Install Windows opreating system on MAC?

[boltjames]

So YOU don't care about the OS.
That makes the OS unimportant for all the mac users in THE WHOLE WORLD.
No sense to argue with somebody enlightened by the TRUTH, THE ONLY TRUTH

Mac OS represents less than 8% of all computer operating systems in use today after 30 years of trying.

Windows 10 represents 10% of all computer operating systems in use today 9 months after its release.

I really don't need to type anything more, do I?

BJ

 

[osnola ibax]

Hi OP, I just wanted to add some thoughts to this thread as I went through the installation process today. There are a couple of things to be mindful of.

There are different versions of Bootcamp and I think that they behave differently depending on which Mac you own. I own a 13" early 2015 rMBP. I can't see the version of Bootcamp included because I am operating in my Windows partition as we speak. But, this version did not need me to have a blank 16gb flash drive attached. Most older Macs do because this is where they download the drivers to for the newly partitioned Windows system.

Bootcamp created another partition for the drivers.

The other important thing about my version of Bootcamp is that it would not let me install any version prior to Windows 8, so Windows 7 was completely ruled out unless I went the VM route. Therefore I had to download a Windows 10 ISO. I downloaded it directly from the MS site.

Just as an aside, I downloaded a windows application that would install alternative drivers than the apple ones for the track pad and offer a lot of the functionality in Windows, that the trackpad has in OS X. It was called trackpad ++ and a prerequisite was that you had to have Power Plan Assistant application installed first.

 

[Riwam]

I really don't need to type anything more, do I?

BJ

For once I agree entirely with you boltjames and I believe other readers will agree as well,
You should not type anything more, (at least on this subject).
Absolutely.

Hi OP, I just wanted to add some thoughts to this thread as I went through the installation process today. There are a couple of things to be mindful of.

There are different versions of Bootcamp and I think that they behave differently depending on which Mac you own. I own a 13" early 2015 rMBP. I can't see the version of Bootcamp included because I am operating in my Windows partition as we speak. But, this version did not need me to have a blank 16gb flash drive attached. Most older Macs do because this is where they download the drivers to for the newly partitioned Windows system.

Bootcamp created another partition for the drivers.

The other important thing about my version of Bootcamp is that it would not let me install any version prior to Windows 8, so Windows 7 was completely ruled out unless I went the VM route. Therefore I had to download a Windows 10 ISO. I downloaded it directly from the MS site.

Just as an aside, I downloaded a windows application that would install alternative drivers than the apple ones for the track pad and offer a lot of the functionality in Windows, that the trackpad has in OS X. It was called trackpad ++ and a prerequisite was that you had to have Power Plan Assistant application installed first.

Although you are entirely right osnola ibax about different BootCamps for different mac hard and software, it is nevertheless possible to install Windows 7, 8.1 and 10 in different macs by avoiding at the early stages BootCamp, using the reFind free boot tool, use Tuxera NTFS and DiskUtility to create and format the Windows partition, see and put to work the installation Windows media (a DVD for instance) thanks to reFind, and finally employ the downloaded Apple drivers for Windows at the end of the procedure.
A very interesting video in YouTube explains it all.
I followed almost everything indicated in that video and have now running Windows 10 in an early 2008 MacBook for which Apple indicates Windows 7 as the only possibility if one follows their indications, which however must not be done, as in my case.

 

[Buerkletucson]

Just wondering......

Other than being free, why do you guys choose Bootcamp over Parallels?
To me, Parallells is the only way to go....not having to reboot to switch is awesome........switch from iOSX and Windows with a click is the only way to go.
I had Parallells setup and running flawlessly in 15 minutes.


Just a good comparison read...
http://www.parallels.com


With Parallels Desktop 11 for Mac you are covered—you have the Mac you want, the Windows apps you need. All of this without ever having to reboot your Mac.

Here are the top reasons why our customers chose Parallels Desktop for Mac over Boot Camp:

1. No rebooting - switching between Mac and Windows is just a swipe away. You don’t have to waste precious time to boot into Windows and then back to OS X
2. It’s not just about Windows – besides multiple Windows OSes (XP, Vista, Windows 7 & Windows 10) you can also run Linux, Google Chrome, and other UNIX based OSes.
3. With Parallels Desktop Pro Edition you get built in support for popular developer tools like Visual Studio, Docker, Chef, Jenkins, and more.
4. Move your complete PC — Boot Camp is a partition on your disk and you cannot transfer it from disk to disk. With Parallels desktop you can easily move your virtual machines.
5. Cloud storage services like iCloud, DropBox, Google Drive and OneDrive are easily shared between your Mac and Windows virtual machine without duplicating your data, saving precious disk space.

 

[Trey M]

I'll chime in to the convo regarding the OS choice...

The large company I work for is completely based on Windows 7. We allow Macs, but the large majority of all users use Windows 7. I also use 1 application that you simply cannot use with Windows 10. Given that Windows 7 is the standard, I had to install Windows 7 on my rMBP. I actually did this last week via Parallels.

I will agree that Parallels is probably the way to go for most regular consumers...however Bootcamp definitely has its advantages as well. My application of Windows is mostly thru Coherence mode or similar. I use 1, maybe 2 apps via Windows and otherwise continue my regular Mac workflow. It's worth nothing those 2 apps are not resource heavy.

For others, whose work relies much more on exclusive Windows app use and more graphics intense programs, Bootcamp is by far the better option. You're always going to suffer performance degradation via Parallels vs Bootcamp. The simple way to look at it: if you prefer the Mac OS and just require the workaround occasionally to run Windows, get a VM. If your work relies heavily in the Windows department or you're reliant on an intense application in Windows, use Bootcamp. Or you could use both...

 

[Buerkletucson]

I'll chime in to the convo regarding the OS choice...

The large company I work for is completely based on Windows 7. We allow Macs, but the large majority of all users use Windows 7. I also use 1 application that you simply cannot use with Windows 10. Given that Windows 7 is the standard, I had to install Windows 7 on my rMBP. I actually did this last week via Parallels.

I will agree that Parallels is probably the way to go for most regular consumers...however Bootcamp definitely has its advantages as well. My application of Windows is mostly thru Coherence mode or similar. I use 1, maybe 2 apps via Windows and otherwise continue my regular Mac workflow. It's worth nothing those 2 apps are not resource heavy.

For others, whose work relies much more on exclusive Windows app use and more graphics intense programs, Bootcamp is by far the better option. You're always going to suffer performance degradation via Parallels vs Bootcamp. The simple way to look at it: if you prefer the Mac OS and just require the workaround occasionally to run Windows, get a VM. If your work relies heavily in the Windows department or you're reliant on an intense application in Windows, use Bootcamp. Or you could use both...

Nice reply.....
Not trying to start a debate but I bet the vast majority only need Windows for 1 or 2 apps that they can't find alternatives.
Parallels is a nice easy to use alternative that just plain works when needed......when not needed, you close it out and it uses no resources.
Interaction between the 2 systems is just plain sweet and simple.

If I was in the group of users that required your statement above (bold), I would of gotten a Windows PC to begin with.

 

[Trey M]

Nice reply.....
Not trying to start a debate but I bet the vast majority only need Windows for 1 or 2 apps that they can't find alternatives.
Parallels is a nice easy to use alternative that just plain works when needed......when not needed, you close it out and it uses no resources.
Interaction between the 2 systems is just plain sweet and simple.

If I was in the group of users that required your statement above (bold), I would of gotten a Windows PC to begin with.

Yeah, I'd agree most Parallels users likely use just 1-2 apps in the Windows environment. If you're a Parallels user, there's like a 95% chance you prefer the Mac environment for a majority of tasks.

My favorite thing about Parallels is how stress-free it is. Setting it up is a hassle (as is installing any OS), but once you get it running and set your preferences the way you like, it just gets out of your way. Booting up/down is really fast and it's just out of sight when not using it. Were it much more of a hassle (e.g. VMs of 6-7 years ago), I think I'd go the Bootcamp route instead.

In regards to your last comment, I will say that I think if I were looking for a Windows machine I'd still strongly consider a Mac. While you can definitely get a Dell XPS, for example, that is more modernly spec'd out for less (especially when you consider having to purchase a Windows license), I think a Mac via Bootcamp is worthwhile. Resale value will always be superior with the Mac, and you have the ability to switch between 2 OS's. You also really can't beat the hardware or longevity of a Mac. My only concern with this approach are driver issues with certain hardware via Bootcamp drivers, but I think this is a rather uncommon scenario; something most average users wouldn't face.

 

[Shirasaki]

Just wondering......

Other than being free, why do you guys choose Bootcamp over Parallels?
To me, Parallells is the only way to go....not having to reboot to switch is awesome........switch from iOSX and Windows with a click is the only way to go.
I had Parallells setup and running flawlessly in 15 minutes.

Yes. It is easy and flawless, supposed to be. But the performance will eventually suffer when doing tough tasks on virtual machine. I have used Virtual machine on Windows for quite a while and performance is still the issue preventing me to use it more extensively.
Using bootcamp, you do suffer from restarting over and over, but you also gain almost full performance on your Mac.

Well, if you don't care about actual performance that much, then there is no need to suffer choosing either Parallel or BootCamp.

 

[Buerkletucson]

Yes. It is easy and flawless, supposed to be. But the performance will eventually suffer when doing tough tasks on virtual machine. I have used Virtual machine on Windows for quite a while and performance is still the issue preventing me to use it more extensively.
Using bootcamp, you do suffer from restarting over and over, but you also gain almost full performance on your Mac.

Well, if you don't care about actual performance that much, then there is no need to suffer choosing either Parallel or BootCamp.

As mentioned above and I believe to be true for the vast majority....
Most users run Windows for only a few programs that they can't find alternatives for, which is my case also.

Parallels works perfect for these uses and is super easy to fire up and shutdown with the click of an icon.....
I've seen no performance issues running Parallels and I bet the majority wouldn't either.

Ultimately the user needs to consider the potential usage and the programs in question.......I consider it the perfect solution rather than messing with Bootcamp.
I go back and forth on Apps, having to reboot every time would be a PIA for me.

Power users are different, but more likely the minority....

 

[Shirasaki]

Power users are different, but more likely the minority....

So I am a "power user" who runs Windows on dedicated machine rather than BootCamp or Parallel.

Most users run Windows for only a few programs that they can't find alternatives for, which is my case also.

And I find Sandboxie is of no Mac OS X equivalent, and notepad++, and Microsoft Access, and Directory Opus, and AIMP, and Listary... All of them are Windows only.

OK. I at the best ever case, can only represent a rather highly limited group of people. Or, maybe I can only represent myself... Granted.

 

[Riwam]

Apple does actually make it easy to install Windows.
It's called "Boot Camp", and installing Windows is its main purpose.
Whether that really is easy to add Windows to your Mac, well, that is something for you to decide.
Some users have no difficulty at all - others struggle, perhaps by deciding that it somehow works differently than what Apple provides.
You do kinda have to follow the steps, as Apple lays them out, without throwing in your own interpretation of how to install Windows. It's a big mistake that some folks make with Boot Camp.

I do believe of course that many people succeed with BootCamp and this is no doubt the best and logical way since Apple made BootCamp precisely for that.
However for reasons far beyond my modest technical knowledge I run into problems with BootCamp in my MacBook 4.1 and had to use another method.
As long as I finally managed to have a running Windows, it made no difference to me to use BootCamp only at the end of the procedure just to get Apple's drivers. (The method is shown in a YouTube video).

In my MacPro end 2013 the BootCamp of El Capitan was the problem.
It did not work, I don't know why but it didn't.
I cloned El Capitan to a bootable USB hard drive, reinstalled Yosemite for a short while and after that BootCamp allowed me to have a running Windows, booted from the external hard drive and cloned back El Capitan to the inner drive.

That taught me that BootCamp can cause problems but maybe I was just unlucky or my hardware was a problematic one.
I honestly don't know.

 

[in Cider]

Mac OS represents less than 8% of all computer operating systems in use today after 30 years of trying.

Windows 10 represents 10% of all computer operating systems in use today 9 months after its release.

I really don't need to type anything more, do I?

GM has 17% of US market share, BMW has 2% after 38 years of trying...

 

[DeltaMac]

GM has 17% of US market share, BMW has 2% after 38 years of trying...

hmmm...
I think BMW has been "trying" for considerably longer than 38 years. There are US BMW dealers more than 50 years old.
Where do you get YOUR number?
Market share might be one goal for a business. Sometimes, it's more about quality than quantity. BMW would be evidence of that point of view, I think.

You could also state that Apple likely has nearly 100% of OS X marketshare.
(Isn't this fun?)

 

[in Cider]

hmmm...
I think BMW has been "trying" for considerably longer than 38 years. There are US BMW dealers more than 50 years old.
Where do you get YOUR number?
Market share might be one goal for a business. Sometimes, it's more about quality than quantity. BMW would be evidence of that point of view, I think.

You could also state that Apple likely has nearly 100% of OS X marketshare.
(Isn't this fun?)

You are right, that was a typo, I meant 48 years but I could still be off a few years. I was going off memory with 1968 and the 2002. BMW America is only 40ish years old though.

For the market share info: http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html

I agree completely re auto market share and quality, this was my point... (see: http://goo.gl/FMAq)

 

[Tech198]

Of course, we will say 'Bootcamp' but IF you just wan to use Mac and install Windows without Bootcamp as the Only OS, that's also possible..

You could also state that Apple likely has nearly 100% of OS X marketshare.(Isn't this fun?)

Please also mention, "in the U.S only" That makes a big difference to me..

 

[Riwam]

Please also mention, "in the U.S only" That makes a big difference to me..

I entirely agree.
Many users of the MacRumors Forum write their posts as if the USA was the whole world.
Maybe it is the logical result of living in such a large and important country.
Luckily younger US generations learn foreign languages, travel abroad and see other countries with different traditions no less valuable..
A bit of modesty has never done any harm.
The USA citizens have adopted as common practice to call themselves "Americans" although the USA is just ONE of the countries in that continent.
From a correct perspective the whole world is just a microscopic point in the universe. Let's keep that in our minds.
Therefore to mention data referring to the USA as just US data, is the thing to do, in this Forum and in every other place.

 

[in Cider]

Please also mention, "in the U.S only" That makes a big difference to me..

Apple has 100% of the OS X market share globally, they are the sole provider of OSX... Why would he add US only?

 

[Riwam]

Apple has 100% of the OS X market share globally, they are the sole provider of OSX... Why would he add US only?

The previous posts spoke of other items like BMW cars and how long are they sold. The mention "in the USA" followed logically that topic and had to be specified in the context of those posts since figures like 48 or 50 years were mentioned forgetting to say that it referred to the US car market.
Of course has Apple presently the whole OSX markets but only if one neglects the many Hackintoshes. However about 20 years ago Apple had licenced the mac system to other manufacturers, the so called "mac clones" for those with a good memory or old enough.

 

[in Cider]

The previous posts spoke of other items like BMW cars and how long are they sold. The mention "in the USA" followed logically that topic and had to be specified in the context of those posts since figures like 48 or 50 years were mentioned forgetting to say that it referred to the US car market.

The original statement clearly stated US market share. While there was a typo of 38 instead of 48 years, disclosing the US market was not forgotten, as you incorrectly stated.

GM has 17% of US market share, BMW has 2% after 38 years of trying...

I await your apology.
[doublepost=1461089253][/doublepost]

Of course has Apple presently the whole OSX markets but only if one neglects the many Hackintoshes. However about 20 years ago Apple had licenced the mac system to other manufacturers, the so called "mac clones" for those with a good memory or old enough.

Apple Hackintoshes (hardware/software) use Apple's OS X (software), which is still supplied by Apple... This is still 100% of the global OS X (software) market for Apple, regardless of what hardware it is running on.

Apple never licensed clones for OS X. Which again, even if they did, would be cloned hardware running Apple software... Apple would still have 100% of the software market share.

 

[Riwam]

Apple never licensed clones for OS X

Of course there were manufacturers licenced by Apple.
Just look for info on the Macintosh world in the years around 1995 or ask people knowing facts before denying them for lack of historical knowledge.
After several years Apple found that it was not profitable for them to let other companies build alternatives to its own computers running their OS and the licences to do so were not renewed.

 

[MacDawg]

Of course there were manufacturers licenced by Apple.
Just look for info on the Apple world in the years around 1995 or ask people knowing facts before denying them for lack of historical knowledge.
After several years Apple found that it was not profitable to let other companies build alternatives to its own computers running their OS and the licences to do so were not renewed.

Yes, there were officially licensed clones back in the Power PC days, but that was pre-OS X

 

[in Cider]

Of course there were manufacturers licenced by Apple.
Just look for info on the Macintosh world in the years around 1995 or ask people knowing facts before denying them for lack of historical knowledge.

That would be some trick, since OS X didn't come out until 2001. I think you should heed your own advice...

 

[Riwam]

That would be some trick, since OS X didn't come out until 2001. I think you should heed your own advice...

The clones continued to be sold and used when Steve Jobs took again the head of Apple and the change to the modern OS took place.
Those computers were very expensive at that time and the software running in those machines as well.
Power PCs made by Apple and their clones made by other manufacturers did not disappear magically in the air.
One still finds nowadays offers in the web of for instance Imacon scanners which were extremely expensive when new and are offered nowadays with the necessary old computer "free of charge" since newer machines cannot be used neither from the hardware nor from the software point of view.

 

[MacDawg]

I've lost sight of what was being argued... and what the point of all of this was

 

[Riwam]

I've lost sight of what was being argued... and what the point of all of this was

You are right.
Sorry for having added to the diversion...