Q Gives You Mac Virtualization for Free - And It Works
Last week I took delivery of a shiny new iMac. I’ll talk about it next week, but today I want to talk about running Windows on it.
Like most people who want Windows, I used Boot Camp. As it turns out, Boot Camp, appears to be nothing more than an application to non-destructively repartition your hard drive and create a disk of Mac drivers. Unlike the impression it gives that it does something to your Mac to make it possible to install Windows.
I ran and installed Windows on my iMac fine without even the Apple drivers - although of course networking and sound didn’t work and the display was not ideal. But if those things weren’t important II could have had a usable and bootable version of Windows on my iMac without any use of Boot Camp.
I encountered one problem though - you must install Boot Camp on a hard drive with only a single partition. It was then that I discovered Boot Camp isn’t necessary to run Windows. Needing multiple partitions for OS X, I set up a multi-partitioned hard disk and then installed Windows on one partition anyway - something Boot Camp wouldn’t let me do. If you’re interested, instructions can be found on CrossOSS.
Like anyone though, I don’t really want to reboot every time I need to use Windows - despite it being only occasionally.
And like anyone, I was really keen to check out the acclaimed Parallels. That was a GREAT disappointment. It doesn’t work on my new iMac Core 2 Duo. It runs and lets you create a virtual system, but when you try to fire up that system, Parallels cause a kernel panic. The Grey Screen Of Death. It’s quite entertaining the way that grey curtain of death sweeps down from above.!
Q to the rescue
With little optimism, I decided to give Q a go, assuming if Parallels couldn’t have a working version on the Core 2 Duo Macs, what hope would Q have?
A couple of hours later, I had fully working versions of both Windows 98 and Windows XP running in Q. And running quite quickly and quite satisfactorily.
From the Q website:
Q is based on the excellent open source CPU emulator QEMU from Fabrice Bellard. Pierre d’Herbemont from stegefin.free.fr ported QEMU to OS X and initiated a cocoa Version.
That was the initialization for Mike to develop Q. A completely rewritten cocoa port of QEMU, built directly on OS X, making use of Apples Core-technologies like Core-image, Core-audio and OpenGL for in- and output, saving the overhead of cross platform APIs like SDL, FMOD or GTK.
Q in action
Q virtual systems are called Guests. Q provides several default Windows configurations for each version of Windows. If you want to install Linux or another OS, you need to manually configure your Guest.
Q can also emulate non-native CPUs. Thus if you run it on a PowerPC Mac, it will emulate x86, and vice-versa. Other CPUs Q can emulate are: x86-64, PPC PREP, SPARC-32, MIPS and ARM.
Windows 98
Windows 98 runs as fast as any PC I ran it on in the late ‘90s but it did display its legendary instability, with Internet Explorer crashing when it tried to view some websites.
The virtual display driver that Q used for Windows 98 (a Cirrus Logic 5446 PCI) worked fine and gave me 24-bit color up to 1024x768 pixels, and 16-bit up to 1280x1024.
The virtual soundcard Q defaults to is a Soundblaster 16 and this worked well although did stutter if the processor was busy.
The virtual network adapter also works fine, an NE2000.
Notably though, the CD drive (on my system a CD & DVD burner) only configures as a CD-ROM.
Windows XP
Windows XP runs reasonably fast and is certainly quite usable. Like the Windows 98 Guest, sound is choppy and my DVD is only usable as a CD-ROM. Networking and display also work fine.
Linux
I successfully installed Freespire. Initial impressions are it is slower than either of the two Windows I installed.
Windows eye opener
Running Windows was an eye opener after three years as a Mac user. So many things you take for granted on Windows when that’s all you know. Things like a plethora of questions, balloons popping up everywhere and restarts for most software installations. They all drive Mac users to distraction.
But still, it served my purpose. My major need for Windows is checking if my website designs work in Internet Explorer. And as so often happens, I discover that my sites don’t work in IE so back to the drawing board. Q make this process simple and has cost me nothing (as I already owned a copy of Windows XP).
Shortcomings and Bugs
The lack of a driver to support CD burning and any type of DVD access is an issue that needs to be addressed by the developer. To install from a DVD requires converting the DVD to an ISO. Use Disk Utility to make an DMG image of the DVD and then the command on this page at Tech-Recipes to convert that to an ISO.
On both Windows installations I encountered a crash on the first reboot of the installation process which required rebooting, but thereafter, had no further problems with the install, or since.
If you “Save the state” of a Guest, when it restores it is hung, and needs restarting. I found this with both Windows and Linux (although I did not have this problem on my PowerBook G4). This is a bit of problem if you intend to use Windows regularly on an Intel Mac - although the boot up time is very fast.
And yes, Q does knock system performance around, especially if you up the memory of your Guest system.
Overall
Sure Q has some issues to resolve, but it is still in beta and it is free. From my experience, I sugges you give Q a look before you try Parallels if your looking for a virtualization solution on Intel Macs. If Q meets your needs, why would you bother paying for Parallels? And given Parallels is not even working on the latest Macs, it’d score a zero, while I’d give Q a 7.5/10.
Comments
OK, now Q is sucking up 100% of the CPU cycles of one of my two processors, even while it’s idle (I set it to pause while in the background). The G5’s fans are blowing wildly.
Unless I’m doing something wrong, this application is 100% crap. Maybe it’s better on Intel.
Wow… this is the second “article” I’ve read on Apple Matters (the first being the OS is dead) and it will be the last. What a shallow, error filled puff piece for some alpha software.
Firstly you say “As it turns out, Boot Camp, appears to be nothing more than an application to non-destructively repartition your hard drive and create a disk of Mac drivers.”
That’s not a trivial thing given that Windows is still looking for a BIOS based system to boot from. And creating drivers takes some work you know. They did that work for an operating system they get no revenue from supporting.
Then you go on “I ran and installed Windows on my iMac fine without even the Apple drivers - although of course networking and sound didn’t work and the display was not ideal. But if those things weren’t important II could have had a usable and bootable version of Windows on my iMac without any use of Boot Camp.”
No network, no sound and a poor display and you call that “fine”..? OK, tells me a lot about your criteria for judging the other alternatives you’re about to offer. And why is is such a good thing to be able to boot and kind-of use Windows without using Boot Camp when Boot Camp makes it all work so much better and is free..? OK, you have to reboot, but if you really needed to be back and forth between OSes like that, just buy a cheap PC to have alongside your iMac…
**Sorry** Matters, I didn’t make it clear enough that my experience was on Intel and that on PPC Q is very slow, if not slower than VPC.
I should have put that in bold somewhere in the article.
Apologies.
StevenJobs said: Firstly you say “As it turns out, Boot Camp, appears to be nothing more than an application to non-destructively repartition your hard drive and create a disk of Mac drivers.”
That’s not a trivial thing given that Windows is still looking for a BIOS based system to boot from. And creating drivers takes some work you know. They did that work for an operating system they get no revenue from supporting.
You miss the point there, Steven. The point was that when Boot Camp was released it supposedly was necessary to make your Mac *able* to run Windows. To get Windows to work when it is “looking for a BIOS based system” must instead be something the firmware updates, not Boot Camp, is resolving.
So, as I concluded, you don’t need Boot Camp to run Windows (on an Intel Mac). I am happy to be corrected on this. I have read the Boot Camp page and found nothing to contradict that though.
Why is that significant? Because a competition was run and won to get Windows on Mac, and then Boot Camp came out and made that solution unnecessary. But the reality is it wasn’t Boot Camp, it was simply that Apple now provided the necessary firmware to do it. Boot Camp just gave you the drivers and a non-destructive partitioning tool.
<i>And why is is such a good thing to be able to boot and kind-of use Windows without using Boot Camp when Boot Camp makes it all work so much better and is free..?</i.
It was just to emphasize the previous point. And the display was quite usable. For some people who say that might have been enough. There’s no harm in pointing that out. And again, it emphasizes the point of what Boot Camp is and is not.
We were led to believe you couldn’t install Windows on a Mac without Boot Camp (or that competition winning solution). That is not so.
As far as Q goes, it is very stable and therefore it is reasonable to review it.