Illustration: Harry CampbellWeird but true: One of my favorite computers right now isn't real. It's the virtual machine that lets me run Windows applications on my Apple MacBook, via the amazing software known as Parallels Desktop. Thanks to Parallels and a copy of Windows XP, I'm merrily writing this column in my word processor of choice (Word 2007), even though it's not, in theory, compatible with the operating system I'm using (OS X). Yup, computing miracles do happen.
There's more. When I wanted to check out Ubuntu Linux, I used Parallels to install that OS in a virtual machine on a ThinkPad running Windows XP, allowing me to venture into Linuxland without so much as rebooting. And when I recently experimented in possibly dicey ways with Windows settings, I did so in a second, virtualized installation of Win XP on the ThinkPad, safe in the knowledge that no amount of messing around with that copy of XP could damage my main Windows installation.
A recent confluence of events is helping virtualization--which has been around for decades--go mainstream. Both Intel and AMD, for instance, have built support for it into their new CPUs; for the first time, programs such as Parallels and VMware run briskly enough that you just might forget you're working in a virtual environment. And Apple's move to Intel CPUs makes Parallels' near-seamless mixing and matching of OS X and Windows possible. In fact, virtualization is improving at such a rapid clip that it's fun to think about where it's headed. What if Parallels-style mixing and matching of apps were enabled at the OS level, so that every computer user could use any program--be it for Windows, Mac, or Linux--without a second thought? What if a 'Launch in Virtual Machine' Windows menu item let you run iffy programs in a way that prevented them from wreaking havoc? What if the next big Windows upgrade loaded older programs in a virtual machine, ensuring backward compatibility while freeing Microsoft to rethink the OS from the ground up?
The thing is, these what-ifs assume that OS companies will make them happen. But neither Microsoft nor Apple seems to be a wholehearted fan of virtualization.
Apple loves the fact that Parallels lets you run Windows in OS X--so much so that the "I'm a Mac/I'm a PC" guys chattered about it in an ad. But OS X in Windows on a non-Apple PC? Given that Apple's business model assumes the company will sell a computer for every copy of OS X, it may never sign off on that scenario.
And then there's Microsoft, whose end-user license agreements for most Vista versions forbid you to run the OS inside a virtual machine. Only Vista Ultimate (which has a list price of $400) and Vista Enterprise (which isn't even sold as a retail product) have EULAs that are virtualization-friendly.
From a technical standpoint, all Vista editions are perfectly capable of being virtualized; it's Microsoft policy that's anti-virtualization, not its products. Scott Woodgate, a Vista director at the company, told me that it's fine by Microsoft if the PC enthusiasts and businessfolk who buy Vista Ultimate and Enterprise go virtual. But the company wants to discourage casual PC users from trying virtual computing just yet, due to potential security risks with CPU-level virtual machines as implemented by Intel and AMD. End result: It has made virtualization pricey.
I have a hard time entirely reconciling that philosophy with the fact that Microsoft offers its own competitor to Parallels and VMware (the appropriately named Virtual PC) for free, and distributes it on a section of its site that's devoid of scary warnings about security threats.
Still, talking to Woodgate left me cautiously optimistic. The company is working with chip companies on security concerns. And long term, he said, "Microsoft is a firm believer in virtualization." That's good to hear: A lot of us Microsoft customers firmly believe in it, too--and we want future versions of Windows to harness every bit of its awesome potential.
Harry McCracken is editor in chief of PC World.
Ad Choices