to the Apple Store in a few weeks after all the crazies who buy whatever is going to be announced at MacWorld this week have cleared out. I will make a decision after I see with my own eyes the games running in VMWare Fusion.
They do, but if you get it that makes it a "custom" order, so you can't return it. Doesn't matter, since as soon as you open the box, you can't return it either.
Don't quote me on this (as it's been over a year since I've worked at the Apple Palisades Store) but we used to keep a bunch of video cards (read as "very few that apple authorizes") in stock at the store. You could buy it and then have the genii (or who ever the have doing it) install it for you. Granted this is basically the same as if you had just ordered the thing yourself, as you don't get a price cut on the card.
Although, thinking back, sometimes Apple does release "custom" higher end models in the retail stores just because they tend to be popular (use used to have a higher end version for the 17" MacBook Pro with the high end video card that wasn't offered standard config on the Apple website). It never hurts to ask if they have something like that available. Plus then its not a "custom" SKU number and therefore available for the return policy (although open box does mean a 10% restock fee, to which they apply and let people by "open box" computers for that 10% off). They have the same warranty that an unopened box has, so you don't lose any time on it and you get the same model just "open". those are called "refreshed" (instead of refurbished) and you might want to ask them what is available at their and other stores. great way to save a bunch of cash.
10% restock fee is basically the same as non-returnable because 10% of $3,000 is $300. I just want to try out the machine before I buy it because so much hinges on how well the VMWare Fusion performs and such.
A interesting loophole that I don't know if they've cleared up with the newer POS software: Refreshed items, if returned, didn't have the 10% applied to them as they had already been discounted. Again I haven't worked there in over a year so not sure if that is still the case. But never hurts to ask "I know there's a 10% return policy on open boxes... Does that apply to already open box purchases?" If so then you can do the testing you need. and then even possibly return it for whatever model you wanted.
Another thing to try out is typically there is at least one machine that has the dual booting/virtualization preloaded on the floor. If you ask someone on the floor they can point it out to you. Then you can mess about. Not the full stressing you'd like but a possible indicator. In my day it was Parallels (w/Boot Camp). They may have moved over to VMWare at this point.
Well, I'm still going to go to the store to check it out, but I think it's game over. In the forums on VMWare's website people are saying that Orange Box games do not work. Looks like I'll be waiting at least another year on this.
Apple seems to have a great handle on hardware. The Mac Pro, the iMac, and the Macbook Pro are all, in my opinion, at the top of their class as far as hardware. Obviously, you can save money by custom-building, but for premade systems, the Dells of the world can't compete.
Where they often fall short is the software. I'm sure there are a lot of people out there who love OS X and every piece of software Apple makes, but for me, someone looking for maximum power and versatility in a computer, I prefer Windows and Linux, and all of the software commonly available to both.
If the octocore can handle intensive applications (read: games, especially Steam) under virtualization, then things start to look very different. OS X is fine enough as a host OS.
Though I have observed that Direct X game performance is nigh-intolerable under Parallels, but, to be fair, I was running it on a laptop with a mere Core 1 Duo with so-so graphics. It was probably about half as good as a similar-specced system running Windows natively.
I've also had nothing but trouble getting Steam to work in Parallels (Vista), but again, we're talking about Parallels, not VMWare, and of course Vista. I doubt Steam even works in native Vista.
Yet another reason the Mac Pro might not be the best idea. Sure, this particular problem only applies to people who have the preview Mac Pro. However, this same sort of thing will apply in the future as well. Apple might let you open the Mac Pro and fiddle with the insides, but you are totally at Apple's mercy as to whether a particular piece of hardware will work or not. At least with Linux you can wait and hope. With Apple, it's yes or no. If I shell out $3000, I'd like to be able to upgrade it any way I please. Even with VMWare, if OSX doesn't support the hardware, it won't work.
Also, I just realized something yesterday when the power supply failed in my co-worker's Dell desktop. It was easy to determine that the PSU was the most likely broken part, but there was a non-zero chance that it was the power button itself that was broken. I wanted to test the power button to see if it was working. Here's how this works.
On most motherboards there will be two metal pins next to each other. A power button typically has two wires coming out of it that connect to these two pins. When you push the button, it completes the circuit and that tells the motherboard that the power button is being pressed. If you think your power button is broken, you can just unplug the button. Then find the two pins on the motherboard and connect them with some conductive material, like the tip of your screwdriver. If the machine powers on, you have determined the power button itself is broken.
On the Dell this simple test is not possible. You see, the power button on the Dell is connected to a circuit board at the front of the case. This board also houses the front USB slots, LEDs, headphone holes, etc. This front panel board is connected to the motherboard via a single ribbon cable with many pins. There is no way to know which pins are which. There is no way to diagnose problems with any of the equipment on that front board. It is not possible to put the motherboard in a case without that same front panel. It basically just sucks.
It is small departures from open hardware standards that leave a bad taste in my mouth when it comes to pre-built PCs.
This is the reason I like eMachines. While they are undeniably pieces of crap, they're standardized pieces of crap. So when something breaks, and something is pretty much guaranteed to, pop over to newegg and it's up and running again in a few days.
I would like to see this idea work, but I think you may find more machines are better than more cores in one machine. You still are going to be limited because there is only one system bus right? How many disks are we talking about? How much RAM? You use more electricity, but I think 3 or 4 dedicated machines will work much better.
My example: DualCore Laptop: Work, Web, E-Mail, some gaming, and other various tasks. DualCore Desktop: Gaming, Web, iTunes, sync phone and iPod. DualCore HTPC: DVR, Media Server, Web Server, MySQL, and downloads.
I can SSH into the HTPC and setup downloads, dink with the web server, MySQL or whatever, I can use VNC too if I need to. I can use a terminal client (Windows remote desktop) to get to the desktop if I need to. The only time I'm at the gaming PC is when I update my iPod or Phone, or I'm playing a game. The only time I'm "at" the HTPC is when I'm watching TV or a Movie. I've got plenty of storage on my laptop so I mirror my iTunes folder, so I can update my iPod even when I'm not at home. I still end up booting into Vista on my Laptop to play games, but that is such a singular use, when I've got time to game I just switch OS's no big deal. Then get back to Linux when I'm done.
In the forums on VMWare's website people are saying that Orange Box games do not work. Looks like I'll be waiting at least another year on this.
The most recent thing I was able to find in VMWare's forums is from 2 months ago. I'm interested to know if you saw something more recent than that. As far as I can tell, Fusion is still on version 1.1, but it's been a few months so I'm curious if there's been any advancements since then.
The most recent thing I was able to find in VMWare's forums is from2 months ago. I'm interested to know if you saw something more recent than that. As far as I can tell, Fusion is still on version 1.1, but it's been a few months so I'm curious if there's been any advancements since then.
I don't know any more than you do. I only know what Google can find. If anyone finds out differently, then this situation might change.
Thaed, that computer is a server. You can't even get Vista or XP on it; you need some form of Windows/Linux Server. But the idea of 48GB RAM and over 9 TB storage makes me pee my pants a little bit. I struggle to understand why they include a 56k modem as an option.
Speaking of servers, I ordered parts for a new one today. With my success in building a FreeNAS based box, I'm going to try to build another one using 4 1 TB drives in RAID 5. If it works, I'll finally be able to put all my data in one place. Oh and I also ordered a metric butt-ton of Cat 6 cable to try to help increase the speed of my supposedly gigabit network. Goodtimes are ahead! I decided to wait on building a new quadcore flagship machine, perhaps as late as until May.
I'd still like to see the raw data on a Mac Pro running various applications in VMWare or Parallels.
I've run into one snag on my MBP: I can only share half of the video RAM (64 MB), which is below the minimum on many games. Also, the virtual graphics card, for some reason, doesn't have Pixel Shader 2.0, though the chip does. Then again, it's an older laptop.
Still, the idea that you'd have to buy basically double the graphics card, CPU, and RAM to play a game is a little disturbing. Not that I'm huge on high-requirements PC games (like Crysis, Assassin's Creed, etc), but certainly medium-requirements games like Steam shouldn't require the kind of hardware usually reserved for stupid $6000 gamer pc's.
However, the Mac Pro still offers the attractive option of a single, powerful, slick machine to use for all stationary computing needs (workstation and server). It's not like I can buy a similar, linux-running, OEM machine that can do everything from gaming to development and server applications.
For my part, I'm sick of building computers myself, and having to deal with their inevitable failures myself. It costs more, and you get less bang for your buck, but I'm starting to like the idea of offloading an entire machine onto the OEM when it breaks, and the idea of having a machine in a configuration that's been exhaustively tested by the manufacturer.
But the proof's in the pudding. If a Mac Pro with 4 graphics cards (that's the only way to get 1 GB video RAM) and 8 cores can't outperform my current, el-cheapo dual-core at games, then games are right out.
And, as far as I'm concerned, once games are out, you can go much lower on the price for a good unix+windows workstation or server. Which is where I am now anyway.
Perhaps I can convince my brother to run some benchmarks. He's got a brand-new octocore for his business. I'm not terribly hopeful that games will do well virtualized, but it's a better hope than Steam on OS X.
Kenjura. A Mac Pro running VMWare might not work so well for games, but that's a fault more of VMWare, and it's supposedly improving constantly. However, if you're willing to reboot, boot camp will run the games full-on.
Next year when I get a new phone, I will probably also get a new computer. At that time I will reexamine this situation.
You make a good point. I often forget about Boot Camp, since it's less than ideal on a MacBook Pro (driver issues cause it to overheat and waste power).
I'm just impressed that virtualization has gotten that far. At the same time, I'm less impressed that there's no solid effort to bring Wine or something similar to the Mac. With a little bit of configuration, I've been able to get linux to run Windows games just fine without virtualization, with equal or sometimes better performance. Doesn't seem like it'd be too hard to duplicate on OS X.
Doesn't seem like it'd be too hard to duplicate on OS X.
The problem is the virtualization of the video card. The copy of windows that runs inside of vmware only sees the "fake" hardware that is created by vmware, and it uses vmware drivers. The vmware video driver needs to be updated to support all the DirectX action, and it needs to do a good job of passing that along to the real video driver in OSX. Right now the DirectX9 support is experimental. I'm sure they are working on it, and it will only get better.
I'm so waiting for Windows programs to run seamlessly and at full speed in Mac OS X. Looking at how far virtualization has come the last year(s), my dream might come true in the near future.
Amarok: there's something I wish people would stop bragging on. That piece of software is one of the main reasons I rarely boot into Ubuntu. I like being able to simply and easily keep my podcasts up to date on my ipod, and that is one thing I can't do under Ubuntu. That and the fact that I ruined my Ubuntu install by updating to 7.10 from 7.04. As it turns out, while my sli config was a pain to set up under 7.04, its impossible to use under 7.10. Under 7.04, I had to set up my video config manually, but after that, it just worked. Under 7.10, it "kind of" worked, really worked after I manually configured it, then refuses to work after a system restart. Go figure. And I LUST after those Mac Pros...
Amarok: there's something I wish people would stop bragging on. That piece of software is one of the main reasons I rarely boot into Ubuntu. I like being able to simply and easily keep my podcasts up to date on my ipod, and that is one thing I can't do under Ubuntu. That and the fact that I ruined my Ubuntu install by updating to 7.10 from 7.04. As it turns out, while my sli config was a pain to set up under 7.04, its impossible to use under 7.10. Under 7.04, I had to set up my video config manually, but after that, it just worked. Under 7.10, it "kind of" worked, really worked after I manually configured it, then refuses to work after a system restart. Go figure. And I LUST after those Mac Pros...
The problem here is that you have SLI. Way to waste money.
Comments
I'm going to check the return policy on this stuff. This is a situation where I would love to try before I buy.
Although, thinking back, sometimes Apple does release "custom" higher end models in the retail stores just because they tend to be popular (use used to have a higher end version for the 17" MacBook Pro with the high end video card that wasn't offered standard config on the Apple website). It never hurts to ask if they have something like that available. Plus then its not a "custom" SKU number and therefore available for the return policy (although open box does mean a 10% restock fee, to which they apply and let people by "open box" computers for that 10% off). They have the same warranty that an unopened box has, so you don't lose any time on it and you get the same model just "open". those are called "refreshed" (instead of refurbished) and you might want to ask them what is available at their and other stores. great way to save a bunch of cash.
Another thing to try out is typically there is at least one machine that has the dual booting/virtualization preloaded on the floor. If you ask someone on the floor they can point it out to you. Then you can mess about. Not the full stressing you'd like but a possible indicator. In my day it was Parallels (w/Boot Camp). They may have moved over to VMWare at this point.
Apple seems to have a great handle on hardware. The Mac Pro, the iMac, and the Macbook Pro are all, in my opinion, at the top of their class as far as hardware. Obviously, you can save money by custom-building, but for premade systems, the Dells of the world can't compete.
Where they often fall short is the software. I'm sure there are a lot of people out there who love OS X and every piece of software Apple makes, but for me, someone looking for maximum power and versatility in a computer, I prefer Windows and Linux, and all of the software commonly available to both.
If the octocore can handle intensive applications (read: games, especially Steam) under virtualization, then things start to look very different. OS X is fine enough as a host OS.
Though I have observed that Direct X game performance is nigh-intolerable under Parallels, but, to be fair, I was running it on a laptop with a mere Core 1 Duo with so-so graphics. It was probably about half as good as a similar-specced system running Windows natively.
I've also had nothing but trouble getting Steam to work in Parallels (Vista), but again, we're talking about Parallels, not VMWare, and of course Vista. I doubt Steam even works in native Vista.
So I'm very interested in the results.
Also, I just realized something yesterday when the power supply failed in my co-worker's Dell desktop. It was easy to determine that the PSU was the most likely broken part, but there was a non-zero chance that it was the power button itself that was broken. I wanted to test the power button to see if it was working. Here's how this works.
On most motherboards there will be two metal pins next to each other. A power button typically has two wires coming out of it that connect to these two pins. When you push the button, it completes the circuit and that tells the motherboard that the power button is being pressed. If you think your power button is broken, you can just unplug the button. Then find the two pins on the motherboard and connect them with some conductive material, like the tip of your screwdriver. If the machine powers on, you have determined the power button itself is broken.
On the Dell this simple test is not possible. You see, the power button on the Dell is connected to a circuit board at the front of the case. This board also houses the front USB slots, LEDs, headphone holes, etc. This front panel board is connected to the motherboard via a single ribbon cable with many pins. There is no way to know which pins are which. There is no way to diagnose problems with any of the equipment on that front board. It is not possible to put the motherboard in a case without that same front panel. It basically just sucks.
It is small departures from open hardware standards that leave a bad taste in my mouth when it comes to pre-built PCs.
My example:
DualCore Laptop: Work, Web, E-Mail, some gaming, and other various tasks.
DualCore Desktop: Gaming, Web, iTunes, sync phone and iPod.
DualCore HTPC: DVR, Media Server, Web Server, MySQL, and downloads.
I can SSH into the HTPC and setup downloads, dink with the web server, MySQL or whatever, I can use VNC too if I need to. I can use a terminal client (Windows remote desktop) to get to the desktop if I need to. The only time I'm at the gaming PC is when I update my iPod or Phone, or I'm playing a game. The only time I'm "at" the HTPC is when I'm watching TV or a Movie. I've got plenty of storage on my laptop so I mirror my iTunes folder, so I can update my iPod even when I'm not at home. I still end up booting into Vista on my Laptop to play games, but that is such a singular use, when I've got time to game I just switch OS's no big deal. Then get back to Linux when I'm done.
Also, it looks like Dell has something similar:
I've run into one snag on my MBP: I can only share half of the video RAM (64 MB), which is below the minimum on many games. Also, the virtual graphics card, for some reason, doesn't have Pixel Shader 2.0, though the chip does. Then again, it's an older laptop.
Still, the idea that you'd have to buy basically double the graphics card, CPU, and RAM to play a game is a little disturbing. Not that I'm huge on high-requirements PC games (like Crysis, Assassin's Creed, etc), but certainly medium-requirements games like Steam shouldn't require the kind of hardware usually reserved for stupid $6000 gamer pc's.
However, the Mac Pro still offers the attractive option of a single, powerful, slick machine to use for all stationary computing needs (workstation and server). It's not like I can buy a similar, linux-running, OEM machine that can do everything from gaming to development and server applications.
For my part, I'm sick of building computers myself, and having to deal with their inevitable failures myself. It costs more, and you get less bang for your buck, but I'm starting to like the idea of offloading an entire machine onto the OEM when it breaks, and the idea of having a machine in a configuration that's been exhaustively tested by the manufacturer.
But the proof's in the pudding. If a Mac Pro with 4 graphics cards (that's the only way to get 1 GB video RAM) and 8 cores can't outperform my current, el-cheapo dual-core at games, then games are right out.
And, as far as I'm concerned, once games are out, you can go much lower on the price for a good unix+windows workstation or server. Which is where I am now anyway.
Perhaps I can convince my brother to run some benchmarks. He's got a brand-new octocore for his business. I'm not terribly hopeful that games will do well virtualized, but it's a better hope than Steam on OS X.
Next year when I get a new phone, I will probably also get a new computer. At that time I will reexamine this situation.
I'm just impressed that virtualization has gotten that far. At the same time, I'm less impressed that there's no solid effort to bring Wine or something similar to the Mac. With a little bit of configuration, I've been able to get linux to run Windows games just fine without virtualization, with equal or sometimes better performance. Doesn't seem like it'd be too hard to duplicate on OS X.