Billy Boo Bob said:
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.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Windows Virtualization on Intel Macs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As if Safari is perfect. There's a reason I keep Opera and Firefox around. I'd say around 10-20% of the sites I visit have problems with Safari.
Billy Boo Bob said:
M$ 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.
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.janstett said:
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.
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.
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.
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.
aristobrat said:
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.
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. .
Honestly, this is the most brilliant move Jobs has ever pulled off. .
Beta 4
Now available:
http://www.parallels.com/en/products/workstation/mac
There are a number of significant fixes and enhancements.
Now available:
http://www.parallels.com/en/products/workstation/mac
There are a number of significant fixes and enhancements.
jacobj said:
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?
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!Coyote2006 said:
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2740&p=14
Coyote2006 said:
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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:
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.
Code:
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 55.6The 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.
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.
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.