Making the switch to Apple

[OriolesMagic]

Well, using my iPhone and iPad have finally convinced me to ditch the Dell and buy a MacBook Pro. However, there are still programs that I will need Windows to run.

Is booting up Windows with bootcamp still the best way? Or are these virtualization programs like Parallels and Fusion the way to do it. I plan on putting 8gb of memory in it. How fast will Windows run if I'd go the Fusion route? Will it be noticeably slower? I would probably only use Windows for Outlook, ACT! (contact management), and maybe the office 2010 suite since I won't have to purchase it again.

So, would Fusion be able to handle these things without much change in speed? Or would the better option be to just boot up with Windows?

 

[squeakr]

You should notice no slowdown in the performance with the projected setup you are describing. As long as resources are allocated correctly, you will notice no difference than running natively (for the uses you are describing).

 

[takeshi74]

Is booting up Windows with bootcamp still the best way?

As with any question of best, it depends on what you specifically mean. For the applications you mention the virtual solutions should be fine. If you're running a resource intensive game then Bootcamping may be a better option. Don't overlook existing threads on Bootcamp and Parallels/VMware.

 

[visim91]

Well, using my iPhone and iPad have finally convinced me to ditch the Dell and buy a MacBook Pro. However, there are still programs that I will need Windows to run.

Is booting up Windows with bootcamp still the best way? Or are these virtualization programs like Parallels and Fusion the way to do it. I plan on putting 8gb of memory in it. How fast will Windows run if I'd go the Fusion route? Will it be noticeably slower? I would probably only use Windows for Outlook, ACT! (contact management), and maybe the office 2010 suite since I won't have to purchase it again.

So, would Fusion be able to handle these things without much change in speed? Or would the better option be to just boot up with Windows?

While Office 2011 (including Microsoft Outlook) has been optimized for Mac OSX, I can understand if you would want to still run them via Windows.
Just keep in mind that they are, in fact, available natively for the Mac. And they run real smooth.
Of course, you will still have to run a virtual machine (I recommend Parallels 7) for ACT!, which, based on your memory config., should not be a problem.
I'm just curious: which machine will you be getting?

 

[mobi]

Ran Bootcamp in the past, didn't like partitioning my drive. Been running Fusion with Win7 Ultimate 32bit (2gb ram) for a few years and it has been rock solid. Running QuickBooks & few enterprise shipping software packages. Works great!

 

[fort]

You Will Be Fine With Virtual

You will be fine to run a virtual (I use Parallels 7) and not see any difference.

 

[OriolesMagic]

While Office 2011 (including Microsoft Outlook) has been optimized for Mac OSX, I can understand if you would want to still run them via Windows.
Just keep in mind that they are, in fact, available natively for the Mac. And they run real smooth.
Of course, you will still have to run a virtual machine (I recommend Parallels 7) for ACT!, which, based on your memory config., should not be a problem.
I'm just curious: which machine will you be getting?

I'll be getting the 15' macbook pro. Ill be getting it stock with 4 gb, but I'll change it to 8gb myself. It's ridiculous that Apple charges an additional $250 for this. 750GB Serial ATA Drive @ 7200 rpm. Hi-res screen.


And yea, I know Mac has Office. But one, I already have the $300 dollar software for Windows, so really don't want to purchase it again if I don't have to? And two, my ACT! and Outlook sync with each other, so they'd both have to be on Windows anyway.

 

[colder]

I'll be getting the 15' macbook pro. Ill be getting it stock with 4 gb, but I'll change it to 8gb myself. It's ridiculous that Apple charges an additional $250 for this. 750GB Serial ATA Drive @ 7200 rpm. Hi-res screen.


And yea, I know Mac has Office. But one, I already have the $300 dollar software for Windows, so really don't want to purchase it again if I don't have to? And two, my ACT! and Outlook sync with each other, so they'd both have to be on Windows anyway.

LibreOffice is available for Mac, can edit MS Office files, and is a good free substitute for most people.

 

[dontwalkhand]

I would suggest going the Parallels route, simply because I am not too fond of the idea of restarting all the time just to get some work done. It is nice to be able to switch between OSes by just swiping three fingers on the trackpad (Thank you OS X Lion's native fullscreen support).

If you want to go Bootcamp for gaming, then you can still have Parallels installed for lighter tasks, as it can boot directly off of a bootcamp installation.

I have had to face the same dilemma a couple years back, but now found an ideal Windows/Mac OS setup on my MacBook Pro, so if you need any help, feel free to hit me up on iChat or PM here.

 

[OriolesMagic]

Everyone in this thread has said Parallels. But others suggest Fusion. Is it just personal preference? I guess I can go through all of the threads on those two programs though. Thanks for all of the help guys.

One final thing. I'll be having a dual monitor set up. With Parallels or Fusion, is it possible to basically have one screen run osx and the other run Windows? I'm assuming if you run Windows virtually, a new screen will pop up? Just drag that over to second screen? Don't know if it's possible or not.

 

[saberahul]

Well, using my iPhone and iPad have finally convinced me to ditch the Dell and buy a MacBook Pro. However, there are still programs that I will need Windows to run.

Is booting up Windows with bootcamp still the best way? Or are these virtualization programs like Parallels and Fusion the way to do it. I plan on putting 8gb of memory in it. How fast will Windows run if I'd go the Fusion route? Will it be noticeably slower? I would probably only use Windows for Outlook, ACT! (contact management), and maybe the office 2010 suite since I won't have to purchase it again.

So, would Fusion be able to handle these things without much change in speed? Or would the better option be to just boot up with Windows?

What programs?

 

[squeakr]

Okay, I am in the minority then. I prefer Fusion. I just didn't recommend any as it truly is a matter of personal preference. They are very close (I believe Parallells is a little faster), but I choose Fusion as everyone in my company uses VMWare of some flavor (Windows, Linux, UNIX, etc) and I can then lend my images for development to them and vice versa, this is not possible with Parallells as it is OSX only.

Yes you can run a Windows VM on one screen and OSX on another. I do it everyday as software I need for work is Windows only, so no other option (except to go full Windows, but I prefer OSX).

 

[Sasha-1]

I also prefer Fusion over parallels. I'd also strongly suggest just getting Office 2011 as it is native to OSX. I still own PCs and still have Office 2010 running on them. Sometimes it is useful, especially for creating an archive PST if you are using a hosted exchange account with limited storage. You can import a PST on the Mac, but you can't create one. It's things like that which cause me to fire up a PC once in a blue moon. Honestly, trying to convince the company to Switch to Google Apps instead of Hosted Exchange and just put that issue to bed once and for all.

I think right off the Mac can be a little of a shock. Once you get used to it I believe you'll find it so much easier and better that you'll start looking for ways to completely remove any need for Windows. I've personally seen it happen exactly like that time and time again.

At first you'll try to mimic your Windows methods on the Mac. But if you let that go, you'll be better off. I worked in a corporate PC/Windows world since 1994 and back then it was a challenge. Today, I seriously question the need for Windows at all. Especially as we migrate to more and more cloud based solutions.

Soon you'll find yourself telling someone else how clunky Windows is. Without even realizing it, you'll just arrive at that in the future.

 

[squeakr]

I would love it, if other companies would get on board and create OS agnostic software. Unfortunately it isn't going to happen. Like the OP has said time and time again, they need ACT and that syncs with Outlook, so they need Windows for both. I wish someday I could officially cut the ties and be fully Mac, but that probably won't happen for decades for me.

 

[dusk007]

While Office 2011 (including Microsoft Outlook) has been optimized for Mac OSX, I can understand if you would want to still run them via Windows.
Just keep in mind that they are, in fact, available natively for the Mac. And they run real smooth.

Did you ever work on a bigger 30+ page paper. Office 2011 doesn't run smooth at all. It is choppy crapware. It lacks quite a few features. I have it installed but still find myself booting up the Fusion VM to run good old office 2010. The 2010 works worlds faster, perfectly smooth although it is running in the VM. That is how poor Office for Mac is.

I would recommend to get some Open Office or LibreOffice if you just do small stuff that doesn't really require MS Office and use MS Office you already own in the VM preferably Fusion. That is the best way in my experience.

Somebody who says 2011 works fine probably does so little with office that he/she wasted money on it anyways, over jsut using one of the free versions.
It is not optimized it runs a fair bit slower than the original in a VM.


I tried parallels but fusion was by far more stable and trouble free. Parallels is for the Mac Community only it trys to make the Windows evironement more Mac like in GUI. Fusion is with big daddy IBM behind it and really meant to drive enterprise kind of stuff. They used to bring performance improvements later and care more for stability obviously. Parallels used to show so many bugs I thought it more annoying than useful. Since I don't game in the VM I prefer stability more and Fusion never showed any problem at all and it is plenty fast in Version 4 I think they are almost equal.
I run Fusion 3.1 I think and for non gaming you really couldn't ask for any more performance. I mostly just use it for Office 2010 and sometimes other stuff.
If you do some gaming set it up as a bootcamp partition. In OSX you boot that partition in Fusion for Office and so on. If you want to game you restart into native Windows.
Works best that way IMO.

Fusion is quite fool proof. Just try it out.

 

[snaky69]

I'll be getting the 15' macbook pro. Ill be getting it stock with 4 gb, but I'll change it to 8gb myself. It's ridiculous that Apple charges an additional $250 for this. 750GB Serial ATA Drive @ 7200 rpm. Hi-res screen.


And yea, I know Mac has Office. But one, I already have the $300 dollar software for Windows, so really don't want to purchase it again if I don't have to? And two, my ACT! and Outlook sync with each other, so they'd both have to be on Windows anyway.

OS X's built-in Address Book, iCal and Mail are three very efficient substitutes to Outlook and ACT! and are much more integrated with the OS and with iCloud, and can also run in the background with no windows open. I use both Windows and OS X regularly an much prefer OS X for general productivity.

 

[OriolesMagic]

OS X's built-in Address Book, iCal and Mail are three very efficient substitutes to Outlook and ACT! and are much more integrated with the OS and with iCloud, and can also run in the background with no windows open. I use both Windows and OS X regularly an much prefer OS X for general productivity.

Maybe a good alternative to Outlook, but they don't come close to ACT. ACT keeps track of every interaction I have with a contact. I just pull up their info, and it includes the entire history. Every email I sent them. Meeting I had with them. Even phone calls. Great in a business like real estate.

 

[visim91]

Did you ever work on a bigger 30+ page paper. Office 2011 doesn't run smooth at all. It is choppy crapware. It lacks quite a few features. I have it installed but still find myself booting up the Fusion VM to run good old office 2010. The 2010 works worlds faster, perfectly smooth although it is running in the VM. That is how poor Office for Mac is.

I would recommend to get some Open Office or LibreOffice if you just do small stuff that doesn't really require MS Office and use MS Office you already own in the VM preferably Fusion. That is the best way in my experience.

Somebody who says 2011 works fine probably does so little with office that he/she wasted money on it anyways, over jsut using one of the free versions.
It is not optimized it runs a fair bit slower than the original in a VM.


I tried parallels but fusion was by far more stable and trouble free. Parallels is for the Mac Community only it trys to make the Windows evironement more Mac like in GUI. Fusion is with big daddy IBM behind it and really meant to drive enterprise kind of stuff. They used to bring performance improvements later and care more for stability obviously. Parallels used to show so many bugs I thought it more annoying than useful. Since I don't game in the VM I prefer stability more and Fusion never showed any problem at all and it is plenty fast in Version 4 I think they are almost equal.
I run Fusion 3.1 I think and for non gaming you really couldn't ask for any more performance. I mostly just use it for Office 2010 and sometimes other stuff.
If you do some gaming set it up as a bootcamp partition. In OSX you boot that partition in Fusion for Office and so on. If you want to game you restart into native Windows.
Works best that way IMO.

Fusion is quite fool proof. Just try it out.

Sure, that sounds about right. Usage differs between individuals, choose what works best for you.
As such, you have inspired me to give Fusion a try due to the fact that I am indeed a light user; thus, I may be able to salvage some performance by making a switch. Thanks for the insight.