gkarris said:Bye IBM,
bye HP,
bye Gateway,
bye Dell (ooops, needed to write this last one in "Sanskrit")....
AMEN to that!
Dell was ONCE empire, now Apple will be!
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
AMEN to that!
Dell was ONCE empire, now Apple will be!
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.
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.
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
*******just read the above post....shoudl have read the thread first i guess*****
could admin plz remove this post plz
dongmin said:
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.
exodar said:
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.
exodar said:
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.
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?Molson said:
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.
Multimedia said: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.
Forget Boot Camp. It's dangerous and irrelevant now. Are you daft?
Thanks for the advice Mr Gates
Science Experiment That You Can Do At Home!
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!
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!
MacGuy88 said:
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.
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.MacGuy88 said:
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.
daveschroeder said:
Back on page 10, dylansm was asking how the networking worked. 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.
BillyShears said:
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.
daveschroeder said:
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....
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. 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.
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.
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.vamp07 said:
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.
A switcher perspective
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)
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 !
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)
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 !
daveschroeder said:
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.
exodar said:
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.