Windows Virtualization on Intel Macs

[LagunaSol]

I don't understand how you can hate a second button? it's just another button, if you don't like it, don't press it?

I wouldn't care about it being there, if it didn't get in the way of my left-clicks. Too many times I've clicked both buttons simultaneously. It's a pain.

I suppose it doesn't help that my laptop (a Compaq) buttons seem to take about 20 lb. of pressure to click. :mad:

[dylansm]

You, and all web designers *everywhere*, need to know about this:

http://www.browsercam.com (http://www.browsercam.com/)


This is not a workable solution at $1000/year. I would consider it on a day-by-day basis when I'm nearing the end of a project, but I need something every day and don't want to shell out $20 each day. That would be ridiculous when I can simply use virtual machines of my own.

[conleyt]

Now I am hearing the Intel Mac Mini Core Due has been disabled for VT. Is this correct? What's up with that? I mean, is this some minor fault on Apple? or was it intentionally on Apple's part?

Did anyone using Intel Mac Mini Duo installed Parallel's software? If so, how is the performance? Please write what your Intel Mac Mini Core Duo spec is (i.e. how much RAM and etc.).

Thanks!

I have a Mac Mini Core Duo, and I've been Alpha testing Parallels for a couple of weeks. Whenever I start Parallels on my Mini, it tells me VT is installed, but disabled. You click okay and go on. As for performance, Windows XP running under Parallels "seems" faster than XP on my Thinkpad T41. My Mini has 2GB RAM and is booting from an external Firewire 320GB 7200 RPM drive.

Tom C.

[MagnusDredd]

I didn't think the current Core processor (Yonah) supported virtualization, this feature was to be added with Merom.

This is incorrect. The Merom/Conroe update does bring a couple of things to the table, however SSE2/SSE3, the execute disable bit, Speedstep, and dynamic cache sizing are already built into Yonah. New with Merom/Conroe is an improved version of Speedstep (Intelligent Power Capability), improved handling of MMX/SSE instructions (Advanced Digital Media Boost), 64 bit support, and other features that provide a 20% boost in processing power when compared to Yonah running at the same clock speed.

For info this with regard to (Core Duo), read page 7 and 8 of this document.
http://download.intel.com/design/mobile/datashts/30922101.pdf

[balamw]

Another feature I would like to see (and it may already be possible) is for Parallels to use a native installation (i.e. BootCamp installed copy) of Windows so users could boot into native mode and get full Windows performance, or boot the same copy of Windows up via Parallels. This way you wouldn't have to maintain applications/updates/etc in a Virtual image as well as a native image. I realize there would be issues with differing drivers, but this should be fairly easy to work around.

That's basically what I was speculating yesterday may be what Apple really has up their sleeves for Leopard. Virtualize when you need to, dual boot for additional performance. They didn't say that boot camp was all they were planning for Leopard, in fact the page is worder very awkwardly.

In addition, what would be really cool would be to be able to "fast OS switch" between native installs of the two OSes. This could be something like recovering from hibernation/"Safe Sleep."

Apple has a huge advantage over others in that the hardware's fairly controlled and thus the video, network and sound drivers used for the XP install could be optimized to work both on bare metal and in the virtual environment. The OS X drivers too could be optimized to allow the virtual instance of XP to talk almost directly to the video memory in the window where it is running, just like games do.

B

[dylansm]

Before 10.4 (or was it 10.3) broke vp 6 for me I was running windows on my powerbook, now I only run vp 2004 on my windows machines.

Each virtural machine showed up with a seperate IP on my router, so I'm not sure what you are getting at.

Anyway it is best to access the sites by the server name vs. the ip.
You should not configure vp to use virtual nat however.

Thanks, yes, since I'm running VPC 7 / OS X 10.4.6 on my Powerbook and cannot access my sites on OS X by name or ip because the VM uses the same IP (I've tried changing it manually in Windows to no avail) --- it's pretty useless.

In order to access them by name, I would of course need a separate IP, so that's basically why I asked about separate IP addresses. Anyone know if Parallels Workstation gives a separate IP address from the host?

[vamp07]

Wow :eek:


There is nothing cooked up about that video. Those are the speeds I am getting too.

[weg]

I wouldn't care about it being there, if it didn't get in the way of my left-clicks. Too many times I've clicked both buttons simultaneously. It's a pain.

Hmm.. how do you manage to drive a car? At least my car has an accelerator pedal (right) and a break (left). Well, since I'm European, I've also a third pedal, the clutch.

[Whiteapple]

Is anyone else having problems mounting dmg file. I tried to use disk utility to repair it also but no chance. Is there a mirror somewhere with a previous dmg file. I am trying: Parallels-2-1.1.1658.24-Mac.dmg

Same here, must be heavy traffic. Nevertheless, it happens on paralells' site as well as macupdate. Strange. Oh well, I'll just wait for someone to post a torrent...

[cann11]

Thanks, yes, since I'm running VPC 7 / OS X 10.4.6 on my Powerbook and cannot access my sites on OS X by name or ip because the VM uses the same IP (I've tried changing it manually in Windows to no avail) --- it's pretty useless.

In order to access them by name, I would of course need a separate IP, so that's basically why I asked about separate IP addresses. Anyone know if Parallels Workstation gives a separate IP address from the host?

When I WAS running vp6 it seemed the same as vp 2004 on windows, I doubt that changed under vp7, And each vm had its own IP on the router. How are you connected on your network. Are you using a nat supported router. If so you should set each vm to get its dhcp ip from the server (ie . the router).
Does the mac version have virtual nat, this didn't work for me but it might work for you.

[dailo]

Can you use the max resolution on a MBP? I need to do some FreeBSD stuff, and would rather use gnome then just the terminal so I'd need a higher resolution. This looks great, can't wait to get it installed.

[Arcus]

Woot! Now this is good news for business users! Apple will get a grip on the corporate IT budgets.

Ive already started...and my boss is a Mac Head too!! Rock on!

[snak-pak]

I have just installed the Parallels Workstation on my MacBook Pro, and then proceeded to install Windows 2000... I don't own a copy of Windows XP, otherwise I would have installed that. It works fine, and is pretty fast. Faster than any beige tower running Windows 2000 that I've ever owned. The Parallels tools for Windows allows for a proper video and network driver, etc. Just a couple of comments for those who need to know:

1. You can't install Windows from a physical CD (yet). The option exists but is blanked out in the beta version... perhaps this is something being worked on. So I created an .iso using Disk Utility and installed Windows that way. Worked fine, and very fast installation.

2. WiFi chipset isn't currently supported. So you'll need to use an Ethernet connection for the Windows virtual machine to have access to the network. This means it's only really practical in a desktop-like environment... my visions of having Windows inside a virtual machine while I'm sipping a latté at an Internet cafe (with WiFi) are still someways off...

But this is a good start. The Parallels tools for the PC mouse driver is great... I can seamlessly move my mouse from Windows back into OS X without clicking anywhere... very cool.

Try the BETA everyone, it's a free 30-day trial!!

[Billy Boo Bob]

This is not a workable solution at $1000/year. I would consider it on a day-by-day basis when I'm nearing the end of a project, but I need something every day and don't want to shell out $20 each day. That would be ridiculous when I can simply use virtual machines of my own.
Holy crap. :eek: They want THAT much? No thanks. It wouldn't cost that much (after 2 years of 1K/yr, anyway) to purchase all the OS variations, a separate computer to run them on, some virtualization, and pay a programmer to get it all to do the same thing (if you can't do it yourself).

[LagunaSol]

Hmm.. how do you manage to drive a car? At least my car has an accelerator pedal (right) and a break (left). Well, since I'm European, I've also a third pedal, the clutch.

Well, fortunately the three pedals in my car (a European car, coincidentally) have more than a paper-thin gap between them. :)

Oh, and I personally happen to use two feet to work the three pedals. Maybe I'm just weird that way. ;)

[legacyb4]

My best guess is that Apple is planning to have the virtualized PC component boot off of the Boot Camp installation in 10.5 without having to physically boot unless absolutely necessary.

Kind of a hybrid between the dual-boot billion file install and a single hard file virtual PC solution...

That's basically what I was speculating yesterday may be what Apple really has up their sleeves for Leopard. Virtualize when you need to, dual boot for additional performance. They didn't say that boot camp was all they were planning for Leopard, in fact the page is worder very awkwardly.

[milo]

Outlook on the Mac is called Entourage now. It's supposed to link into all the same stuff as Outlook on the Windows side.

It's supposed to. But it doesn't. I can't use the Office email client in OSX and access all the windows features.

Bummer that the VT thing doesn't work on the duo mini, I'd like to hear the full story on why it's disabled and if there's any way to work around it.

[snak-pak]

Just one more quick note. Installing Windows 2000 or XP is the easy part.... but then you have to install all the Microsoft updates and such. For Windows 2000 you will have to install all sorts of major updates and crap, and will have to reboot about 7 times... fortunately this means rebooting the virtual machine, which happens very quickly, and not your Mac. I just keep working away with my Mac programs while Windows does it hairy reboot. :-)

For Mac-heads everywhere, you also have to remember that any default installation of Windows is *not* secure and you will need to secure it with a firewall, anti-virus and more. Windows XP has a basic firewall built-in as of Service Pack 2, but you still absolutely need anti-virus and anti-spyware, and more.

While it's unlikely that security vulnerabilities in Windows (in a virtual machine) can affect your Mac directly, it can sure affect your network connection - and make your ISP very angry at you - if you get a worm or virus that does bad things, like put you on a botnet. Rest assured, if you install your Windows and are not behind a firewall or router, you may already be infected with a virus or worm by the time the installation is finished. I am *not* kidding, this is a serious threat. So please pay attention to how and where you install your Windows inside a virtual machine, and stay safe!! Windows is a very different world from OS X, and without the proper security software and settings, it's much more dangerous...

[dubnluvn]

Just think of the implications of this

Apple now makes the ONLY computer that can natively run the 3 major OS's(legally and efficiently).

Major bragging rights

[balamw]

Apple now makes the ONLY computer that can natively run the 3 major OS's(legally and efficiently).
Yeah, but that's only 'cause they won't let their OS run on anything but their hardware. ;) (And rightly so).

B

[dogcowx]

I've done 6 partial installs. I've tried growing disks, raw disks, high speed, normal speed, vt on/off, it doesn't matter. When I install windows it either forces my MacBook Pro to reboot, or it gives me that multi-language screen of death.

Sometimes it recognizes my DVD drive, sometimes it doesn't.

A few times I got so far as to have Windows completely install, then it went to reboot and it said that the Virtual disk was corrupted.

I guess I'll try again when there's a new, more-stable version.

[balamw]

It's supposed to. But it doesn't. I can't use the Office email client in OSX and access all the windows features.

You're right it's not even close to the same thing. Outlook uses MAPI to access Exchange Servers, while Entourage uses IMAP+HTTP to get access to (most) of the same information. The good news is that Entourage is more interoperable/industry standards based, the bad news is that MAPI/Exchange is the de-facto practical standard.

B

[dogcowx]

1. You can't install Windows from a physical CD (yet). The option exists but is blanked out in the beta version... perhaps this is something being worked on. So I created an .iso using Disk Utility and installed Windows that way. Worked fine, and very fast installation.


Actually you can...

Use the checkbox to disable and re-enable the CD option. Then select the CD radio button. In the text box, specify "/dev/rdisk1" (no quotes).

[AtHomeBoy_2000]

You're absolutely right: I was thinking the exact same thing, we need something like Rosetta for windows apps, that way you have windows applications running at native speeds, and because there is no windows, there are no security breaches in your OS, and no viruses.
This may seem improbable, or even impossible, but that would be the "nec plus ultra" for Mac users
I have an interesting idea. i have no idea if it's even possible or probable. BUT, one of the main objections with Native windows apps within OS X is the potential for viruses. What is OS X included a way for a user to say "I want to install this windows app.... repackage it into OS X format (a single file that contains all the app data" and OS X includes a way to read that file. Makes sence to me. I have no idea if it's possible.

[MacGuy88]

Okay.

A) I told my dad to buy the crap out of Apple stock yesterday b/c of BootCamp so this morning he did. They are up 4 points as of 3:14.

B) FREAGIN AWESOME!!!!! I downloaded it and am currently running it and its... well... the fastest I've ever seen XP run, ironically.

C) I have no clue why I just bought windows. Oh well. HAHA.

[Sofad]

i installed the parallel tools under windows98, no sound supported...

anyone else with this problem?

[ryan]

Has anyone tried installling OSX on Parallels?

[cybermiguel]

It is impossible. It has been tried before, but you don't get a stable system. More crashes than Windows 3.1 :rolleyes: And: it's illegal.

I have done it....and it's quite stable...in fact, it's as stable as my linux partition (and that says a lot).

Regards.

[dongmin]

still waiting for official word(s) on performance of parallel's solution. any non-newbs or new sites have a review and/or benchmarks?

I'm seeing too many "xp is fater than on any pcs that i own" comments from newbs which makes me skeptical...

[vamp07]

1. You can't install Windows from a physical CD (yet). The option exists but is blanked out in the beta version... perhaps this is something being worked on. So I created an .iso using Disk Utility and installed Windows that way. Worked fine, and very fast installation.


This does work. Try saving the machine and restarting Parallel. It will be selectable. I had to play with it a bit. In either case you are better of having an image around to play with and not need to install from CD. It is much faster when installing from an image.

[dZp]

i installed the parallel tools under windows98, no sound supported...

anyone else with this problem?
I'm assuming you mean you installed Windows 98 on the Beta release of Parallel for IntelMac, right?

http://forum.parallels.com/forum53.html
http://forum.parallels.com/thread72.html
Sound, usb and fullscreen mode support will be in release version, it is just a limitation of beta.
Crash "Help/Report a problem" is now being fixed by our engineers.

[exodar]

My intial reaction when I saw that Apple released Boot Camp and Parralel's released their virtualization solution was "AWESOME!!!...I can play all of those games I always want to buy...and now my daughter can buy the educational games she always wants and she can run that scooby-doo disc that came in her serial box."

But over the past 24 hours I have began to reevaluate my intial reaction. I think this is an awesome solution to a problem that us mac users have always had which is running Windows apps we can never run. However, that is good for the short term. What does this mean LONG TERM? While the big Mac OS software houses will probably not change (blizzard, adobe, etc.), this is almost certainly the end of Quicken and other medium-sized software houses. I mean those companies can't help but look at this from a business perspective which day-after-day results in them barely making their return on their Mac Software Divisions. If Quicken sells 5% of their software to Mac users, it will make much more business sense to axe their Mac OS developers and require Mac users to now "Option Boot" into Windows XP, knowing that they will probably retain half of their original Mac users that will be willing to actually do that. In the end, they save money and headcount. And if key software packages like that go away, it reduces the Mac OS as a viable alternative OS to Windows XP. Why would grandma want to boot into Mac OS X at all if she has to boot into Windows XP to do her Quicken which is very important to her...just buy a Mac and run Windows XP...

And you can just forget about those companies that work so hard to bring PC games to the Mac. I mean sure you can run them in XP on your Mac now, but that also means there is one less Mac OS software developer out there now and ultimately another win for Microsoft.

I just think we are treading on some seriously dangerous times here. While I think it does solve our problems short-term, if not dealt with carefully this could be the start of the end of Mac OS.... Sure...the Mac may still exist, but will there be a future where more people run Macs with Windows than Macs with Mac OS? And how could Apple ignore that?!?

Anyone else feel happy and concerned as I am?????

[cybermiguel]

Now I'm asking me: Should I install this or Boot camp to chat with my friends in Msn with a cam. (I install my old webcam)
But even my girlfriend who has an windows pc told me: are you fool?? Why would you like to install windows? :)

You don't need msn messenger to have webcam funtionality in Mac OS X. You just need aMSN or Mercury Messenger. Both have webcam option (in fact, they use any video input device that quicktime recognizes).

If your webcam is not supported by Quicktime, do not panic, because there is a project to get various USB webcams work in OS X.

http://webcam-osx.sourceforge.net/

Regards

[Pistol Pete]

Please tell me that it is impossible to use os x on a windows pc. If not, good night apple.

haha what a joke :)

[exodar]

haha what a joke :)

You sneer, but what if this is just the prelude to ol' Stevie release OS X to PC users and taking on Microsoft on its own ground? And if any of you Mac-Faithful remember...that was the end of NeXT!!! As soon as they licensed it to the average Joe, everyone stopped buying NeXT boxes...

[BillyShears]

Thanks, yes, since I'm running VPC 7 / OS X 10.4.6 on my Powerbook and cannot access my sites on OS X by name or ip because the VM uses the same IP (I've tried changing it manually in Windows to no avail) --- it's pretty useless.

In order to access them by name, I would of course need a separate IP, so that's basically why I asked about separate IP addresses. Anyone know if Parallels Workstation gives a separate IP address from the host?

I would guess that it does, since you can share files between them. It's pretty strange that VPC doesn't work, though.

I'm interested in running a web server on the Windows side and accessing it from OS X... I guess you're looking to run a web server on OS X and accessing it from Windows.

[bigandy]

andy thinks this be better than dual booting :)

[daveschroeder]

i installed the parallel tools under windows98, no sound supported...

anyone else with this problem?

Sound is not supported by the current beta.

[BobMcBob]

If this were a low cost option (which it's not yet since you have to buy Windows and this virtualization software), I would stop developing software for Mac OS. I would just tell my users to use the Win version.

As soon as this is a low cost option, no more developers will spend the effort to develop just for the Mac. That means you can say goodbye to the Mac.

The only possible way this scenario would not result in the end of the Mac is if Apple also allows their software to run under Windows. That is, if Cocoa apps can run on Windows (and Linux/Solaris would help a lot in this regard too), then maybe I would choose to develop with Cocoa instead and get both. Yes, OpenStep did run under Windows, so this is very possible. For developers to embrace this, Windows support would have to work really well with no extra effort. This may be exactly what will happen and hence why the next version of Mac OS is called Leopard (you know, that saying about changing it's spots). This has been a rumor for awhile (http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/6110/). It's too bad Leopard didn't come first.

[aristobrat]

But over the past 24 hours I have began to reevaluate my intial reaction. I think this is an awesome solution to a problem that us mac users have always had which is running Windows apps we can never run. However, that is good for the short term. What does this mean LONG TERM?
The two choices are:

1. Apple didn't think about the long-term consequences before releasing Boot Camp (and incorporating it into 10.5)

or

2. This is a major stepping stone in the big picture of Apple, and we haven't seen the big picture yet. :)

[daveschroeder]

Anyone else feel happy and concerned as I am?????

Happy? Yes. Concerned? No.

Companies that make Mac OS X software now do so because their customers prefer the user experience of Mac OS X. This does not change that. Also, if anything, this will increase Mac OS X's marketshare. Why would software houses already developing for the current Mac OS X market stop developing for it if the market grows?

This whole "companies will just stop making Mac software" argument is utterly ridiculous. Do people honestly believe that companies will actively decide to stop making Mac software as the Mac market *grows*, and when it requires the end user buying at least Windows, or Windows plus a virtualization product? Um, no.

The one place where user experience in the application does NOT matter is games (because they have their own interfaces), and that's one market that may possibly be hurt just because of the nature of the gaming market and the number of people with Macs who may install Windows specifically for gaming. But even there, the Mac OS X market is still going to grow.

---
Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu

[OS X Factor]

...and I got a Kernel Panic too. I was able to reproduce it as well. All runs fine, but if I launch Camino while Parallel Workstation is running, boom - Kernel Panic. I've fired off an email to Parallel about it. You should do the same, and if you are brave enough, see if you can't reproduce what you were doing at the time your machine panicked.

If they can fix that bug and get it to work in fullscreen mode, they have my $49. It absolutely flies. But the KP is a showstopper for me.

[daveschroeder]

...and I got a Kernel Panic too. I was able to reproduce it as well. All runs fine, but if I launch Camino while Parallel Workstation is running, boom - Kernel Panic. I've fired off an email to Parallel about it. You should do the same, and if you are brave enough, see if you can't reproduce what you were doing at the time your machine panicked.

If they can fix that bug and get it to work in fullscreen mode, they have my $49. It absolutely flies. But the KP is a showstopper for me.

Ensure that you send in the panic log: /Library/Logs/panic.log

[gkarris]

Bye IBM,
bye HP,
bye Gateway,
bye Dell (ooops, needed to write this last one in "Sanskrit")....

:p

[grockk]

The two choices are:

1. Apple didn't think about the long-term consequences before releasing Boot Camp (and incorporating it into 10.5)

or

2. This is a major stepping stone in the big picture of Apple, and we haven't seen the big picture yet. :)

I've heard it suggested that the big picture is Mac Apps emulated by Cocoa for Windows. Was it called Dharma, right? I think there were rumors of it being revived back in December.

This would make Mac universal binaries, truly universal.

[exodar]

Happy? Yes. Concerned? No.

Companies that make Mac OS X software now do so because their customers prefer the user experience of Mac OS X. This does not change that. Also, if anything, this will increase Mac OS X's marketshare. Why would software houses already developing for the current Mac OS X market stop developing for it if the market grows?

This whole "companies will just stop making Mac software" argument is utterly ridiculous. Do people honestly believe that companies will actively decide to stop making Mac software as the Mac market *grows*, and when it requires the end user buying at least Windows, or Windows plus a virtualization product? Um, no.

The one place where user experience in the application does NOT matter is games (because they have their own interfaces), and that's one market that may possibly be hurt just because of the nature of the gaming market and the number of people with Macs who may install Windows specifically for gaming. But even there, the Mac OS X market is still going to grow.

---
Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu

I want to believe you here, I honestly do. The thought of not having Mac OS and having to use Windows is enough for me to leave IT altogether and start a completely new profession. I would challenge your statment:


Companies that make Mac OS X software now do so because their customers prefer the user experience of Mac OS X.


Some companies develop software to increase their own marketshare and MAKE MONEY. How much easier will it be for them to update the support section of their websites to say "To run Quicken on your Mac, hold the 'Option' key at startup run in your currently installed version of Windows." Right now that means customers have to buy a legit copy of XP, but that doesn't mean that Microsoft won't cut a deal to include Windows with all new Macs! What a brilliant move on their part to increase Windows marketshare, and how could Steve resist that honestly?!?

I am not saying for sure this is the end of times, but this path we have taken in the last two days can lead to two drastically different conclusions.

[daveschroeder]

I want to believe you here, I honestly do. The thought of not having Mac OS and having to use Windows is enough for me to leave IT altogether and start a completely new profession. I would challenge your statment:



Some companies develop software to increase their own marketshare and MAKE MONEY. How much easier will it be for them to update the support section of their websites to say "To run Quicken on your Mac, hold the 'Option' key at startup run in your currently installed version of Windows." Right now that means customers have to buy a legit copy of XP, but that doesn't mean that Microsoft won't cut a deal to include Windows with all new Macs! What a brilliant move on their part to increase Windows marketshare, and how could Steve resist that honestly?!?

I am not saying for sure this is the end of times, but this path we have taken in the last two days can lead to two drastically different conclusions.

Apple won't be cutting any deals with Microsoft, or vice versa.

This is a move specifically calculated to convert users to Mac OS X and increase Mac OS X and Apple marketshare, and, ironically, strikes at the heart of Microsoft even as it enables use of a Microsoft OS.

Also, yes, software companies develop to "make money". But the reason that companies that develop Mac OS X software do it is because the path to "making money" is via developing products for a platform that people prefer, and that's Mac OS X. If that weren't the case, they wouldn't be doing that now.

Being able to run Windows via virtualization or dual boot on Apple hardware doesn't change that landscape now. People said this for years about Virtual PC, and indeed, some specialty applications did offer Virtual PC as a suggestion. Some will suggest customers run their products under virtualization or dual boot on Intel-based Macs. But on the whole, this is only better for the Mac universe, because Mac users can easily and effectively run Windows software that they need to run with a very workable solution, and companies who are looking to reach out to platforms beyond Windows (or who already do) won't stop developing for Mac OS X.

[Molson]

My intial reaction when I saw that Apple released Boot Camp and Parralel's released their virtualization solution was "AWESOME!!!...I can play all of those games I always want to buy...and now my daughter can buy the educational games she always wants and she can run that scooby-doo disc that came in her serial box."

But over the past 24 hours I have began to reevaluate my intial reaction. I think this is an awesome solution to a problem that us mac users have always had which is running Windows apps we can never run. However, that is good for the short term. What does this mean LONG TERM? While the big Mac OS software houses will probably not change (blizzard, adobe, etc.), this is almost certainly the end of Quicken and other medium-sized software houses. I mean those companies can't help but look at this from a business perspective which day-after-day results in them barely making their return on their Mac Software Divisions. If Quicken sells 5% of their software to Mac users, it will make much more business sense to axe their Mac OS developers and require Mac users to now "Option Boot" into Windows XP, knowing that they will probably retain half of their original Mac users that will be willing to actually do that. In the end, they save money and headcount. And if key software packages like that go away, it reduces the Mac OS as a viable alternative OS to Windows XP. Why would grandma want to boot into Mac OS X at all if she has to boot into Windows XP to do her Quicken which is very important to her...just buy a Mac and run Windows XP...

And you can just forget about those companies that work so hard to bring PC games to the Mac. I mean sure you can run them in XP on your Mac now, but that also means there is one less Mac OS software developer out there now and ultimately another win for Microsoft.

I just think we are treading on some seriously dangerous times here. While I think it does solve our problems short-term, if not dealt with carefully this could be the start of the end of Mac OS.... Sure...the Mac may still exist, but will there be a future where more people run Macs with Windows than Macs with Mac OS? And how could Apple ignore that?!?

Anyone else feel happy and concerned as I am?????

There is no way that Apple will have released Boot Camp without really, really careful thought. My guess is that this they have released the software as a taster - to see what the reaction will be. My bet is that in 10.5 (Leopard) that Mac users will be able to run XP/Vista (if they really have to) in a window whilst running OSX (just like Parallel's solution but bug free and officially supported by Apple). However, with Leopard all the issues and problems of virtualisation will have been ironed out and Mac users will have the best of both worlds. Or all 3 worlds as Unix/Linux will also be another option.

So Mac users will be able to stay in the happy OSX world and occasionally open a window if they really have to use a windows program. Apple have released Boot Camp now to test the water. Clearly, already it is having a positive effect with the number of switchers.

Imagine life under Leopard. Apple's hardware is going to fly. Nobody will need PCs anymore. Macs will run all OSs and life will be sweet.

If you think about it when Apple moved to OSX they offered unix as an 'option' under the hood. And unix users love the mac and switched to it in ther 1000s. So with Leopard they will go one step further and offer XP/Vista support under the hood. And now windows users will be happy and switch in their droves to the mac.

[2ndPath]

The only possible way this scenario would not result in the end of the Mac is if Apple also allows their software to run under Windows. That is, if Cocoa apps can run on Windows (and Linux/Solaris would help a lot in this regard too), then maybe I would choose to develop with Cocoa instead and get both. Yes, OpenStep did run under Windows, so this is very possible. For developers to embrace this, Windows support would have to work really well with no extra effort. This may be exactly what will happen and hence why the next version of Mac OS is called Leopard (you know, that saying about changing it's spots). This has been a rumor for awhile (http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/6110/). It's too bad Leopard didn't come first.

If cocoa and the apple developer tools were available for windows and linux as well, then that certainly would provide a good cross platform develpment environment. Applications developed with it would run very nicely at least on Mac OS X and probably nicely on the other platforms as well. Other cross platform toolkits work nice as well (qt for example), but don't integrate into the look and feel of the Mac as perfectly.

But if Xcode should draw a lot of windows developers, it has to compete with the MS Visual Studio, which is said to be very good (I never used it). Even if they are equally good to program on, the switch for a developer involves a lot of work, while the benefit for him would only be the access to an aditional 5% of market share of OS X. Of course it would become more attractive if the OS X market share would grow.

[bretm]

still waiting for official word(s) on performance of parallel's solution. any non-newbs or new sites have a review and/or benchmarks?

I'm seeing too many "xp is fater than on any pcs that i own" comments from newbs which makes me skeptical...

Well, since it's not emulation it should be quite a bit faster on a core duo than on their old Pentium III or whatever they have. Seems logical to me.

[supremedesigner]

Bye IBM,
bye HP,
bye Gateway,
bye Dell (ooops, needed to write this last one in "Sanskrit")....

:p

AMEN to that!

Dell was ONCE empire, now Apple will be! :D

[Sharkus]

For those who are saying this marks the death of the Mac, don't forget that prior to the Intel machines you could virtualize windows on a mac using VPC and various other solutions.

OK, so the emulation was just that, emulation and it wasn't as quick as you'd really want it to be, and now we have the speed we've dreamed of.

I work for a macintosh development company. Am I worried that I'm now out of a job or that we'll stop writing our software for mac? No I am not. There is a need for our software product and as long as macs run Mac OS, our software should be there.

Both Boot Camp and Parallels Workstation give us mac users the ability to access windows on a single machine, and with virtualization, it's not just Windows, you can run *nix as well.

These are all great steps forward for the Mac. It will allow people to transition from a PC hardware platform to a Mac hardware platform.

I've been running Parallel's all day and I'm very impressed with it. It's doing everything I hoped Q would do for me but could not (issue with opening an Access database cross network). We're going to be double checking tomorrow that we can do everything we need to in Parallel's and if we can, we will be replacing all the current PC's with Macs.
We've always wanted to do this, but until now the speed aspect has detracted from this. Even on a Dual G5, VPC wasn't as quick as we wanted it to be, and we're not doing anything particularly heavy duty.

Also bear in mind the software is beta at the moment, so bugs will be ironed out. I'm impressed with the support from Parallels as well, and that's important when you're trying to get things running.

[HughJ]

i had a lengthy convo with someone about intel dual booting anyway he went on to talk about virtulisation and the fact that a PC has been able to do it since 1999, and then went on to say the mac has always been able to do it too...is this true?

*******just read the above post....shoudl have read the thread first i guess*****

could admin plz remove this post plz

[MacGuy88]

still waiting for official word(s) on performance of parallel's solution. any non-newbs or new sites have a review and/or benchmarks?

I'm seeing too many "xp is fater than on any pcs that i own" comments from newbs which makes me skeptical...

Oh no. God forbid a 17 year old computer geek post something that says something about a programs performance.

And whats wrong with it being faster on a Mac than on a HP or Dell brand machine? All the more bragging rights Apple gets.

[dubnluvn]

Anyone else feel happy and concerned as I am?????


I'm not concerned. Companies who make software for both Mac and PC are not going to stop making software for the mac and risk losing even 5% of their sales on the notion that because you can run windows on a Mac that Mac users will be primarliy running windows. Only a small percentage will be doing this for only a small percentage of time. Most of the windows on mac users will be gamers, those whose business requires PC only software, and new customers looking for a better solution to windows who were afraid to make the switch without some kind of 'insurance' that is now provided by being able to run windows. Things only get better from here.

Just think, what happens if/when Activision releases just one major game like Call of Duty and Tony Hawk. The mac game market is born which opens avenues for other software, because if gamers (primarily kids who also dictate or at least influence home computer purchases) can play on a better system they will, and Mom and Dad can still feel comfortable using window while they figure out that OSX is much smoother and more intuitive and eventually switching full time.

[bretm]

I just think we are treading on some seriously dangerous times here. While I think it does solve our problems short-term, if not dealt with carefully this could be the start of the end of Mac OS.... Sure...the Mac may still exist, but will there be a future where more people run Macs with Windows than Macs with Mac OS? And how could Apple ignore that?!?

Anyone else feel happy and concerned as I am?????

I guess that's why all those companies never made any software for OSX. Because you could dual boot into OS9. Why bother making software for OSX when all the mac users can still boot into OS9 and run your application there?

The mac users are quite faithful, and already have quite a large investment in software. It's the same as with Windows. If your software doesn't run in the other OS, you're probably not going to switch. Mac users won't be happy running adobe, quicken, etc. in PC boot mode. You're not going to get any Mac to Windows switchers. However, if you truly believe that OSX is a superior OS, then there should be a small percentage of Windows to OSX switchers.

Marketshare WILL go up. Even if OSX isn't being used. Even if every new mac bought also garners a purchase of XP, because 1 purchase of OSX gains more marketshare % than 1 purchase of XP.

And here's the kicker... since it doesn't COME with WinXP, you can bet a large portion of the installs will be bootleg. Possibly the copy purchased for their aging computer previously.

It's a win win for Apple. They now have the best hardware. The best OS. AND they can run other OS's. They also make the best software which is also part of their plan. People will buy it because they can us XP. But when they toy with OSX and iDVD, iTunes, Safari, iPhoto, Pages, Keynote, mail, etc. some may see the light.

[whatever]

Imagine life under Leopard. Apple's hardware is going to fly. Nobody will need PCs anymore. Macs will run all OSs and life will be sweet.

For starters a Mac is a PC. The only thing that differentiates it from other PC's is the Operating System, but wait every one is going ga-ga over running Windows on iMacs and MacBooks?

Granted the technology is cool, but ....

It would be really funny if we learn that Parallel is owned by Microsoft and they nail all of those people who are illegally installing Windows on their Mac.

[Demoman]

PAUL buddy,

This is a no brainer. Boot Camp is a dangerous and bad solution. Parallels' Workstation 2.1 for Mac OS X is a SAFE and Superior solution. Put it this way - Would you like to be able to ONLY look at Windoze ALL-THE-TIME when you're using it?

OR: Would you only like to look at Windoze for the time you MUST USE IT (or game with it) and instantly switch back to your OS X interface and applications when you don't while still having the Windoze at the ready when you need it?

Plus you are majorly susceptible to virus attacks with the Boot Camp "non-solution" while Parallels' solution is virtually virus immune - IE you can kill an infected version of your Workstation and instantly replace it with one that isn't infected. :p

Forget Boot Camp. It's dangerous and irrelevant now. Are you daft? :) :eek: :D :p

Thanks for the advice Mr Gates

[Stridder44]

It would be really funny if we learn that Parallel is owned by Microsoft and they nail all of those people who are illegally installing Windows on their Mac.



??

Or you can use Boot Camp...

[dubnluvn]

OK boys and girls grab a friend (even a PC user is fine and actually incouraged)

What you'll need:

2 balloons, ideally one white and one blue

A straw, one of those fat ones from a fast food place is best but any will do

Magic Marker

Masking tape

A Friend

-------------

What you'll do:


First label the white ballon Apple and the Blue balloon Microsoft and use some masking tape to label 'Boot Camp' on the straw.

Have your friend blow up the Blue balloon until really full. Now you blow up the White balloon just a little bit. DON'T TIE THEM UP!!!

Holding your balloon in one hand insert the straw and tape it securely, this may require some coordination, get your friend to help if you need to.

Now do the same to your friends balloon, effectively connecting the two.

FINALLY LET GO!!!!

Now we know that via bootcamp apples market share increases dramatically. Science says so!

[BillyShears]

OK boys and girls grab a friend (even a PC user is fine and actually incouraged)

What you'll need:

2 balloons, ideally one white and one blue

A straw, one of those fat ones from a fast food place is best but any will do

Magic Marker

Masking tape

A Friend

-------------

What you'll do:


First label the white ballon Apple and the Blue baloon Microsoft and use some masking tape to label 'Boot Camp' on the straw.

Have your friend blow up the Blue balloon until really full. Now you blow up the White balloon just a little bit. DON'T TIE THEM UP!!!

Holding your balloon in one hand insert the straw and tape it securely, this may require some coordination, get your friend to help if you need to.

Now do the same to your friends balloon, effectively connecting the two.

FINALLY LET GO!!!!

Now we know what is going to happen, science says so!

We all get really light dumbells?

[BillyShears]

Any word on the networking between OS X and Windows?

[le848dave]

Oh no. God forbid a 17 year old computer geek post something that says something about a programs performance.

And whats wrong with it being faster on a Mac than on a HP or Dell brand machine? All the more bragging rights Apple gets.

I installed it today on my 2.0 MacBook Pro and am very happy with the performance. It is replacing my Windows XP 1.8 Ghz P4 w/ 512 MB ram. It feels much faster. From the reboot in installing XP (When the non ugly blue screen/partition time comes up) it took 14 minutes to install XP. I'm running an ER Diagramming piece of software and it's much faster than on the old P4.

[daveschroeder]

Any word on the networking between OS X and Windows?

You mean, any word other than that it works?

[dongmin]

Oh no. God forbid a 17 year old computer geek post something that says something about a programs performance.

And whats wrong with it being faster on a Mac than on a HP or Dell brand machine? All the more bragging rights Apple gets.I have nothing against 17-year-old computer geeks out there. It's just that all these newbies are coming out of the woodwork saying how great this solution is. I simply want some confirmation, and a more detailed report, from someone who's been posting here a bit longer.

I actually have a lot riding on virtualization as I need to run a few windows apps (autocad & rhino) for my work. Dual boot is too inefficient for my use pattern.

[mackeeper]

Dude, I'd hate to go to YOUR birthday party!


What do you mean?

[BillyShears]

You mean, any word other than that it works?

Back on page 10, dylansm was asking how the networking worked (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2293630&postcount=246). Specifically he wanted to know if the Windows system got a different IP address than the OS X system. For example, this could be used to use WinIE against a web server in OS X. Or using Safari against an IIS server in Windows.

I don't see why it wouldn't, but dylansm was saying it doesn't work in VPC. I was wondering if that was working with Parallels. You could probably test this by running the web server in OS X and accessing it from Windows. Thanks so much if you do.

[daveschroeder]

Back on page 10, dylansm was asking how the networking worked (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2293630&postcount=246). Specifically he wanted to know if the Windows system got a different IP address than the OS X system. For example, this could be used to use WinIE against a web server in OS X. Or using Safari against an IIS server in Windows.

I don't see why it wouldn't, but dylansm was saying it doesn't work in VPC. I was wondering if that was working with Parallels. You could probably test this by running the web server in OS X and accessing it from Windows. Thanks so much if you do.

Oh, yeah, that does work. You can have the OS(es) running in Parallels grab their own IP address from your network, and you can definitely communicate back and forth between the environments as if they were separate hosts.

[BillyShears]

Oh, yeah, that does work. You can have the OS(es) running in Parallels grab their own IP address from your network, and you can definitely communicate back and forth between the environments as if they were separate hosts.

That's awesome news. Thanks so much!

Now I need to scrounge up the money and courage-to-spend-it and buy a MacBook Pro....

[vamp07]

Any word on the networking between OS X and Windows?


From a pc on the network can get to the hosted os just fine. From the Mac doing the hosting I could not mount the share on the hosted OS. This stuff can be tricky. It could be user error.

[SiliconAddict]

Ahh crap. I give up. *removes MR from his router filter* MR is too rich with information to ignore. esp when it comes to things like this. Really suprised that no other forums are up to the challenge. :(


Anyways in regards to this development. There are really only two reasons to run Windows in a dual boot situation. For (guess) 70% its going to be games pure and simple. For the rest its going to be GPU/CPU intensive apps like CADware. OK maybe 2% who don't want to run OS X at all....but really. :confused: By and large the best scenario is virtualization using the other core without the Windows GUI. So an app running in Windows shows up inside of OS X in its own Window. I'd contemplate for about 1.25 seconds donating half of my *coughs* for such a setup. Then chicken out. But there would be a 1.25 second window where it would be tempting. Best of both worlds. Yum.

[BillyShears]

From a pc on the network can get to the hosted os just fine. From the Mac doing the hosting I could not mount the share on the hosted OS. This stuff can be tricky. It could be user error.

Sorry, I don't really understand this completely. So in OS X you can't access a shared folder on the hosted Windows system?

I need to be able to do this from OS X:
1. Access a web server running on the Windows system
2. Access a shared folder in the Windows system

I need to be able to do this from Windows:
3. Access a web server running on OS X
4. Access a shared folder in OS X

If anyone can test all four of these they earn the title "UNPAID SALESPERSON OF THE YEAR." The award comes in either belt or trophy form.

[HappyasLarry]

Heres my view.

A long time ago I wrote up my Ph.D on a Mac classic. You know, 16 Mhz (I think ?), took an age to redraw any diagram, but still with a stellar OS compared to computers of the day (and Windows OS computers of up to about a year ago....:) ).

I have been looking for a way back onto the MAC platform for ages. And of course, I use mostly windows OS at work.

I thought the intel MACs looked great but was not happy about using VPC to access windows or wait forever for some native apps for intel MACs (some of us still have to use windows programmes on a daily basis, unfortunately...). So I was just about to update onto another perfectly adequate windows PC.

So came boot camp. After reading that I happily let Apple relieve me of a fair amount of cash ON THE SPOT (New iMAC arrives in a week) :) :p

And today came Parallels' software.

I have to say this is fantastic news. I am now back on MAC OS and as soon as an intel Quad comes out I will be getting one of those.

For the doomsayers. This will definitely mean greater hardware sales for Apple.

My only question now is how much Apple stock do I buy ???

Happy days !

[crees!]

Some will suggest customers run their products under virtualization or dual boot on Intel-based Macs.

Then what I would do as mentioned in another post is to tell that company, "Great product. I really like it, but until a Mac version is available I won't purchase it." Meanwhile you can sneakily use it under Windows and grab the Mac copy if/when it comes out. The more people who test a Windows-only program and request a Mac version the more it could be a possibility.

[LagunaSol]

Anyone else feel happy and concerned as I am?????

No way. I think these recent developments are some of the greatest things to happen to the Mac platform since the Mac was born. Look, the main goal right now is to get PC users in the door. Given a real, hands-on experience using both Windows and OS X, how many will favor Windows? Not many, I'll bet. So now you have them. Then they bring their families and friends. Suddenly, Mac market share isn't 4%, it's 20%. And do you think all those folks are going to want to run everything in Windows, now that they know how much more enjoyable OS X is? Of course not. Demand for OS X development will ultimately increase, not decrease.

I see Windows capability on Intel Macs as a teaser, not an OS X-killer. It's the ultimate bait and switch. Tempt them with games and Windows compatibility, then let OS X goodness hammer them with its brilliance.

I think Mac gaming may suffer in the short term, as people fire up their new Macs in Windows to play games. But people will tire of that, and as more Mac users join the fold, the demand for native Mac gaming will increase. The switch to Intel should only help make game porting faster/easier/cheaper. So one day you'll grab any popular game off the shelf and it will be a hybrid disc, just like Blizzard has been doing for years.

Game makers develop for XBox, Playstation, and GameCube, no? I see no reason they won't develop for both Windows and Mac as Mac market share grows. Which it will.

Ultimately, things can only go up. Have patience.

[DTphonehome]

No way. I think these recent developments are some of the greatest things to happen to the Mac platform since the Mac was born. Look, the main goal right now is to get PC users in the door. Given a real, hands-on experience using both Windows and OS X, how many will favor Windows? Not many, I'll bet. So now you have them. Then they bring their families and friends. Suddenly, Mac market share isn't 4%, it's 20%. And do you think all those folks are going to want to run everything in Windows, now that they know how much more enjoyable OS X is? Of course not. Demand for OS X development will ultimately increase, not decrease.

I see Windows capability on Intel Macs as a teaser, not an OS X-killer. It's the ultimate bait and switch. Tempt them with games and Windows compatibility, then let OS X goodness hammer them with its brilliance.

I think Mac gaming may suffer in the short term, as people fire up their new Macs in Windows to play games. But people will tire of that, and as more Mac users join the fold, the demand for native Mac gaming will increase. The switch to Intel should only help make game porting faster/easier/cheaper. So one day you'll grab any popular game off the shelf and it will be a hybrid disc, just like Blizzard has been doing for years.

Game makers develop for XBox, Playstation, and GameCube, no? I see no reason they won't develop for both Windows and Mac as Mac market share grows. Which it will.

Ultimately, things can only go up. Have patience.

Very well-thought out analysis. I agree with you completely. Very good point about the console game systems...if Macs are a significant presence in the marketplace, there's no reason the developers would ignore it.

Boy, I can just IMAGINE the meetings and hand-wringing going on across Silicon Valley this week :eek:

EDIT: And Redmond, and Austin :)

[blakespot]

Actually you can...

Use the checkbox to disable and re-enable the CD option. Then select the CD radio button. In the text box, specify "/dev/rdisk1" (no quotes).

Is that the right device? I'm installing an OS where OS X does not recognize the CD, but it's as PC-bootable CD. I enter /dev/rdisk1 and Parallels Workstation (PW) accepts the device but the PC text screen says no CD found...but it doesn't even spin up the CD-ROM drive.

I put a "good" CD in the drive and did a 'df' and OS X mounted it at: /dev/disk1s1s2 - but when I try this with this other CD, before I get to the text screen in PW, a OS X alert window pops up, telling me that that device is not found.

Any other tips?




blakespot

[blakespot]

You sneer, but what if this is just the prelude to ol' Stevie release OS X to PC users and taking on Microsoft on its own ground? And if any of you Mac-Faithful remember...that was the end of NeXT!!! As soon as they licensed it to the average Joe, everyone stopped buying NeXT boxes...

But NeXT boxes cost $6000 and NeXT wasn't selling any of them. The did not release for PC while still selling NeXT boxes either, they went whole-hogg to the PC. NeXT was dead either way.

(Don't assume I criticize the technology - I loved NEXTSTEP and ran it ony a 486 in 1994 and have a NeXTStation Turbo Color currently.)


blakespot

[kiwi_the_iwik]

Please tell me that it is impossible to use os x on a windows pc. If not, good night apple.
One word:

Marklar.


Sorry, matey. If Steve sends that puppy out, it'll be a free-for-all.

[JAT]

No way. I think these recent developments are some of the greatest things to happen to the Mac platform since the Mac was born. Look, the main goal right now is to get PC users in the door. Given a real, hands-on experience using both Windows and OS X, how many will favor Windows? Not many, I'll bet. So now you have them. Then they bring their families and friends. Suddenly, Mac market share isn't 4%, it's 20%. And do you think all those folks are going to want to run everything in Windows, now that they know how much more enjoyable OS X is? Of course not. Demand for OS X development will ultimately increase, not decrease.

And the developers would see OSX market share of 20%, regardless of which OS they were actually using. Hypothetical, obviously. But a reason to hope.

[DavidRB]

Firstly I cant install the Boot camp xp drivers, as they crash the system, I suspect its because Im using my mini on via hdmi.

And then, when I try to get a trial key for the parallels beta, their servers are broken. (sending 'null' trial keys).

Someone, somewhere, is telling me I shouldnt try to run xp on my new mac mini.

And quite frankly, I agree with them :)

[Tupring]

Now , I only have to buy 1 computer.... and its a Mac.!!!!So, nothing has changed since 1984 then.

[manu chao]

Please tell me that it is impossible to use os x on a windows pc. If not, good night apple.

One word: PearPC

[Flowex]

:mad: why cant apple just hold back up their hard ware until they have the full line up? I bought a PowerMac G5 and 2 months later Intel macs come around. I could live with it, i thought, but now I see what can be done (bootcamp-virtualization)... if i sell my 2.0Ghz powermac to buy the iMac would it be a downgrade? anyway my point is apple should offer product trade ins.
I should be able to take in my powerpc and exachange it for a intel power mac g5(when available) for an affordable fee insted of spending 2200 dollars again:confused: .
Its just a point of view. Apple is the BEST by far but i just think they take advantage of the costumers by realeasing new products every couple of months (iPods).

[gnasher729]

I need to be able to do this from OS X:
1. Access a web server running on the Windows system
2. Access a shared folder in the Windows system

I need to be able to do this from Windows:
3. Access a web server running on OS X
4. Access a shared folder in OS X

For the file sharing, you might try out what happens if you plug in a USB memory stick into the Mac. Maybe both MacOS X and Windows can see it at the same time.

[gnasher729]

Then what I would do as mentioned in another post is to tell that company, "Great product. I really like it, but until a Mac version is available I won't purchase it." Meanwhile you can sneakily use it under Windows and grab the Mac copy if/when it comes out. The more people who test a Windows-only program and request a Mac version the more it could be a possibility.

That is something that all marketing people should get hammered into their heads. Unlike many PC users, Mac users are generally quite open to the idea that you actually have to pay for the software that you are using, but I can see them extremely unwilling to pay for Windows software. Telling Macintosh owners to use the Windows version will be a sure way to increase the number of users, but not the number of the customers.

[ninethirty]

Right now I have a Mac Mini connected to my TV and I use an Apple wireless mouse and keyboard from my couch. Will my mouse and keyboard work after installing windows with this Parallel thing?

[gnasher729]

Anyways in regards to this development. There are really only two reasons to run Windows in a dual boot situation. For (guess) 70% its going to be games pure and simple. For the rest its going to be GPU/CPU intensive apps like CADware. OK maybe 2% who don't want to run OS X at all....but really.

There will be a lot of new switchers because the risk involved is now much less. You can buy an iMac, which is a very fine machine, and you know that if you don't like MacOS X, you can turn that iMac into a very fine PC. Your monetary risk of trying out MacOS X is now just the cost of Windows XP, instead of the cost of the iMac. There will be many people who will buy a Macintosh because it _can_ run Windows, but they will never actually use it that way.

[BillyShears]

For the file sharing, you might try out what happens if you plug in a USB memory stick into the Mac. Maybe both MacOS X and Windows can see it at the same time.

That's a pretty clever way of doing it... I hadn't thought of that. Unfortunately I need the file sharing for running the web servers, and I don't have an Intel Mac to test on.

[Maxiseller]

:mad: why cant apple just hold back up their hard ware until they have the full line up? I bought a PowerMac G5 and 2 months later Intel macs come around. I could live with it, i thought, but now I see what can be done (bootcamp-virtualization)... if i sell my 2.0Ghz powermac to buy the iMac would it be a downgrade? anyway my point is apple should offer product trade ins.
I should be able to take in my powerpc and exachange it for a intel power mac g5(when available) for an affordable fee insted of spending 2200 dollars again:confused: .
Its just a point of view. Apple is the BEST by far but i just think they take advantage of the costumers by realeasing new products every couple of months (iPods).

Whilst I can (somewhat) appreciate what you're saying, you're claiming that Apple is annoying you with constant upgrades every 2 months or so. Well, firstly two months is an extremely short product clycle for an apple computer (and usually closer to 6 months+) but more importantly, Apple is one of the few computer manufacturers who stick to their guns and sell a product for a decent amount of time.

Buy a Dell computer; if you pop back to the website a week later something about the spec of your machine you just purchased is changed. It's the way it is. Maybe apple will too adopt more of this approach now hardware is more abundant, but I doubt it!

You should be happy with your Powermac (and please don't trade it in for an iMac!!) - you brought it to do a job, and it still does the job your purchased it for. Computing is a fickle industry, and they have to develop in order to keep people like you and me spending money on shiny new apple boxes! Keep the faith!

[gweedo]

You sneer, but what if this is just the prelude to ol' Stevie release OS X to PC users and taking on Microsoft on its own ground? And if any of you Mac-Faithful remember...that was the end of NeXT!!! As soon as they licensed it to the average Joe, everyone stopped buying NeXT boxes...

Actually, as I remember it... the sales of NeXT hardware was already sliding pretty fast. NeXT soon opened things up to intel, sparc, alpha and eventually switched from hardware to software company to reduce costs and to try and save things... and it was of course too late at that point really. Personally I think the NeXT slide was more due to marketing (or lack thereof) than anything. At Apple, Steve seems to have the marketing stuff working pretty well. :)

I have confidence in Apple getting this right, they aren't up against the wall like NeXT was, they have some existing nice products (iPod anyone?), etc... not to mention MS Vista blows.

[bense27]

has anybody tried this yet and have any screenshots?

[plinden]

I have nothing against 17-year-old computer geeks out there. It's just that all these newbies are coming out of the woodwork saying how great this solution is. I simply want some confirmation, and a more detailed report, from someone who's been posting here a bit longer.

I actually have a lot riding on virtualization as I need to run a few windows apps (autocad & rhino) for my work. Dual boot is too inefficient for my use pattern.
I haven't done it myself, but I will later, and our IT support guy (who surprisingly enough is a Mac user even though we are a Windows shop) demoed both Boot camp and Parallel's code on his MBP today.

On Boot Camp, windows flies - it scored 15400 on 3DMark, (I think that's what he used - I hope that sounds reasonable) and Quake 3 topped 500 fps.

Virtualization wasn't nearly as good,. For non-3d apps, it was still pretty fast and usable. But there was a noticeable delay in mouse movement (a fraction of a second, but still noticeable).

[wmmk]

Wow - seems we are experiencing a virtual tsunami of windows on mac these days... Gawd damn I'm curious to see some benchmarks soon. If this will open up for all the lovely 3d and other design apps (Ooh Rhino, app of my dreams) that has never been made for a mac I'm a happy guy... but it does demand that it works, more or less, at native speed as promised.




It is impossible to use os x on a windows pc.

A

haha, ever heard of emulation, now evolving into virtualization. osx on pcs is illegal, so i dont do it. still, i know people who emulate G4's on their P4's and G5's on xeons. i also know a dude who is running a copy of osx86 that came with his MBP in VMware on his dell xps. sure, its illegal. sure its not a real mac. sure i dont recommend it, but you can run osx on a pc with VMware or a pearpc G4 altivec nightly build on http://www.richardgoodwin.com/wp/cvsbuilds.php which happen to be blazing fast. if you actually buy mac os x (retail) (preferably panther) you're not really doing anything super bad, but i believe the EULA says onlyt to be installed on apple branded machines, but whatever.

[vamp07]

Sorry, I don't really understand this completely. So in OS X you can't access a shared folder on the hosted Windows system?


Using bridged Ethernet I cannot ping myself from the same machine. Does that answer your question? It probably can be made to work but doing a quick test that is what I get.

[daveschroeder]

has anybody tried this yet and have any screenshots?

Yes, a ton of us have tried it, and are happily using it. It's extremely fast, and except for graphics, the claims of "near native" performance are accurate. As for screenshots, picture exactly what your x86 OS of choice looks like, and picture it inside of a window on Mac OS X. ;-)

[andysmith]

Anybody else waiting for the trial key for hours?!?

Already registered with 2 different addresses and nothing.

Can't I just somebody else's?! I mean this is a public beta.

Yes, I'm a newbie, so what? Throw me a freakin bone.
I haven't got my key either :(

[bense27]

Yes, a ton of us have tried it, and are happily using it. It's extremely fast, and except for graphics, the claims of "near native" performance are accurate. As for screenshots, picture exactly what your x86 OS of choice looks like, and picture it inside of a window on Mac OS X. ;-)
do you need a windows installation disc to do this?

[daveschroeder]

do you need a windows installation disc to do this?

If you want to use Windows, of course. Or, you could try it with free OSes like Fedora Core, various other Linux distributions, etc.

[iSee]

:mad: why cant apple just hold back up their hard ware until they have the full line up? I bought a PowerMac G5 and 2 months later Intel macs come around. I could live with it, i thought, but now I see what can be done (bootcamp-virtualization)... if i sell my 2.0Ghz powermac to buy the iMac would it be a downgrade? anyway my point is apple should offer product trade ins.
I should be able to take in my powerpc and exachange it for a intel power mac g5(when available) for an affordable fee insted of spending 2200 dollars again:confused: .
Its just a point of view. Apple is the BEST by far but i just think they take advantage of the costumers by realeasing new products every couple of months (iPods).
:D :D :D LOL, this is the funniest post I read all day. You ought to thow a few ;) 's in, though, because some people won't get the joke

...

Um... You are joking, right? Right???


Anyway, Macs have great resale value, so go to eBay, if you want. Also, the iMac is a downgrade. I have both on my desk at work and the dual 2.0GHz G5 smokes the iMac, even on UB apps (obviously, there's no comparison for PPC only apps.) The only thing the Intel iMac can run faster than your G5 is Windows--and really, is that where your priorities are?:D Didn't think so, or else why'd you buy a Mac in the first place?

[tomax7]

What I'd like to know is if anyone loaded BootCamp onto a Mac Mini Solo.

I got a mac mini solo 1.5 with 512 ram. I know bootcamp "can" be loaded on it, but with xp will the system just be a slow dog then?

cheers
tom

[BillyShears]

Using bridged Ethernet I cannot ping myself from the same machine. Does that answer your question? It probably can be made to work but doing a quick test that is what I get.

Argh, yes that answers it... in the negative. :( Maybe I will hold off until I hear some confirmation of it working.

(You are trying to ping the Windows IP address from the OS X terminal right?)

[:DRS:Church]

bla bla bla, where are the benchmarks? Thats what really matters. I wanna see some 3dMark05 scores. And i want to see the same cpu used in the macs, used on wintel machines. See a lot of you are saying its faster than windows machine. Well I bet your windows comp dont have the same intel chips that apple is using right now. These are the same people that think every apple OS update makes their comp run faster:rolleyes: Also (this is where I get flamed) whats to say apple didnt find a way to make windows run like 10% slower on apples hardware? Makes sense right. You dont want somebody elses OS running faster on your hardware, right? So flame away. I have had macs in my house longer than some of you have been alive(got my first mac in 86). Also I think this is great!! One less comp in my house, although I doubt I will ever trade my gaming PC for a mac. Its just cheaper to build a PC to play games on, plus you can upgrade a PC. As far as gaming goes on a mac there are just to little options as far as upgrading your comp. Anyway, I think this is cool. Now lets see the benches.

[rdrr]

Imagine when quad core chips come out...

Host OSX

One VM running windo$e
One VM running Solaris X86
One VM running Linux

:)

[balamw]

I got a mac mini solo 1.5 with 512 ram. I know bootcamp "can" be loaded on it, but with xp will the system just be a slow dog then?
It'll run like XP on a typical Pentium M laptop, since that's essentially what you've got i.e. think of the performance of a Pentium M 1.4 GHz with integrated graphics and 512MB of RAM.

No speed demon, but no slouch either.

B

[tomax7]

Thanks for the reply, but did you actually install it on a Mini?

Don't take me wrong, but I would like to know if someone did and how they rate it. We don't have the Duo's up here in Calgary yet, so wondering if I buy the Solo (to learn Apple) I won't be really dissappointed in performance.

It'll run like XP on a typical Pentium M laptop, since that's essentially what you've got i.e. think of the performance of a Pentium M 1.4 GHz with integrated graphics and 512MB of RAM.

No speed demon, but no slouch either.

B

[dizastor]

One word:

Marklar.

Sorry, matey. If Steve sends that puppy out, it'll be a free-for-all.

Didn't marklar already get sent out? I thought that was the code name for the OSX on x86 project inside Apple, which was secret until last june, which is running on the intel macs at this very moment?? Is there yet another secret OSX on x86 project inside Apple hq? I don't understand what they would be doing.

[daveschroeder]

What I'd like to know is if anyone loaded BootCamp onto a Mac Mini Solo.

I got a mac mini solo 1.5 with 512 ram. I know bootcamp "can" be loaded on it, but with xp will the system just be a slow dog then?

Why would it be?

(Answer: no, it isn't slow. Slower than a 2.0 GHz Core Duo with 2GB RAM? Sure. But definitely not slower than any other 1.5 GHz Core Solo system running Windows.)

[daveschroeder]

Imagine when quad core chips come out...

Host OSX

One VM running windo$e
One VM running Solaris X86
One VM running Linux

:)

You don't need 4 cores to run 4 VMs. You can do that now. That's part of the beauty of VT. The real concern is having enough *RAM* for all of your VMs.

[ZeeG]

Any .NET developers out there with an MBP and Parallels?

I build Compact Framework apps in VS2005. From the descriptions of Parallels, and my previous experience with 'native' VM software (VMWare on PC), I'd imagine that Visual Studio itself will run absolutely fine.

But can anyone out there try to connect a PocketPC device (via USB cradle) and see if ActiveSync/Visual Studio detect and deploy to it correctly?

If so, then 'goodbye' to every single PC I own, and work can take their Dell back :)

I'm very interested in this too.
The only reason I'm using Windows is the Visual Studio that I need to use for my project. I don't access i/o devices such as USB or Pararell port in my program, so I'm assuming VS will run perfectly and smoothly on the MBP.
I'm getting exiting about MBP! I hope to get it soon. - I have to get rid of this powerbook first, though... :(

[rdrr]

You don't need 4 cores to run 4 VMs. You can do that now. That's part of the beauty of VT. The real concern is having enough *RAM* for all of your VMs.

But doesn't windows require atleast half your resources? :D

[riversky]

This is like virtual PC. Very cool. Run Windows within the Mac OS....but....

I think the Intel version of MS Virtual PC will kick ass. Think of the optimization that Microsoft will do knowing the secret hooks in Windows and the fact that it will probably be optimized for Vista too and have much deeper Direct X support. (for games)

This is a great product but I expect MS to have a faster more native product available at the WWDC.

By the way I never ever expected in my lifetime to read a Mac board and see discussion after discussion and topic after topic on WINDOWS!! Wow, I keep looking out the window for the dark clouds signaling the end of it all.

[vamp07]

Argh, yes that answers it... in the negative. :( Maybe I will hold off until I hear some confirmation of it working.

(You are trying to ping the Windows IP address from the OS X terminal right?)


It's a free download. Why not try it out?

[cyberddot]

bla bla bla, <snip>

:confused: :D No flamiing here, you're allowed to misunderstand how all of this works and to speculate wildly! ;) Thinking Different is what it's all about, and yer working it! I'm sure you're not trolling for a flaming, so I'll respond with some misdirection:

Boot Camp vs Parallels for Gaming (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=192025) <- not really necessary, since gaming on Parallels is in the least pointless, and in worst cases, impossible

or

Gaming on Apple Boot Camp (XP) (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=191695)

or


Boot Camp XP GFX performance (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=191758)

If all else fails, use the multicolored link to the left <-- in my signature to dig up some results! ;)

[maxtheape]

Perhaps this has already been mentioned, but the best possible scenerio would seem to me to be one where Parallel's system could be run so that I could use my standard fare of basic applications, and XP could be run natively via Boot Camp for those situations where I want to squeeze every last drop of capability that XP can use from my system. But I don't want two installs of XP. I want one set of preferences, bookmarks, etc. If that were doable, then I would be in heaven. Of course I'll stick to my OSX for the majority of things, but if I need to run Access, Parallel will do fine. If I want to exercise my gaming skills, I'll reboot.

--maxtheape

[BillyShears]

It's a free download. Why not try it out?

I would, but I don't have an Intel Mac... and I'm not going to buy one until I can confirm this is working.

[:DRS:Church]

hey thanks cyberddot. I wasnt trolling, i just know up tight us mac people can be when somebody goes against the grain:)

[dylansm]

Argh, yes that answers it... in the negative. :( Maybe I will hold off until I hear some confirmation of it working.

(You are trying to ping the Windows IP address from the OS X terminal right?)

I just sent you a private message with my email. Send me yours and I'll keep you posted on this issue when I get my Mac Book next week. That goes for anyone else who wants to know more about the whole networking situation between Parallels and OS X.

I'll post here too.

[rlreif]

Just use aMSN - it supports cam and MSN just fine. Works with built in iSight on the iMac, plus firewire and USB cams too. And it is free! Plus it works great!

http://amsn.sf.net/

/vjl/

DUDE!
thanks... MSN messenger is the only reason i can think of that i would want to run windows... i wasnt aware of that program

[bubbalwz]

My intial reaction when I saw that Apple released Boot Camp and Parralel's released their virtualization solution was "AWESOME!!!...I can play all of those games I always want to buy...and now my daughter can buy the educational games she always wants and she can run that scooby-doo disc that came in her serial box."

But over the past 24 hours I have began to reevaluate my intial reaction. I think this is an awesome solution to a problem that us mac users have always had which is running Windows apps we can never run. However, that is good for the short term. What does this mean LONG TERM? While the big Mac OS software houses will probably not change (blizzard, adobe, etc.), this is almost certainly the end of Quicken and other medium-sized software houses. I mean those companies can't help but look at this from a business perspective which day-after-day results in them barely making their return on their Mac Software Divisions. If Quicken sells 5% of their software to Mac users, it will make much more business sense to axe their Mac OS developers and require Mac users to now "Option Boot" into Windows XP, knowing that they will probably retain half of their original Mac users that will be willing to actually do that. In the end, they save money and headcount. And if key software packages like that go away, it reduces the Mac OS as a viable alternative OS to Windows XP. Why would grandma want to boot into Mac OS X at all if she has to boot into Windows XP to do her Quicken which is very important to her...just buy a Mac and run Windows XP...

And you can just forget about those companies that work so hard to bring PC games to the Mac. I mean sure you can run them in XP on your Mac now, but that also means there is one less Mac OS software developer out there now and ultimately another win for Microsoft.

I just think we are treading on some seriously dangerous times here. While I think it does solve our problems short-term, if not dealt with carefully this could be the start of the end of Mac OS.... Sure...the Mac may still exist, but will there be a future where more people run Macs with Windows than Macs with Mac OS? And how could Apple ignore that?!?

Anyone else feel happy and concerned as I am?????

You aren't alone: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=192003

[guez]

For those who are saying this marks the death of the Mac, don't forget that prior to the Intel machines you could virtualize windows on a mac using VPC and various other solutions.

OK, so the emulation was just that, emulation and it wasn't as quick as you'd really want it to be, and now we have the speed we've dreamed of.

I work for a macintosh development company. Am I worried that I'm now out of a job or that we'll stop writing our software for mac? No I am not. There is a need for our software product and as long as macs run Mac OS, our software should be there.


I assume that there is a Windows equivalent for the software you sell? Aren't you worried about the added competition? If not, why not? Either this Windows on Mac thing spreads like wildfire, and you guys are in trouble (more competition) or it doesn't, and its not a big deal. I just don't buy the "wow-this-is-great-now-I-can-use-all-of-the-Windows-programs-I-want-but-Mac-developers-don't-have-to-worry-cause-no-one-else-will" line.

Second pet peeve. Everyone here is talking about convergence and its inevitabilty. Perhaps you are right, but the inevitable is not necessarily good, and there is no reason in particular to think it will be good in the long run for the Mac. I want a stable, consistent, elegant, well-supported platform with good native applications.

I'll tell you what is going on, here. Apple is getting rid of the Mac-as-platform and replacing it with the Mac-as-designer-machine. Apple will win over a lot geeks, and they will lose a lot of pratically-minded loyal users who find it easier to use Word XP on Windows XP.

[BillyShears]

I just sent you a private message with my email. Send me yours and I'll keep you posted on this issue when I get my Mac Book next week. That goes for anyone else who wants to know more about the whole networking situation between Parallels and OS X.

I'll post here too.

I didn't receive a PM from you, but I just sent you one.

Then it occurred to me that something is probably wrong with the PM system.

So, if you want to email me, try letmeintroducetoyou@yahoo.com -- I'll also be checking the forums for any news.

Thanks!

[dylansm]

Argh, yes that answers it... in the negative. :( Maybe I will hold off until I hear some confirmation of it working.

(You are trying to ping the Windows IP address from the OS X terminal right?)

You cannot currently "see" host using WiFi interface, but it should work using ethernet cable.

From an admin at Parallels's support forum:
This is known issue, guest can't "see" host via WiFi interface. This will be fixed in future versions.
When asked for a time frame, the same person said "This problem should be fixed in next beta-version."

This will be very, very cool.

[BillyShears]

You cannot currently "see" host using WiFi interface, but it should work using ethernet cable.

From an admin at Parallels's support forum:
This is known issue, guest can't "see" host via WiFi interface. This will be fixed in future versions.
When asked for a time frame, the same person said "This problem should be fixed in next beta-version."

This will be very, very cool.

Ha, I didn't even think to check the support forum. Thanks for that. That's a weird bug, because this (http://forum.parallels.com/thread127.html) thread seems to suggest they can share files, but this thread (http://forum.parallels.com/thread82.html) (which you were referencing) says they can't ping.

[letsGoOn2]

One fatal flaw with Virtual PC was that you couldn't view the host's Apache sites because it used the same IP address as the host.

You can do this with Virtual PC, in fact I'm doing exactly what you describe. You just need to go into the PC Settings panel in VPC and select the "Virtual Switch" option under the Networking settings. If you aren't running a DNS server then you'll probably want to add your Mac's IP address and hostname to C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\etc\hosts (assuming your Mac has a static IP).

I also happen to have XP configured to use a static IP address, but this isn't required.

[AidenShaw]

The Mini is included Alden. Minis Get Software Virtualization That Is Almost As Fast AS Hardware V. :)
I didn't say Parallels won't run (at whatever reduced speed) on a Mini.

Parallels claims that "almost all" MacIntels support VT, and also admit that the Mini does not.

My point is that the statement that "almost all" MacIntels support VT is not honest. The claim that "most" support VT might be defensible (2 out of 3 do), but "almost all" is RDF-level hypel

[Senbei]

I'd like to see if the Intel Minis will take Meroms before buying a new one
FUGGER over at XtremeSystems (the same one who swapped out the Core Solo to a 2.16GHz Core Duo) was able to drop a 2GHz Merom into his mini. Since it isn't yet a shipping processor, there isn't much he can say but the performance increase is approximately around 20% over the 2.16GHz Core Duo. Post is towards the middle of this page (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=91459&page=5).

[plinden]

I don't have a Windows XP disk handy, so I thought I would try installing a Linux VM using Parallel. So far it's working fine - I'm doing the Debian sarge netinstall, so it's downloading the packages as I type this (on the same iMac). The install is using 34% of one CPU.

Initial install (before package download started) was at least as fast, and probably a good deal faster, than the last Debian install I did, on a 1.8GHz P-4 (whoop-dee-doo, I hear some of you saying ... but remember, this is a second OS running while Mac OS X is).

Since I have a couple of other Linux machines handy, I'll test out e.g. code compilation performance.

[villanova329]

What I'd like to know is if anyone loaded BootCamp onto a Mac Mini Solo.

I got a mac mini solo 1.5 with 512 ram. I know bootcamp "can" be loaded on it, but with xp will the system just be a slow dog then?

cheers
tom



It was the first Mac of mine I installed it on, runs like a champ. 1.5gHz Solo Core with 512MB, my only gripe is that its booting Windows XP by default now... hahaha I guess I can laugh about that. After seeing it was successful, I installed it on the MBP. I just got done revamping my 1.83gHz MBP today too! (2 gigs of RAM, and actually had the balls to open it up and add a 120GB Hard Drive).... I can't wait to see how XP will run when i add 2GB of RAm to my Mac Mini and my soon to be arriving 2.0gHz Yonah Processor.

Wish me luck!

[daveschroeder]

It was the first Mac of mine I installed it on, runs like a champ. 1.5gHz Solo Core with 512MB, my only gripe is that its booting Windows XP by default now

All you have to do is boot into Mac OS X and use the Startup Disk System Preferences pane to select Mac OS X again if you want it to be the default. That's it.

[daveschroeder]

bla bla bla, where are the benchmarks? Thats what really matters. I wanna see some 3dMark05 scores.

Um, like all virtualization, this has no 3D support. (While 3D support is technically possible via various means, this is not generally a feature or a target for virtualization.) This is NOT a solution for gaming or any 3D application.

But *minus* the 3D video, this solution is near-native performance, period. There's a lot more things people need and want to do with Windows (and other x86 OSes) than games.

[dakis]

I got a mac mini solo 1.5 with 512 ram. I know bootcamp "can" be loaded on it, but with xp will the system just be a slow dog then?

cheers
tom

nope, that will be pretty fast, really. The problem with the speed and the Core Solo Mini Macs only applies to Parallels, not to Boot Camp.

[dakis]

nope, that will be pretty fast, really. The problem with the speed and the Core Solo Mini Macs only applies to Parallels, not to Boot Camp.

btw. I do have a Core Solo Mini Mac available but I can't try because I only have a 60 gig harddisk, 22 gigs are occupied by OS X and the standard apps. Which leaves me 38 to work with. As this is a production machine, I need that space and can't afford to waste it on an additional XP installation that I wouldn't be needing much anyway.

[bnash]

I've tried a bunch of resolutions from both the mac (Macbook Pro) and from windows. No winning combinations, just kept getting the same error:

"Unable to switch to fullscreen mode. Primary operating system does not support screen resolution requested by guest operating system. Select another resolution for the guest operating system or review your XWindows System configuration."

I think it probably unsupported in the Parallels beta....anyone else had success with full screen?

-Nash

[plinden]

Installed Debian under Parallels code - compiled a Java project that takes 13 seconds under Mac OS X.

It took 14 seconds in the Linux VM.

But I think I've run into some kind of fundamental limit - that particular project never takes less than 13 seconds on any machine.

Compiling apache2 took:
./configure took 3:09 minutes compared to 0:34 on Linux standalone.
make took 4:05 minutes compared to 1:06 on Linux standalone.

super_pi took 28 seconds for 1,000,000 decimal places compared to 62 in Mac OS X on the same iMac.

[shooterlv]

and its almost done installing within parallels. My plan is to run the VM and slipstream a new Windows XP pro disk with SP2 then reinstall with bootcamp.

[Plantman]

I have to say I love the timing of this. Vista is delayed so there is little to push people to upgrade their PCs at present- other than a shovel load of viruses wrecking their old machine.
An Apple computer has to look very attractive indeed as at least you get a new computer with many new features with a modern OS.
I think people are going to buy more Macs try out XP and find it woefully inadequate then try out OS X and get hooked. I do think Apple are going to have to support this in the longer term as many people will be a bit nervous of adding such a large piece of software to their computer.
I am glad I do not have any Dell shares as this could be very bad for them!
Heck this has even got me thinking of upgrading and this iMac I am using is only 4-5 months old! My wife uses a PC for work at home a Mac mini would now be an ideal replacement!!
I wonder whether Apple will monitor how sales go in the next couple of months and then finally decide whether XP support will continue into the future. If Apple sales don't rise dramatically and software manufacturers start to mutter about not releasing Mac OS X software I suspect Boot Camp may suddenly disappear.
So unless some people start shelling out some cash I wonder how long this will all last? Enjoy it while you can!

[andysmith]

Just tried it out.

I can't say I'm very impressed. First time it kernal panic'd my iMac instantly when starting the VM.
XP installed fine, but I couldn't get the networking working. Then I realised I couldn't access the net through OS X either. Turns out my Linksys router had somehow crashed, which is the first time in about 2 years I've had any problems with it.

[reyesmac]

If Macs can run windows programs seamlessly the only native programs they would need to dominate with would be the OS, front row, mail, itunes, and safari. If they can convince a huge number of windows users that they need these programs to avoid all the virus problems with windows I think they will have a winner.
If Microsoft dumps word, they create a better alternative. Same thing with adobe and photoshop. Apple will not be dependent on software developers anymore. Remember, the not enough X excuse used against Apple is something Apple can't really control. If they double their market share I could see them come out with lower priced computers as well, like what happened with the iPod. This is looking better and better every day.

[WildPalms]

All of them, I believe:

"Parallels Workstation 2.1 for Mac OS X offers full support for Intel VT-x (Vanderpool) technology. From our expirience Intel VT-x is enabled by Apple on iMac and MacBook Pro and disabled for some reasons on Mac Mini. So Parallels Workstation is running in Intel VT-x mode on iMac and MacBook Pro and in software virtualization mode on Mac Mini."

Posted by a "Parallels" employee on their support forum (http://forum.parallels.com/showthread.php?p=237#post237)


.....someone wanna explain how mine is enabled after the firmware patch?
44595
..and yes it absolutely flies along..... I have installed Bootcamp and Windows XP in Parallels is as fast as native boot.

[aquafina]

But over the past 24 hours I have began to reevaluate my intial reaction. I think this is an awesome solution to a problem that us mac users have always had which is running Windows apps we can never run. However, that is good for the short term. What does this mean LONG TERM? While the big Mac OS software houses will probably not change (blizzard, adobe, etc.), this is almost certainly the end of Quicken and other medium-sized software houses. I mean those companies can't help but look at this from a business perspective which day-after-day results in them barely making their return on their Mac Software Divisions. If Quicken sells 5% of their software to Mac users, it will make much more business sense to axe their Mac OS developers and require Mac users to now "Option Boot" into Windows XP, knowing that they will probably retain half of their original Mac users that will be willing to actually do that. In the end, they save money and headcount. And if key software packages like that go away, it reduces the Mac OS as a viable alternative OS to Windows XP. Why would grandma want to boot into Mac OS X at all if she has to boot into Windows XP to do her Quicken which is very important to her...just buy a Mac and run Windows XP...


I don't think your scenario will play out quite that way. Yes, I expect medium and small shops to drop their Mac product, but that opens the door for other companies that want a Mac only product to produce one. Quicken as an example is not very good on the Mac, as it suffers from being a poor port from windows. There are already competitors, and if quicken drops their Mac offering, that will be additional incentive for others to step up and fill the void. On the contrary, I believe this will actually improve the Mac only software market, not cause it to shrink.

[xnor]

.....someone wanna explain how mine [VT-x on my Mac Mini] is enabled after the firmware patch? ..and yes it absolutely flies along..... I have installed Bootcamp and Windows XP in Parallels is as fast as native boot.

Thanks WildPalms - you just saved my day (and my Core Duo Mac Mini) :)

As soon as I get home, I'll install Windows... again. ;)

[AidenShaw]

And whats wrong with it being faster on a Mac than on a HP or Dell brand machine? All the more bragging rights Apple gets.
It doesn't mean anything until someone shows that Windows running on an MBP is faster than Windows running on a Thinkpad or Latitude with the same speed CPU.

Which isn't going to happen, of course, since MBP/Thinkpad/Latitude are using all the same chips, disks, RAM and other components.

The only time you'll see any real difference is if the machines aren't the same (5400RPM disk vs 7200RPM disk, for example).

[Sofad]

I used "Dr.Hardware 2006" (http://www.dr-hardware.com/) to perform a benchmark test with Windows 98.

See the attached files for the result...

[AidenShaw]

Using bridged Ethernet I cannot ping myself from the same machine. Does that answer your question? It probably can be made to work but doing a quick test that is what I get.
Is the Windows Firewall on? By default it does not respond to pings.

The third tab of the firewall control panel has a button to enable it.

[AidenShaw]

Imagine when quad core chips come out...

Host OSX

One VM running windo$e
One VM running Solaris X86
One VM running Linux

:)
You don't want to statically assign cores to tasks like VMs - it's much better to just let the host scheduler dynamically assign work to available cores.

If OSX has 3 active threads - you'd want them to run simultaneously on 3 cores rather than using 1 core.

[jlaylor]

I liked the USB drive solution, but I still don't feel it's elegant enough. I just tried this and it works:

1. run your os x on ethernet 1 (cabled)
2. set your ethernet for the parallel to ethernet 2 (airport)

two different ip addresses on the same machine. this assumes that you have airport and hard wire on the same network.

a bit convoluted still, but considerably more elegant.

- Janet

[vamp07]

I liked the USB drive solution, but I still don't feel it's elegant enough. I just tried this and it works:

1. run your os x on ethernet 1 (cabled)
2. set your ethernet for the parallel to ethernet 2 (airport)

two different ip addresses on the same machine. this assumes that you have airport and hard wire on the same network.

a bit convoluted still, but considerably more elegant.

- Janet


I would not worry too much about this. They already said they would fix it.

[tomax7]

Hey thanks Villa, that's the news I wanted to hear. Ironically I went ahead and got a duo anyway as I wanted the mini by next weekend when I leave town.

Keep posting, and others, how it runs, showing my students this great idea of changing over. Partially I'd like the Parallel verison so one doesn't have to dual boot, but do a WOW basically. I guess Lepoard is suppose to have something like this in it, when is that release coming?

cheers
tom


It was the first Mac of mine I installed it on, runs like a champ. 1.5gHz Solo Core with 512MB, my only gripe is that its booting Windows XP by default now...(snip)
Wish me luck!

[tomax7]

Thanks, appreciate the feedback as I want to be able to tell my class to go out and get mini's as it is more affordable for them than the imacs.

nope, that will be pretty fast, really. The problem with the speed and the Core Solo Mini Macs only applies to Parallels, not to Boot Camp.

[tomax7]

Interesting, Apple and Apps takes 22 gigs! Egad, thought Vista was a hog with 10gig...

Before the flames start, please excuse my ignorance with Apple, I'm learning Apple as we speak. Hopefully Apple users here aren't like the Linux propellerheads who bash Windows at every turn and thereby weaken their arguement to change over.

Where can one find specs on installation sizes? I went to Apple's site and it just says 3gig for OSX Tiger, so that is a lot of space chewed up by what, iLife?

btw. I do have a Core Solo Mini Mac available but I can't try because I only have a 60 gig harddisk, 22 gigs are occupied by OS X and the standard apps. Which leaves me 38 to work with. As this is a production machine, I need that space and can't afford to waste it on an additional XP installation that I wouldn't be needing much anyway.

[tomax7]

Well I put my money where my mouth is, went out and bought a few Apple (AAPL) shares.

I just dropped three dollars at opening market today. Yesterday it went up 4 with the news of Bootcamp, something must have spooked investors. Wasn't there a warning on the Apple site that installing BootCamp voids your warrenty? Can't seem to find it, so it must have gotten pulled, nevertheless if it was up, that would spook a lot of people, like me also in not trying Boot, let alone OSX.

Side note question, I ordered Office 2004 with XP, is that like a mini XP virtual window in OSX?

cheers
tom


So unless some people start shelling out some cash I wonder how long this will all last? Enjoy it while you can!

[vamp07]

Thanks, appreciate the feedback as I want to be able to tell my class to go out and get mini's as it is more affordable for them than the imacs.

But once you do the bios update on the minis it becomes a non issue?

[tomax7]

I haven't gotten my Mini yet, will be here next week, takes 3 working days from Apple. So I have to flash my BIOS then eh?

But once you do the bios update on the minis it becomes a non issue?

[LosJackal]

Argh, yes that answers it... in the negative. :( Maybe I will hold off until I hear some confirmation of it working.

(You are trying to ping the Windows IP address from the OS X terminal right?)

Not sure what you guys are trying to do, but in my test, WinXP got a different DHCP address than Mac OS X. They can ping each other. However, I was unable to get them to mount SMB shares to/from each other.

Instead, what seems to work is enabling personal FTP sharing on Mac OS X and accessing that from WinXP using your username and password. NB: The beta is buggy, as I encountered a number of Mac grey screen crashes when playing too much with networking between the two. So I don't think this is a workable solution yet for real, stable work....but it should in theory.

-Carlos
www.prodedgy.com

[BillyShears]

Not sure what you guys are trying to do, but in my test, WinXP got a different DHCP address than Mac OS X. They can ping each other. However, I was unable to get them to mount SMB shares to/from each other.

Instead, what seems to work is enabling personal FTP sharing on Mac OS X and accessing that from WinXP using your username and password. NB: The beta is buggy, as I encountered a number of Mac grey screen crashes when playing too much with networking between the two. So I don't think this is a workable solution yet for real, stable work....but it should in theory.

-Carlos
www.prodedgy.com

What, so now it does work? Either I keep misunderstanding people or something else is at play. But it sounds like you've got it working how I need it to, if you can FTP.

Thanks so much :)

[LosJackal]

Some people were thinking the video was accelerated, so I made another one that shows a system clock:

http://www.prodedgy.com/article/52

-Carlos
www.prodedgy.com

[hayesk]

Interesting, Apple and Apps takes 22 gigs! Egad, thought Vista was a hog with 10gig...

Before the flames start, please excuse my ignorance with Apple, I'm learning Apple as we speak. Hopefully Apple users here aren't like the Linux propellerheads who bash Windows at every turn and thereby weaken their arguement to change over.

Where can one find specs on installation sizes? I went to Apple's site and it just says 3gig for OSX Tiger, so that is a lot of space chewed up by what, iLife?

Yes, new Macs come with lots of extra software. iLife comes with lots of sound loops for Garage Band, DVD templates, iMovie samples, etc.

Not to mention the Developer Tools, MS Office demo, and other bundled apps. My wife runs MacOS X 10.4.6 on an old iBook with a 10G hard disk. The OS takes less than half of that.

[plinden]

Compiling apache2 took:
./configure took 3:09 minutes compared to 0:34 on Linux standalone.
make took 4:05 minutes compared to 1:06 on Linux standalone.

Sorry for quoting myself, but I just tested compiling apache2 on the iMac:
./configure took 3:02 minutes
make took 3:32 minutes

So it is very close to native speeds.

Sorry QEMU, but I'm leaving you for Parallels ... $50 is money well spent, even if Apple do add similar virtualization for free to Leopard. I'll have this for a year.

[plinden]

Not sure what you guys are trying to do, but in my test, WinXP got a different DHCP address than Mac OS X.
Same here - my Debian install shows up on my router as 192.168.0.4 and the iMac as 192.168.0.3

They can ping each other. However, I was unable to get them to mount SMB shares to/from each other.

Probably user error. Are you familiar with setting up SMB shares? They have to use the same WORKGROUP, for one thing. Sorry I can't help any more, I haven't done this for ages.

[tomax7]

Silly question then, can one delete files from Garage Band as I won't be doing a lot of that. Same with anyone who would use it in an business office setting. I'm sure one can, just found out if I click on the nice arrow beside a shortcut drive to another computer in Mac Hard Drive, it "ejects" it...how does one keep the drive shortcut when rebooting?


Yes, new Macs come with lots of extra software. iLife comes with lots of sound loops for Garage Band, DVD templates, iMovie samples, etc.

Not to mention the Developer Tools, MS Office demo, and other bundled apps. My wife runs MacOS X 10.4.6 on an old iBook with a 10G hard disk. The OS takes less than half of that.

[Photorun]

I used "Dr.Hardware 2006" (http://www.dr-hardware.com/) to perform a benchmark test with Windows 98.

See the attached files for the result...

HOLY MOLY!:eek:

Those are INCREDIBLE scores considering it's virtualization! The iMac held it's own and was only bested by Xeon and that one P4. That's great news!

[speelurker]

Um, like all virtualization, this has no 3D support. (While 3D support is technically possible via various means, this is not generally a feature or a target for virtualization.) This is NOT a solution for gaming or any 3D application.

But *minus* the 3D video, this solution is near-native performance, period. There's a lot more things people need and want to do with Windows (and other x86 OSes) than games.

It looks like accelerated 3D gaming should be possible with systems with an extra video card:

http://www.parallels.com/en/news/id,8562

Apparently, "Intel Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d)" will provide the ability to turn the second video card completely over to the virtual machine. Thus full speed gaming.

[Billy Boo Bob]

Side note question, I ordered Office 2004 with XP, is that like a mini XP virtual window in OSX?
No, it's a native Mac application suite (not just a port of the Windows version). Microsoft has a Mac Business Unit (MBU) that sits in their little corner of MS-Land and writes Mac versions of their software (some of the apps, anyway).

Many people (not all) find the Mac versions of Office (Word and Excel, anyway) are much nicer than the Windows versions. And they can read/write documents directly between the two versions (platforms), too. You probably won't be disappointed.

Myself, I like the Mac versions much better. Maybe just because I'm working in OS X instead of XP, so it "feels" like a Mac app. Not real impressed with the fading palettes, though.

[LagunaSol]

Well I put my money where my mouth is, went out and bought a few Apple (AAPL) shares.

I just dropped three dollars at opening market today. Yesterday it went up 4 with the news of Bootcamp, something must have spooked investors.

Nah, I think it's just typical profit-taking. The stock was up 15% in 2 days. There are always investors who don't care about the big picture and are going to bail out with the quick gain.

I originally planned on selling my stock when it hit $60. Then when Apple announced the Intel switch last summer, I realized the huge potential and decided my stock was now a longer-term investment. I think things are really going to accelerate in 2007 and beyond, so personally I'm not going to worry (or I'll try not to) about the daily fluctuations. I see big market share gains in Apple's future. Hence a big upside to the stock. Perhaps in 2015 I can retire on it. :)

(I only wish I had bought more AAPL way back when. A lot more.)

[piracy]

Well I put my money where my mouth is, went out and bought a few Apple (AAPL) shares.

I just dropped three dollars at opening market today. Yesterday it went up 4 with the news of Bootcamp, something must have spooked investors. Wasn't there a warning on the Apple site that installing BootCamp voids your warrenty? Can't seem to find it, so it must have gotten pulled, nevertheless if it was up, that would spook a lot of people, like me also in not trying Boot, let alone OSX.

Side note question, I ordered Office 2004 with XP, is that like a mini XP virtual window in OSX?

cheers
tom

Um, no, no one got spooked by anything. It's called "profit taking".

Also, no, there was NEVER any notice that installing Boot Camp voids your warranty (wtf?). There was never anything like that up there, and nothing got pulled, because it was never there in the first place.

[alec]

Aghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Anyone else sufficiently freaking out? There are a lot of thoughts going through my head about the future of Apple... and I thought the 30th anniversary was going to be docile! I'm sufficiently worried that development of games and other software will be neutred because of this. But on the same token, I'm secretly hoping for another 'Rosetta' that will allow near-native running of Windows applications.

PS Where is my 10 inch iPod with bluetooth?

[SkipNewarkDE]

I installed this thing this morning. To call it a Beta is being kind.

I have a 2.16 GHz MacBook Pro with 2 gigs of RAM. I installed the Parallels virtualization system this morning. It is quite simple to get up and running. A simple assistant gets you set up with a new virtual machine; this runs pretty flawlessly, save for some display artifacts with window updating here and there.

The installation of XP into the newly created virtual machine went as expected. I DID run into some annoyances with the vm software at this point. It has the capability of allowing you to specify an .iso image file, and mounting it as a sort of virtual CD. This setting "sticks", so if I remove the CD, the Parallels software isn't bright enough to figure this out correctly. But what is odd is that it returns a completely inappropriate memory error.

Other problems. Sound doesn't appear to work. Full screen mode doesn't appear to work.

Then the killer... the, "I am going to wait until this is farther along" kind of bug. On the MacBook Pro, if you sleep the machine while the virtualization software is running, it will crash the machine hard on awakening. Not just the application. The. Entire. Machine.

[crees!]

I installed this thing this morning. To call it a Beta is being kind.

I have a 2.16 GHz MacBook Pro with 2 gigs of RAM. I installed the Parallels virtualization system this morning. It is quite simple to get up and running. A simple assistant gets you set up with a new virtual machine; this runs pretty flawlessly, save for some display artifacts with window updating here and there.

The installation of XP into the newly created virtual machine went as expected. I DID run into some annoyances with the vm software at this point. It has the capability of allowing you to specify an .iso image file, and mounting it as a sort of virtual CD. This setting "sticks", so if I remove the CD, the Parallels software isn't bright enough to figure this out correctly. But what is odd is that it returns a completely inappropriate memory error.

Other problems. Sound doesn't appear to work. Full screen mode doesn't appear to work.

Then the killer... the, "I am going to wait until this is farther along" kind of bug. On the MacBook Pro, if you sleep the machine while the virtualization software is running, it will crash the machine hard on awakening. Not just the application. The. Entire. Machine.

All points that you should leave feedback on the company's website. They're asking for these types of comments.

[SkipNewarkDE]

I didn't think the current Core processor (Yonah) supported virtualization, this feature was to be added with Merom.

I would have switched to the Mac sooner if I could have run Windows as a fail safe, so I think this and Boot Camp are great news for Apple and their market share, which is good for all of us - apart from the likely target of hackers if Mac OS X becomes more mainstream.

I only use Windows under Virtual PC to test web sites I am designing, so I have no need or desire to reboot into Windows (if I could)., the only caveat on my Power Mac G5 is that it's painfully slow, if I had an Intel Mac it should be almost native speed, which is very good.


Actually, this has been a common misperception. According to Parallels, it DOES support it. Other things I have read bear this out.

[SkipNewarkDE]

All points that you should leave feedback on the company's website. They're asking for these types of comments.


And they did hear from me! :rolleyes:

[tomax7]

Yeah, I met a young fella (~29-30) who bought 1,000 Apple shares when it was $16. Since then he's bought a house, paid for his Computer Science degree course at a University and just putz around working at CompuSmart till he figures what he wants to do with his future.

Yes it is nice ;-)

(I only wish I had bought more AAPL way back when. A lot more.)

[tomax7]

Ok, glad, um, to know, um that you are a specialist on stock markets fluctuations and people don't sell on speculation, superstition or spoofs...

Also, I was told about the void issue by a salesguy at a Mac store, so guess he read it wrong because we both looked for it afterwards and he swears he saw something. Maybe it was on the Parelelle site? And he wasn't saying it to be scarey, just a side note.

But glad you are so condensending in yoru reply - gives me the warm and fuzzies for Apple types.

Um, no, no one got spooked by anything. It's called "profit taking".

Also, no, there was NEVER any notice that installing Boot Camp voids your warranty (wtf?). There was never anything like that up there, and nothing got pulled, because it was never there in the first place.

[milo]

Ok, glad, um, to know, um that you are a specialist on stock markets fluctuations and people don't sell on speculation, superstition or spoofs...

Also, I was told about the void issue by a salesguy at a Mac store, so guess he read it wrong because we both looked for it afterwards and he swears he saw something. Maybe it was on the Parelelle site? And he wasn't saying it to be scarey, just a side note.


You don't have to be a stock market genius to recognize profit taking. The stock has a huge runup over two days. When it drops less than two percent on day three, with no negative news, that's profit taking. Simple as that.

[tomax7]

Depends on what you construe as "negative news".

http://money.cnn.com/services/tickerheadlines/for5/200604061608DOWJONESDJONLINE001089_FORTUNE5.htm

http://macslash.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/06/091236&mode=thread

These two days being one of the sharpest climbs for Apple in recent times.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=AAPL&t=6m&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=

...but I was just speculating why maybe it dived so much in one day.

You don't have to be a stock market genius to recognize profit taking. The stock has a huge runup over two days. When it drops less than two percent on day three, with no negative news, that's profit taking. Simple as that.

[savar]

If its $50 to create as many virtual machines as you want, that is an amazing deal. Isn't VMWare the opposite -- each VM is add'l money?

Also, regarding control of the video card. Can you switch Windows to full screen, and if so, can it monopolize the video card in that configuration? Adding a 2nd vid card (and monitor, I presume?) to play games in Windows seems a little flaky.

[milo]

Depends on what you construe as "negative news".

Both of those were news from yesterday and the day before. It's hard to construe either of those as negative news considering how much the stock went up those two days. Today, there was no real apple news. And 2% isn't a big drop. After such a huge runup, drops like that are expected, that's actually pretty small considering how big the jump was, tempting people to do some profit taking.

Also, regarding control of the video card. Can you switch Windows to full screen, and if so, can it monopolize the video card in that configuration? Adding a 2nd vid card (and monitor, I presume?) to play games in Windows seems a little flaky.

You can switch to full screen, but it never gets direct access to the video card. With one video card, it looks like there won't be any way to play 3d games.

[vamp07]

You can switch to full screen, but it never gets direct access to the video card. With one video card, it looks like there won't be any way to play 3d games.


For 3d gaming that is what boot camp is for. I doubt gaming will ever be all that impressive in one of these emulators with parallel's being the best.

[gkarris]

It'll run like XP on a typical Pentium M laptop, since that's essentially what you've got i.e. think of the performance of a Pentium M 1.4 GHz with integrated graphics and 512MB of RAM.

No speed demon, but no slouch either.

B

At $599, that's a pretty expensive 1.4GHz Pentium 4 with integrated graphics w/ 512Megs, 60Gig HD, and a combo drive.... okay, add Windows XP Media Center and a remote control...still...

(Do I hear a can of worms opening???)

We need to keep in mind we buy these for the fact they are Apple OS X machines...

[speelurker]

For 3d gaming that is what boot camp is for. I doubt gaming will ever be all that impressive in one of these emulators will parallel's being the best.

I wouldn't be so sure. Once Parallels gets Intel's Directed I/O (VT-d) working it should be possible to dedicate a second video card to a virtual machine. That should enable full speed 3D gaming.

[vamp07]

I wouldn't be so sure. Once Parallels gets Intel's Directed I/O (VT-d) working it should be possible to dedicate a second video card to a virtual machine. That should enable full speed 3D gaming.


Who is going to buy a second video card for this? Are we talking about some form of virtual card?

[milo]

Who is going to buy a second video card for this? Are we talking about some form of virtual card?

I don't think anybody will, not for gaming. You might see a few people with towers running two video cards mainly for additional monitors and firing this up for gaming. But 99% of gamers will go dual boot and skip virtualization.

[andrewheard]

At $599, that's a pretty expensive 1.4GHz Pentium 4 with integrated graphics w/ 512Megs, 60Gig HD, and a combo drive.... okay, add Windows XP Media Center and a remote control...still...

(Do I hear a can of worms opening???)

We need to keep in mind we buy these for the fact they are Apple OS X machines...

A 1.4GHz Pentium 4 is far slower than a 1.4GHz Pentium M.

[speelurker]

Who is going to buy a second video card for this? Are we talking about some form of virtual card?

The hardcore gamers I know are always upgrading their video cards so its not too far-fetched to think they have a spare.

As to whether or not people would want to do this, I think it comes down to usage patterns. Wouldn't someone who uses Safari, Mail and iChat regularly like to have access to them while hardcore gaming for a couple of hours?

[sfwalter]

If its $50 to create as many virtual machines as you want, that is an amazing deal. Isn't VMWare the opposite -- each VM is add'l money?

Also, regarding control of the video card. Can you switch Windows to full screen, and if so, can it monopolize the video card in that configuration? Adding a 2nd vid card (and monitor, I presume?) to play games in Windows seems a little flaky.

Its $50 for the Parallel license, you can create and run as many virtual machines as you want. VMWare has the same licensing, although their workstation product costs alot more, $249

I can't get full screen mode to work at the moment.

scott.

[FredAkbar]

I can't get networking to work. Mac OS X 10.4.6 running the Parallels 2.1 Beta with WinXP Pro. In the "virtual" PC's settings, I have networking enabled, connects at startup, and is bridged ethernet with en0 set in the popup menu. My Mac is on a wireless network. How can I get networking in my PC, or does my Mac need to be on ethernet?

[billyboy]

Could this not signal the end of Windows as a viral deathtrap? If you have Windows running for your daily work (if that platform is your thing of course) with no contact with the internet and Switch to OS X for internet, email work the average non geek Windows user is safe for the first time in existence?

[ManchesterTrix]

I can't get networking to work. Mac OS X 10.4.6 running the Parallels 2.1 Beta with WinXP Pro. In the "virtual" PC's settings, I have networking enabled, connects at startup, and is bridged ethernet with en0 set in the popup menu. My Mac is on a wireless network. How can I get networking in my PC, or does my Mac need to be on ethernet?

You need to change the bridging to en1. en0 is your Mac's ethernet connection, en1 is the airport.

[AidenShaw]

Its $50 for the Parallel license, you can create and run as many virtual machines as you want.
Note that each Windows virtual machine would need a Windows license (and Windows Activation can enforce that).

If you install an app in a VM, that may be a violation of the EULA if you also have the app installed on another machine.

If you clone a virtual machine, you may be in violation of all of the licenses of all of the software installed on that machine. And it may not even require running the VM - just to clone the virtual hard drive would be a violation. (A powered off virtual machine and a powered off physical machine are the same - most licenses specify the number of installations, not the number of concurrently running installations.)

Software companies are starting to adjust their licensing terms to deal with the reality of virtualization - but in the meantime many VM users are regular software pirates. They'll all say it isn't really stealing, but have you ever gone a week without a rationalization? (http://www.moviequotes.com/fullquote.cgi?qnum=41439)

[rumbletum]

I can't get networking to work. Mac OS X 10.4.6 running the Parallels 2.1 Beta with WinXP Pro. In the "virtual" PC's settings, I have networking enabled, connects at startup, and is bridged ethernet with en0 set in the popup menu. My Mac is on a wireless network. How can I get networking in my PC, or does my Mac need to be on ethernet?

Parallels doesn't support wireless networking as yet

[floatingspirit]

Well, I couldn't figure out how to install Windows on Paralles, so I gave up and tried boot camp. That I got no problem. And my compy does fly in comparison to my work PC, woo hoo! Now if I can only figure out what i need to make a VPN to work.

Paralles said it had no boot drive, so popped in my Windows CD but couldn't seem to convince Paralles that I was pointing it towards the right drive or location to boot up from that real disc...If it doesn't support wireless connections to the internet though, it will be worthless to me anyway.

This is just a layman's two cents.

[FredAkbar]

Parallels doesn't support wireless networking as yet
Okay, that makes sense. I switched it to en1 and it still didn't work.

Once it does work, will it be pretty fluid, or will I have to do some setup stuff in Windows? I don't know much about networking in Windows beyond just clicking "Create a new connection" and getting through the setup wizard(s), hoping I'm making the right choices.

[rumbletum]

I'm hoping it will be straightforward, I think you'll just have to type in any passwords you've got setup.

I've just dug out an ethernet cable and it's working fine now, just downloading anti-virus software :)

[vamp07]

Parallels doesn't support wireless networking as yet

They don't need to. You just bridge it to whatever interface you want to use. I did read there are some issues with Ethernet but bridging to en1 works like a champ.

[vamp07]

Well, I couldn't figure out how to install Windows on Paralles, so I gave up and tried boot camp. That I got no problem. And my compy does fly in comparison to my work PC, woo hoo! Now if I can only figure out what i need to make a VPN to work.

Paralles said it had no boot drive, so popped in my Windows CD but couldn't seem to convince Paralles that I was pointing it towards the right drive or location to boot up from that real disc...If it doesn't support wireless connections to the internet though, it will be worthless to me anyway.

This is just a layman's two cents.


Both these work just fine. I think you may need to restart the app before it will let you pick the CD to boot from it. Bridging to the wireless network card en1 works just fine too. I have boot camp and Parallel installed but for almost everything I will use parallel. May end up uninstalling Boot camp.

[ManchesterTrix]

Parallels doesn't support wireless networking as yet

It may not recognize that it's bridging from wireless but it does work. I believe I had to completely restart Parallels, not just the VM but I do have internet access from my airport card.

[vamp07]

Could this not signal the end of Windows as a viral deathtrap? If you have Windows running for your daily work (if that platform is your thing of course) with no contact with the internet and Switch to OS X for internet, email work the average non geek Windows user is safe for the first time in existence?


This is nonsense macintosh users love to make Windows sound far worse then it is. I love my Mac but the amount of disinformation propagated by these Mac boards is amazing.

[sfwalter]

I can't get networking to work. Mac OS X 10.4.6 running the Parallels 2.1 Beta with WinXP Pro. In the "virtual" PC's settings, I have networking enabled, connects at startup, and is bridged ethernet with en0 set in the popup menu. My Mac is on a wireless network. How can I get networking in my PC, or does my Mac need to be on ethernet?

You need to use en1 for wireless

[rumbletum]

It may not recognize that it's bridging from wireless but it does work. I believe I had to completely restart Parallels, not just the VM but I do have internet access from my airport card.

Are you using it on a MBP or an iMac? The official line is that it doesn't work with Airport, but like yourself some on the Parallel forums reckon they have it working, though people like myself with iMacs don't seem to be able to get it working.

I may try it with my MBP later, to see if I have any joy there.

[Billy Boo Bob]

I'm still thinking that if MS comes out with a new VPC that it'll be the best way to virtualize. I think they'll have the best integration of the two, like drag and drop between desktops, shared clipboard, drag a folder onto the icon at the bottom to make it a new drive on the PC, etc...

Not having an Intel Mac to test either solution out, I don't know what they have already for Parallels Workstation in this line. Perhaps by the time beta turns release (or soon after with updates) they'll have all the same, but I think some of it might be a challenge without knowing the insides of Windows like MS does.

[plinden]

Both these work just fine. I think you may need to restart the app before it will let you pick the CD to boot from it. Bridging to the wireless network card en1 works just fine too. I have boot camp and Parallel installed but for almost everything I will use parallel. May end up uninstalling Boot camp.
I got it recognizing the CD ROM drive by disabling and reenabling the CDROM from the preferences. This caused the Use real CD/DVD drive option to be ungreyed, and I was able to access it by entering /dev/rdisk1. You need to insert the CD/DVD before running the Workstation.

[ManchesterTrix]

Are you using it on a MBP or an iMac? The official line is that it doesn't work with Airport, but like yourself some on the Parallel forums reckon they have it working, though people like myself with iMacs don't seem to be able to get it working.

I may try it with my MBP later, to see if I have any joy there.

I'm on a MacBook Pro. It didn't want to work at first, I switched the bridging to en1 and it wouldn't pull an IP and it said it was connected at 10 megabit. After restarting the entire Parallels application, it was working correctly. For a beta release, I have no complaints, though I think I'll wait a bit after release to buy it and see what competition it has. The major upside for me over the Boot Camp is that two-finger scrolling works inside Parallels.

[weg]

Oh, and I personally happen to use two feet to work the three pedals. Maybe I'm just weird that way. ;)

Hmm.. how would you release the clutch when breaking with 1 foot ;-)
Btw., I personally happen to use 5 fingers to operate my mouse ;-)

[Lancetx]

Looks like Beta 2 has just been released and they have also cut the price by $10 for those who pre-order.

http://www.parallels.com/en/products/workstation/mac/

[Whistleway]

Some people were thinking the video was accelerated, so I made another one that shows a system clock:

http://www.prodedgy.com/article/52

-Carlos
www.prodedgy.com

Wow. It is really nice. Thanks for the video.

[aristobrat]

Looks like Beta 2 has just been released and they have also cut the price by $10 for those who pre-order.

http://www.parallels.com/en/products/workstation/mac/
I saw that.

IMO, $39.99 is an incredible pricetag!

[vamp07]

I saw that.

IMO, $39.99 is an incredible pricetag!

I bought.

[vamp07]

Argh, yes that answers it... in the negative. :( Maybe I will hold off until I hear some confirmation of it working.

(You are trying to ping the Windows IP address from the OS X terminal right?)


In beta 2 sharing works just fine.

[aristobrat]

So wonder if Parallel's price will influence the price of VMware's Mac version?
http://www.macosxrumors.com/articles/2006/04/07/vmware-ceo-confirms-mac-version-plans/

[davenet]

That's not the case with VMWare either. I use and I can create as many VMs as I want, add, delete, edit, etc. I have not run into a limit.

David

If its $50 to create as many virtual machines as you want, that is an amazing deal. Isn't VMWare the opposite -- each VM is add'l money?

Also, regarding control of the video card. Can you switch Windows to full screen, and if so, can it monopolize the video card in that configuration? Adding a 2nd vid card (and monitor, I presume?) to play games in Windows seems a little flaky.

[rumbletum]

For a beta release, I have no complaints,

Me neither, I'm very impressed with the performance - it runs way better than VPC used to on my rev.a iMac

[vamp07]

So wonder if Parallel's price will influence the price of VMware's Mac version?
http://www.macosxrumors.com/articles/2006/04/07/vmware-ceo-confirms-mac-version-plans/


Does anybody know if vmawre uses virtualization or is it purely emulation?

[AidenShaw]

Does anybody know if vmawre uses virtualization or is it purely emulation?
A "virtual computer" is an emulation of a "real computer" - so your question doesn't make complete sense.

I can guess, however, that the question that you're really asking is:

Does VMware use the hardware assist of VT to help with the emulation of privileged instructions, or does it use the older software-only techniques (what VMware calls "binary translation") to keep the emulated virtual machine from modifying the state of the host CPU?

And the answer is that currently released VMware products do not use VT in the same manner as Parallels. Future versions of all virtualization solutions will definitely support VT - it is an imperative.

VMware does require Intel chips with VT in order to support 64-bit guest operating systems (Windows x64, Linux x64...) - but that's more of a side effect than true VT support like Parallels just introduced. (A feature needed for VM support was missing from early Intel x64 chips, but was added at the same time that VT was added.)

[aristobrat]

Hmmm.

If VMWare is currently using the same "binary translating" technology as Virtual PC is, I wonder why Virtual PC feels like such a dog doing its job and VMWare seems to fly?

[AidenShaw]

Hmmm.

If VMWare is currently using the same "binary translating" technology as Virtual PC is, I wonder why Virtual PC feels like such a dog doing its job and VMWare seems to fly?
VMware (ESX/GSX/Wrkstn), Virtual PC, and Virtual Server all seem roughly the same speed to me.

A bit slower than native, but usually not enough slower that one would care. For loads with lots of small I/O operations - they all drag a bit, though.

With VT, they should all be closer to native on more applications.

[powerbook911]

Does the audio work for anyone in Parallels. Networking from my airport works fine, but I can't hear any sound. :(

[vamp07]

Does the audio work for anyone in Parallels. Networking from my airport works fine, but I can't hear any sound. :(


I think they said they would have it working before shipping.

[aristobrat]

A bit slower than native, but usually not enough slower that one would care. For loads with lots of small I/O operations - they all drag a bit, though.
I'm fairly patient, but using Microsoft Money on Virtual PC was impossible. The experience was nowhere near like running Money on a VMWare Workstation instance. Maybe Virtual PC has to go thru an extra step to deal with in regards to converting Intel instructions to PPC before it can 'binary translate' them?

Doesn't matter. My PB's going on eBay and I'm more than satisified with Parallel's Workstation.

[autolist4u]

Well, I did it. Parallels Workstation is installed at 11:30 pm Eastern time on 4-9-06. I will let you know tomarrow how it works. I hope I don't need to replace my 5-week old iMac!

[AidenShaw]

I'm fairly patient, but using Microsoft Money on Virtual PC was impossible. The experience was nowhere near like running Money on a VMWare Workstation instance. Maybe Virtual PC has to go thru an extra step to deal with in regards to converting Intel instructions to PPC before it can 'binary translate' them?

Doesn't matter. My PB's going on eBay and I'm more than satisified with Parallel's Workstation.
If you're comparing VPC/Mac on PPC with VMware on x86 - there's no comparison. There's also no "binary translation" as VMware defines it in VPC/Mac - the entire x86 ISA is emulated. This is much slower than VMware, Parallels and VPC/Windows which do x86 on x86 and only need to emulate some privileged state instructions.

Virtual PC/Windows performs at about the same speed as VMware - since there is no need to do full ISA emulation.

"Binary translation" involves modifying the virtual machine code pages on the fly, to make sure that privileged instructions "do the right thing". The "risky" instructions are replaced with calls into the VMM - the Virtual Machine Monitor that runs on the host and manages the VM. The VMM then emulates the privileged instruction.

For example, if in the virtual machine you click "Start -> Shutdown" a bunch of x86 instructions are executed, ending in some x86 instructions that turn the electricity off. You obviously don't want this to shut off the real computer, so the VMM intercepts those "power off" instructions and instead puts the emulated virtual machine into a powered off state while leaving the real computer on.

"VT" (Intel's Virtualization Technology, and AMD's very similar Pacifica) runs the processor in a mode where it simply refuses to execute those instructions and traps into the VMM where the instruction can be emulated. This is faster, since there's no need to scan code pages for suspect instructions.

So, "VT" isn't some wonderful magic, it's better to think of it as hardware acceleration for one of the tasks associated with emulating a virtual machine. VMware with VT and VMware without VT will still be mostly the same thing - just faster with VT.

VT will also enable some new ways of virtualization that today are usually called "para-virtualization". There's a lot of excitement about the new possibilities - for example Microsoft is embedding virtualization deep into the OS with Viridian (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1946420,00.asp).

[tomax7]

Well I just installed parallel on my imac and i'm impressed. Like the idea of staying inside OSX and running XP when I'm not sure how to do it in Mac.

Installed XP with SP1 and doing updates with no issues.

Noticed a little on performance hit while in XP, but still pretty decent. When ahead an preordered the newer version. Will be interesting when Leopard comes out how it does.

Going to try loading parallel on my nini-duo next.

[tomax7]

Figures, bought a few Apple shares and now the stock price goes down almost 10 dollars from last week :-(

I know, wait wait, but wanted to whine at bit...

Once the boot camp or paralelles takes off, I can see more people switching to Mac. We're learning Mac and enjoying it but there are a few blips that would turn off people.

Like lack of resizing windows except at bottom right corner, unable to rename shortcuts to other computers and a few of the same icons showing up on the bar below while trying to figure out how to install something. Then closing it on the "X" and it just shrinks to the toolbar till one right clicks and picks QUIT.

Fighting adding a windows shared printer at the moment...

Tried smb://login,password@computer/sharedprinter

any other ideas? It shows the shared folders in Network, but not the shared Brother printer.

[sshambles]

I will be getting an imac with intel in the future
The only reason i'd have to put windows on it would be to play old/new games that aren't available on mac. Supreme Commander i'm talking about.
Basically Total Annihiliation 2. Same guy - Christ Taylor, due out late this year/early next.

That said i don't think ms. will be getting money out of me, nor many mac users if they can find xp..etc from somewhere/someone else for nothing...

What i was trying to say with this thread title was that windows has ripped off (yet again) Apple and added 'Desktop Search' to xp. What's that you say?... Spotlight on Mac OSX remind you of something???? yes i thought so

lame ms.
pretty soon they'll have made their own **** version of Dashboard

[aristobrat]

pretty soon they'll have made their own **** version of Dashboard
Already done. :)
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/features/foreveryone/sidebar.mspx

[Billy Boo Bob]

Already done. :)
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/features/foreveryone/sidebar.mspx
Leave it to MS to have their site totally blow up in Safari. Perhaps another example of writing their own rules and not sticking to HTML standards? Jeez. You would think they would go out of their way to make it work right in Safari in hopes of bringing back any switchers once Vista is out. Or at least bringing in Mac users to double up with Boot Camp or one of the VT options.

[janstett]

Leave it to MS to have their site totally blow up in Safari. Perhaps another example of writing their own rules and not sticking to HTML standards? Jeez. You would think they would go out of their way to make it work right in Safari in hopes of bringing back any switchers once Vista is out. Or at least bringing in Mac users to double up with Boot Camp or one of the VT options.

As if Safari is perfect. There's a reason I keep Opera and Firefox around. I'd say around 10-20% of the sites I visit have problems with Safari.

[Photorun]

Leave it to MS to have their site totally blow up in Safari. Perhaps another example of writing their own rules and not sticking to HTML standards? Jeez.

M$ has been doing this for years, trying to pirate and own HTML standards not to mention the entire web. Like how they eff up everything SQL they came out with their own, M$SQL, or Java, a woefully pathetic M$Java, if they can't steal it and let their lawyers (which they have more of than actually programmers, which is quite telling) while shluffing off as chum to the ignorant dumb masses as sad poor weak imitation of it they'll simply buy it and hide away the origianal, M$ threat (Visio) or, if it pleases them, try to kill it all together, (the Redmond chant of Windblows 95 was "it's not done until Lotus 1-2-3 can't run).

Microsuck is a slimy, squirmy, bad used car salesman that makes bloaty, buggy, crash prone software only idiots and fools are actually a zealot for, with one goal in mind, max domination at all costs... which includes making some of the most craptacular coding. After all, who needs to actually conform to standards when you have 90%+ of the world licking your bootstraps and actually suckered into thinking erroneously that you make something akin to a "good" computing experience.

[Billy Boo Bob]

As if Safari is perfect. There's a reason I keep Opera and Firefox around. I'd say around 10-20% of the sites I visit have problems with Safari.
I'm certainly not saying that Safari is perfect. I run into issues all the time. I should probably grab both of those others and load them up for backups. It's been a while.

I do, however, come across many sites that only function correctly if run with Exploder, and sometimes it has to be Windows version of Exploder.

[tonyl]

This or Boot Camp? I think VT is better, but need more memory.

[powerbook911]

Hi everyone,

I have a question on parallels. Beta 3 is out and it is suppose to support sound, but I can't make sound work. What do I need to do?

Thanks.

[aristobrat]

While the virtual machine is turned off, you need to go to devices and add a sound card. Next time you boot it, Windows will autodetect the sound card.

[powerbook911]

While the virtual machine is turned off, you need to go to devices and add a sound card. Next time you boot it, Windows will autodetect the sound card.

Thanks. It works now, but it sounds funny sometimes. Hopefully this will improve in the future. At least I have it working somewhat now. Many thanks.

I think Parallels is pretty brilliant. I never used Virtual PC, but this must surely beat it. Very impressive performance.

I can't wait to install a linux distro too.

[Project]

Suddenly, it doesnt even matter if Microsoft pulls Office on the Mac because of virtualisation. I bet you we have a full suite from Apple to counter that, as well as the safety net of being able to run Office 2007 etc on a Mac via Boot Camp/Virtualisation

Honestly, this is the most brilliant move Jobs has ever pulled off. .

[maxvamp]

...Honestly, this is the most brilliant move Jobs has ever pulled off. .

Or the most idiotic...

Max.

[Peace]

I'd call it the most necessary move Jobs has made.

[daveL]

Now available:

http://www.parallels.com/en/products/workstation/mac

There are a number of significant fixes and enhancements.

[dongmin]

Any architects out there? Wondering how these apps run on Parallel:

-AutoCAD 2000
-AutoCAD 2005
-Revit 9
-Rhino 3.0
-3DStudioMax

The latter two are 3D programs so I assume they don't run so well. But still, I'm curious about the performance.

[Coyote2006]

Does Windows run at full speed with this software?

[jacobj]

Does Windows run at full speed with this software?

As I've understood it, the answer is not quite and when it comes to using the GPU, not at all.

[Coyote2006]

As I've understood it, the answer is not quite and when it comes to using the GPU, not at all.

O.k., that was to be expected.

What about full virtualisation with the final version of boot camp? Is this possible at all with the current Intel CPU or do we have to wait for the next generation like the Merom?

[aristobrat]

Does Windows run at full speed with this software?
FWIW, there are some benchmarks that unexplainably show Parallel's as faster than Boot Camp when it comes to some non-graphic related things. Crazy! :confused:

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2740&p=14

[netdog]

O.k., that was to be expected.

What about full virtualisation with the final version of boot camp? Is this possible at all with the current Intel CPU or do we have to wait for the next generation like the Merom?

It's very possible that Boot Camp will graduate to Tour of Duty or somethign equally stupid, and offer virtualization instead of or in addition to the current dual-boot solution. I would actually be surprised if Apple doesn't buy Parallels and roll their product into OS X 10.5 (minus Windows XP of course) and even prep it for Vista.

The current beta (5) of Parallels seems to be temporarily unstable, but the previous beta was very stable and incredibly fast to boot and run XP. It really is a great product for those of us who need access to Windows apps. Much better than Virtual PC, probably because it is running on Intel hardware.

The only thing better, in my opinion, would be something like Wine, but a version that is easy to install and configure.

[Coyote2006]

What I need is a Mac that not only supports dual boot (MacOS X AND WinXP) but runs both OS at the same time at full speed.

Will the current MacBookPro ever be able to support this feature or does Apple has to wait for the Merom Processor that has hardware support for this virtualisation?

[aristobrat]

When I use Parallels to run XP on my Mac Book Pro, Parallels typically uses about 20-60% of just ONE of my MBP's processors.

That leaves more than enough "uummmf" for OS X to do its own thing.

End result = both XP and OS X feel "full speed" on my MBP, and this is will the Beta version of Parallels. The only time this doesn't hold true = with games. Windows Media Player plays videos and stuff fine, though.

If you read the benchmarks from the link a few posts ago, keep in mind that Parallel has had a few more beta releases since that was published, so it's only getting better.

[plinden]

In case you're interested, I did some Photoshop CS2 benchmarks using the test actions from driverheaven.com with the same VM, first time with 512MB RAM assigned, second time with 1GB RAM assigned, and compared to Mac OS X (1.83 GHz Core Duo). Remember, it's running in Rosetta on OS X:
XP 512MB XP 1GB OS X 2GB
Texturiser Test 2.9 2.2 3.2
CMYK Colour Conversion 7.6 6.9 10.2
RGB Colour Conversion 25.4 8.0 11.6
Dust and Scratches 22.9 8.4 13.0
Watercolor 39.8 38.9 45.2
Texturiser 14.0 17.3 3.9
Stained Glass 15.8 17.8 12.7
Lighting effects 19.6 10.3 25.8
Mosaic Tiles 19.1 29.9 68.6
Extrude 125.5 111.1 145.0
Smart Blur 74.0 71.3 173.2
Underpainting 27.9 38.8 55.6

The couple of tests that are slower with 1GB RAM are a bit puzzling.

I didn't test under Boot Camp, but others have seen a 10% improvement over Parallels.

[daveL]

What I need is a Mac that not only supports dual boot (MacOS X AND WinXP) but runs both OS at the same time at full speed.

Will the current MacBookPro ever be able to support this feature or does Apple has to wait for the Merom Processor that has hardware support for this virtualisation?
The current MacBook Pro's CPU (Yonah) has hardware virtualization support.

[Coyote2006]

The current MacBook Pro's CPU (Yonah) has hardware virtualization support.

Really? Great, thanks :)

[Coyote2006]

I installed the RC version and it's working fine.

But grafic support is too slow even with 2D stuff. It's like working under WinXP with native system drivers.

They do have to implement better 2D drivers for the final version.