Apple's Snow Leopard Completely Blows It Virtually

Summary: Without Virtualization, Mac OS X will always be relegated to being "a contenda".

Built-in Hypervisor-based virtualization and paravirtualizized kernels are  now de rigueur  with every major x86-based enterprise OS on the planet, including on Linux, on all major UNIX OSes, and even on Windows Server. But on Mac OS X Snow Leopard, it's nowhere to be found.

I have said on numerous occasions that Apple has missed the boat when it comes to enterprise adoption. This is sad, really, when you consider how good an operating system Mac OS X really is, in that it is the only UNIX-based OS that really could have had any chance in displacing the status quo of Windows and Microsoft hegemony in large enterprise environments with a "full stack" for end-user acceptance as a desktop OS. Consumers may enjoy its niche status, but In the enterprise, Apple is a "Coulda Been" contender of unfulfilled potential.

Click on the "Read the rest of this entry" link below for more.

On the server side, if enterprises aren't running Microsoft-based infrastructure, it's Linux, which is now displacing traditional UNIX-based infrastructure. Linux now has the upper hand for scalable enterprise applications and is assuming its position as the new "mid-range" OS, but only because it is an open system which will run on all kinds of hardware and now has legions of developers who have completely bought into the Open Source ecosystem.

But had Mac OS X Server been able to run on commodity hardware when the company switched over to x86 architecture four years ago back in June of 2005, things might have turned out very different, as evidenced by just how many Open Source developers in large companies now use Macs as their desktop systems of choice. They may very well use Linux to deploy their applications in the data center, but when it comes down to what they like to use on their own desktops, Mac reigns. That's a nice little niche it has, but unfortunately for Apple, it's still only just a niche.

It seems that Apple is very good at missing key opportunities with their flagship OS. My colleague Robin Harris wrote about at length today in regards to where he feels Mac OS X Server and Desktop missed the boat with Snow Leopard -- the Zettabyte File System (ZFS). ZFS, which originally was developed by Sun Microsystems and is now part of the Solaris 10 and OpenSolaris operating systems, would really have allowed Mac OS X to outshine Linux in terms of storage scalability, reliability and performance for both consumers and enterprises.

For reasons unknown, Apple has dropped ZFS from both desktop and server versions of Snow Leopard. Could it have anything to do with Sun's and Solaris' uncertain future at Oracle? Does Apple know something that we don't? Did talks break down between Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison when it came down to licensing the code? Maybe, but unless Apple says why this highly anticipated feature was pulled from the OS, we'll never know.

However, while Robin thinks that storage was a major letdown in Snow Leopard, I think where Apple really blew it was in Virtualization, particularly with not shipping OS X Server or Desktop with a free hypervisor or making one available for download. I mean, come on, even Microsoft is shipping an enterprise-class hypervisor now, Hyper-V, for free, and it doesn't even require buying a copy of their OS to use it. Redhat and Novell have also had built-in virtualization (Xen and KVM) in their current OS releases, RHEL 5.x and SLES 10/11 for some time now.

Not only is Apple completely behind its competitors in terms of offering a hypervisor with their OS, but Mac OS X in and of itself is a non-player in terms of being able to integrate itself into existing virtual infrastructure. Case in point, every major version of Linux and Windows in use today can be easily paravirtualized to run as a high-performance virtual machine on VMWare ESX, any number of implementations of Xen, and on the KVM hypervisor built into the Linux kernel.

Windows 7, which isn't even available in retail channels yet, and Windows Server 2008 R2 are both paravirtualized and fully optimized out of the box to run on Microsoft's own Hyper-V, and getting either of these to run smoothly on VMWare ESX is a non-issue, as paravirtualized VMWare Tools for Windows have been updated to support them. When both of these OSes are released to customers for enterprise deployment, enterprise virtual infrastructure will be ready for them. Snow Leopard, not so much.

Right now, only one hypervisor and paravirtualization solution exists for Mac OS X, and it's sold by Parallels. Now, given how far behind Apple is in the virtualization game, it would behoove them to purchase Parallels and adopt their hypervisor, but even I don't see how this is going to help them in the long run.

For Mac OS X to gain any inroads in the datacenter and to get any mind share in the Virtual Server and Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI) space, Apple will have to get their OS running on commodity blades from the major datacenter players -- IBM, HP and Dell -- and on the predominant hypervisors -- VMWare, Hyper-V and Xen -- or face permanent "contenda" status in the enterprise. I just don't see enterprises perceiving any value in bringing in pricey, esoteric XServe hardware to run in its own silos/islands when they already have existing or planned investments in standardized VMWare or Hyper-V virtual infrastructure. Like Hermey the Misfit Elf, Mac OS X just won't fit in.

I suspect, however, Apple will have to solve these problems sooner, if not later. With their plans of a 500,000 square foot data center in North Carolina emerging, they're going to have to do something to maximize density and floor space if they are going to become a leading citizen of the cloud.

Has Apple blown it with virtualization on Snow Leopard? Talk Back and Let Me Know.

Topics: Apple, Hardware, Linux, Open Source, Operating Systems, Servers, Software

About

Jason Perlow, Sr. Technology Editor at ZDNet, is a technologist with over two decades of experience integrating large heterogeneous multi-vendor computing environments in Fortune 500 companies. Jason is currently a Technology Solution Professional with Microsoft Corp. His expressed views do not necessarily represent those of his employer.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

298 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Run in virtual environment would be nice

    "Right now, only one hypervisor and paravirtualization solution exists
    for Mac OS X, and it?s sold by Parallels."

    And VMWare's Fusion?

    Importantly both used on Mac desktops to run other OSes.

    As long as Apple restricts OS X Server to Apple hardware there's little
    use for Apple virtualization host support (hardware not powerful
    enough for large scale hosting environments, typically single customer
    installations, Mac server proliferation not an issue).

    Being able to create a Mac OS X Server instance in popular virtualised
    environments would be attractive.
    Richard Flude
    • and SunXVm too

      "Right now, only one hypervisor and paravirtualization solution exists
      for Mac OS X, and it?s sold by Parallels."

      another option is SunXVm
      pupkin_z
      • Xvm VirtualBox

        is not a hypervisor. It's host-based virtualization like Parallels Workstation (not Parallels Server) and it cannot run virtualized instances of Mac OS X. XvM Server, which is a Xen implementation which runs on Solaris, cannot run Mac OS X as a paravirtualized guest.
        jperlow
    • Repeat after me 10,000 times....

      Apple is the only hardware manufacturer that just happens to make their
      own operating system. Why should they allow their OS to run on other
      people's hardware? Enterprise users will generally not buy hardware
      from a single source anyway. That is why they are concentrating on
      users in education, consumers and small businesses. They are all more
      amenable to buying their stuff from a single maker.
      arminw
      • Huh?

        "Enterprise users will generally not buy hardware
        from a single source anyway."

        So what explains the 3000 Dell desktops / laptops and 700 HP servers in the last three places I've worked?
        wrightdonw
      • And General Motors is the only company that makes cars...

        "Apple is the only hardware manufacturer that just happens to make their own operating system."

        What about HP and HP-UX? HP and NonStop OS? IBM and AIX? IBM and zOS? Sun and Solaris?
        914four
    • Mac OS X Server no advantage over Linux or Windows Servers

      Apple's GUI experience for Mac OS X is a
      distinct advantage when aimed at consumer
      market users. However, in a server context, its
      basically irrelevant. We run app servers of
      various stripes on servers. A web interface
      access is usually sufficient. Or in some cases
      a specialized console that can admin a cluster
      of servers in a unified manner. No one really
      wants to waste time logging into a server and
      deal with it via the desktop UI.

      Servers get treated in a headless fashion for
      the most part - and even more so as we're
      moving more and more to cloud computing. The
      Mac GUI is not an asset here. From any other
      perspective of Mac OS X, it's just another
      variant of a Unix OS. So if I'm basically
      dealing with a Unix-like OS, Linux is plenty
      Unix-like.

      I don't ever foresee that Apple could forge an
      enterprise uptake for Mac OS X of any
      significance. If they want to do enterprise,
      concentrate on enterprise cloud management
      tools that run on their client-side GUI. But
      even there folks are tending to prefer server management UIs that are accessible from
      anywhere (securely) via their ubiquitous web
      browser. With Adobe Flex is possible to develop
      enterprise server management UIs that deliver a
      rich desktop software experience and still run
      in a browser. So Adobe (Flex) and Microsoft
      (Silverlight) already have Apple cornered even
      on this angle.
      rogerv
  • RE: Apple's Snow Leopard Completely Blows It Virtually

    I think there is a lack of understanding of Apple's goals
    here. Mac OS can run perfectly fine on commodity
    hardware from Dell, etc. they just purposely prevent it
    from doing so. (Check out all the "Hackintosh" OS X boot-
    loaders if you don't believe me).

    Something I learned long ago in marketing class is that big
    brands don't want to be too successful, as it dilutes their
    image and reduces the premium they are able to charge. If
    everyone wore Prada every day, it wouldn't be a special
    brand anymore, and they wouldn't be able to command the
    same price premium. Apple is very similar to that in a
    way, and so their goal is to grow to an optimal size to
    make enough profit, but not so large that they lose their
    image of "Exclusivity".

    Another (technical) aspect is that one of the reasons OS X
    works so well is because Apple has tight control of the
    hardware. This would evaporate if it could run on
    thousands of different models of computer.

    Finally, Windows Para-virtualization isn't all it's cracked up
    to be. It doesn't work with many products, and nobody can
    make their own kernel since it's not open-source.

    Microsoft's Hyper-V is also a niche player mainly used at
    shops who drink Microsoft's cool-aid in abundance.
    Likewise Linux's built-in solutions are useful for certain
    things, but not everything. Anyone who is serious about
    doing large scale virtualization uses VMWare, which is
    available for Mac OS. Unfortunately, the version that's
    available is not what would be good for server use.
    shiruba
    • Exactly

      And who do you suppose is to blame for that? I'm looking at Vmware...
      darthstupid
      • RE: Blaming VMWare

        If there was a great clamoring for Mac OS X support on VMWare, I think they'd provide support, they're a company, so providing what the customer demands is in their best interest. If Apple isn't supported on VMWare, and VMWare isn't interested in making the effort because there's not enough demand, then the responsibility falls on Apple to push/help/cajole VMWare to support them. Maybe Apple isn't interested in being supported, as discussed in earlier posts, which is their right. However, if they want support from VMWare, and VMWare doesn't see the motivation to do so, then it falls to Apple to move the ball.
        branchman67
        • Correction

          In this article http://www.infoworld.com/d/mac/why-even-it-pros-are-demanding-macs-969: it is discussed why some IT pros have migrated to the Apple platform, however, virtulization is the big thing, and if Apple does not get on board, whatever in roads it has made into the enterprise environment will soon be lost.

          Update:http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-17924-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=68512&messageID=1307982
          xXSpeedzXx
          • infoworld

            they are a apple coolaid drinker just like you.
            rparker009
          • yawn

            Stick to discussing the issues instead of personal attacks.
            darthstupid
          • Sigh

            Funny how those who accuse others of drinking the Apple Kool-Aid are
            usually wearing MS blinkers!

            If the best you can come up with in support of your own prejudices is to
            put down the competition, then you are amply illustrating just how
            threadbare your position is.
            rahbm
        • Not VMWare's Fault, Apple's to the Power Core! ;)

          Back when Apple abandoned IBM's Power Architecture, they couldn't foretell the future w/ IBM's breakthrough in on chip dram memory technology (now on Power7 eight core chips). Both IBM and AMD have been sharing technology and perhaps AMD will benefit from on chip edrams with speeds/size that dwarf Intel's present on chip memory state. But now Apple's future depends on Intel's and they are quite frankly now far out of the future technology loop. IBM has raised the bar by co-operating within corporate development alliances where no single corporation can develope alone, what many can do together.

          So for Enterprise and Servers, it's going to be IBM as King of the Hill for quite some time. Mainly because of the size of the on chip memory of it's competitors and leakage they haven't been able to plug. When you can put 32+ MB of high speed edram onboard your multicore processors, you have a x86 killing machine w/ it's RISC based simple instruction sets (along with Ringbus and superior neural networking technologies)! :D

          It's now being incorporated onto Cell BE as well w/ it's new architecture benefits. The next Roadrunner Super Computer being developed by IBM (for Military) will have Cell BE Multicores and Power7 Multicores in a hybrid configuration. They will DWARF Roadrunner's 1.8 PFLOPS!

          With these developments, X86 future roadmap does indeed have a Dead End sign laying in the way! ......and how much longer before this all hits the Personal Desktop can't be far into the future of Linux w/Xen Virtualization on Chip Power!

          The next Sony PS3 with 32core Cell BE(32MB edram) will have no competition in the Game Console Market! ;) ....and with Hardware Virtualization, it's not which VM OS you want to run, but how many!!!

          Note: Another unsung hero will be Rambus. Afterall without their help, IBM's cores on both Cell BE and Power7 wouldn't be near as quick. The organic neural networking pathways make true artificial intelligence now attainable!
          i2fun@...
        • PLEASE!

          " I think they'd provide support, they're a company, so providing what
          the customer demands is in their best interest"

          Tell that to MS!
          maclovin
      • Check out the Apple License

        Apple's License Agreement says you're entitled to run OS X only on Apple hardware. There's the perpetrator.
        eweingartner@...
        • Read the Apple License..

          Actually... The license states that you have to
          run the OS on apple labelled hardware. The
          workaround is to put an apple sticker onto your PC
          and viola!, You're now obeying their licene.
          PsyBeats
    • hardware company

      "... Apple will have to get their OS running on commodity blades from
      the major datacenter players..."

      is the basic concept of apple being a hardware company really so hard
      to understand? apple has no interest in licensing its OS. it is just a
      means to an end. why do you think mac os x server now costs only
      $500? to sell xserves.

      some pundits never learn, for years and years they have been crying
      apple should licence their os to grab "marketshare" (probably knowing
      that this would be suicide for apple) when they can live happily and
      generate billions every quarter in free cash flow by selling hardware.

      the iphone is a good example of hardware sales vs. the os licensing
      model: apple generated around 2 BILLION in free cash flow from the
      iphone last QUARTER vs. 50 million for microsoft in licensing their
      windows mobile os. i can't wait for the pundits to advice apple that
      they should license their iphone os instead of selling iphone hardware,
      all in the name of meaningless marketshare.
      bannedfromzdnetagain
      • Amen.

        Exactly. Not much point in adding much else, besides a general gripe
        at the headline - "Apple's Snow Leopard [b]Completely[/b] Blows It
        Virtually" - as has been pointed out (even in the main article itself,
        ffs), there are options for xserve and virtualisation, they're just not all
        that prevalent. Point being, if someone really wants os x server and
        virtualisation, it's not impossible, but they have to really want it. How
        is that [b]"completely"[/b] blowing it?

        And what makes everyone so convinced Apple even [i]cares[/i] about
        the cloud? They sell computers with software, not netbooks. Besides
        online file storage, which they already provide, I can't see them
        seriously trying to compete with Google and the hoards of imitators
        snapping at its feet.
        bishofthedump