Take Control of Running Windows on a Mac
Posted 16 June 2006 - 05:30 AM
Posted 16 June 2006 - 07:05 AM
I couldn't agree more with that.
Who wants to pay for & install XP twice on a notebook? I always thought that XP & OS X were a per machine license. I would hope it doesn't make a difference if you run it virtual or native. It is still the same computer.
Ideally bootcamp would also work with 3 partitions at least. OS X Shared XP. With possibly a repartition possibility should the XP partition become too small. It is tough to allocate a lot of room to XP and hard to predict how much room you will need over time. Especially when you may start loading certain cds & dvds as virtual disc volumes so you don't have to lug & shuffle discs.
Then run XP native for demanding applications orgames and virtual side by side with OS X for day to day stuff and light productivity + development apps. Now that would be sweet indeed.
Posted 16 June 2006 - 07:24 AM
I'm afraid that if this virtualization software gets too good, developers will not see a reason to develop Mac versions of their software any more, since Mac users can now run Windows at full speed.
What I'd rather see is Apple re-release Cocoa for Windows. That will give developers a single code base to work with that will run natively on MacOS X. Apple could give it away for free with the stipulation that a Mac version must be released alongside a Windows version.
Posted 16 June 2006 - 07:27 AM
And ... I agree, there has to be some way to run one copy of Windows in Parallels AND Boot Camp. To be forced to install everything twice would be a real pain in the butt. But I guess that's what I'll do until Apple or Parallels come up with a solution. Can Microsofts EULA be so narrow to disallow this?
Posted 16 June 2006 - 07:33 AM
Does anybody have experience using any of these methods with an external drive? I'd like to have most of my main hard drive be a Mac. Having an external drive with XP on it would be great.
Posted 16 June 2006 - 07:43 AM
I'm making assumptions. Can anyone clarify this? Thanks!
Posted 16 June 2006 - 07:55 AM
There are a lot of people who need Windows for compatibility reasons and to run software not available for the Mac.
Web designers need to test their Web site on IE for Windows.
I do PPT projects for clients and some things don't appear in Windows as they do on the Mac and you need Windows to embed Flash into PPT and have it work on Windows. So I need Windows. For my use, Parallels Desktop will be perfect. I don't need 3D acceleration.
I have a friend who uses 3DS on a PC but uses FCS on the Mac. Instead of having two expensive workstations, he can but the new Mac Pro when it comes out and run both on the one system using Boot Camp.
This same friend of mine works in a PC-only studio, using 3DS all day. There are a lot of PC fans in this studio and they are all coming up to him (the "Mac guy") and asking him about Boot Camp. They are seriously considering getting a Mac to run both Windows and OS X.
He also pointed out that he'll be using the Windows version of After Effects on his new Mac Pro at native speeds until Adobe puts out a Universal version, not due until next year.
I may have been wrong on this Boot Camp thing and Apple's ads. We'll have to see the Mac sales figures over the next year, though. Apple is now advertising Boot Camp exclusively in one ad, which is great. This will probably become bigger when it's final and Leopard is shipping. It would be great if Apple could get Leopard out with Mac Pros by November.
The idea that Boot Camp will get switchers over may come to fruition, but the sales figures are what's important. If there are significant switchers, those Mac sales have to climb dramatically. I'd love to see Apple become a Mac company again versus an iPod company.
Posted 16 June 2006 - 08:39 AM
Is there any noticeable difference in color between the Mac Browsers and IE 6 and Firefox on Windows (i.e. Windows Gamma)? This is sometimes hard to judge on much Windows hardware because of very poor monitors and graphics processing.
Posted 16 June 2006 - 08:40 AM
"Web designers need to test their Web site on IE for Windows"
Logic suggests that this is best done through a Windows PC or Boot Camp - unless of course Parallels Desktop takes the world by storm.
What does popularity of Parallels Desktop have to do with anything?
With Windows running on your Mac, you get to test websites in Windows.
Parallels means not having to reboot or use another machine to do that.
What could you possibly mean?
Posted 16 June 2006 - 08:47 AM
"Unlike virtualization systems, Boot Camp does not currently support installation of any version of Windows other than Windows XP, SP2"
There are lots of reports around the web of people having success with Windows MCE in Boot Camp. Yup, that's an XP variant but it's not SP2.
"Some peripherals wont work, including iSight cameras, Apple Remotes, Bluetooth keyboards and mice, and Apple USB Modems."
Also lots of success stories around the web about people using Bluetooth keyboards and mice (including Apple's) in Boot Camp. The problem I've read about is you have to re-synchronize the BT radio with the OS each time you switch back-and-forth between Windows & Mac OSX -- though I haven't seen that point definitely confirmed.
"Even if you plug in headphones or external speakers, all sound will come through your Macs built-in speaker(s)."
Did the author even try this stuff before writing it? TheaterTek works just fine in XP / Boot Camp to play movies with 5.1 channel surround sound on a CoreDuo Mini. Several people confirmed this. It's one of the main reasons for installing XP on a Mini in the HTPC setting. There's nothing wrong with the SPDIF audio port under Boot Camp.
"In an ideal world, you could run both Boot Camp and virtualization software using a single Windows installation, switching to whichever environment is best at any given time. Currently, however, this is not possible"
Again, there are lots of reports around the web of people who use a single XP license with Boot Camp and with Parallels. It involves a phone call to MS to explain the situation. I haven't read a single report in which MS declined to authorize both installations on the same Mac. They've been surprisingly helpful.
Notwithstanding these criticisms, I appreciate the author's points about Parallels not recognizing external hard drives and lack of CD/DVD burning. I'm quite pleased with Parallels so far, despite these limitations, given its version 1.0 status. It's an amazing value for anyone with an Intel Mac who needs to use Windows here-and-there. Works great with Win2K.
Posted 16 June 2006 - 10:20 AM
Im one of the above who needs Windows for stock analysis apps. So I installed Boot Camp on my Intel iMac and couldnt be happier with the results. The iMac might be a marginal machine running both of those OSs concurrently only 2GB of ram and only one internal hard drive. The new Mac Pro desktop would be another story however.
Boot Camp is fast and stable thats what counts the most to me. Rebooting isnt an issue since I dont switch back and forth constantly.
Posted 16 June 2006 - 11:19 AM
You need more HD space to hold both operating systems and apps for both, but it doesn't run both operating systems at the same time. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Another field that has ZERO Mac software is real estate appraisal.