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
Cinematographer said:It is impossible. It has been tried before, but you don't get a stable system. More crashes than Windows 3.1And: 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.
snak-pak said:
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.
I'm assuming you mean you installed Windows 98 on the Beta release of Parallel for IntelMac, right?Sofad said:
http://forum.parallels.com/forum53.html
http://forum.parallels.com/thread72.html
Is anyone else besides me concerned????
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?????
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?????
paulchen said: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
There is another big concern...
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...
Pistol Pete said: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...
dylansm said:
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.
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. It's too bad Leopard didn't come first.
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. It's too bad Leopard didn't come first.
The two choices are:exodar said:
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.
exodar said:
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 installed it...
...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.
...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.
The last nail in the coffin...
Bye IBM,
bye HP,
bye Gateway,
bye Dell (ooops, needed to write this last one in "Sanskrit")....
Bye IBM,
bye HP,
bye Gateway,
bye Dell (ooops, needed to write this last one in "Sanskrit")....
aristobrat said: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.
daveschroeder said:
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:
daveschroeder said:
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.
exodar said:
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.
Apple has thought all of this through
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.
exodar said:
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.
BobMcBob said:
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.