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
Same risks with anything else you do on your computer. With virtualization, the entire virtual hard disk is represented as 1 file, or a group of files on your Mac. That file, just like any other file on your Mac (or PC), can go corrupt for any reason. If you backup regularly, you'll be fine.SteveG4Cube said:
Multimedia said:This is so much more HUGE than Boot Camp. Boot Camp is CRAP compared to Parallels' solution. I am so thrilled at this solution. Where's MacTiger when you need him?
Don't be silly. Virtual machines can't fully utilize the graphics card because OS X is already using it. You can't play games on Parallel's solution, one of the top three reasons for using Windows (the other two being workplaces that require it and special software only available on Windows).
Any .NET developers out there with an MBP and Parallels?
I build Compact Framework apps in VS2005. From the descriptions of Parallels, and my previous experience with 'native' VM software (VMWare on PC), I'd imagine that Visual Studio itself will run absolutely fine.
But can anyone out there try to connect a PocketPC device (via USB cradle) and see if ActiveSync/Visual Studio detect and deploy to it correctly?
If so, then 'goodbye' to every single PC I own, and work can take their Dell back
I build Compact Framework apps in VS2005. From the descriptions of Parallels, and my previous experience with 'native' VM software (VMWare on PC), I'd imagine that Visual Studio itself will run absolutely fine.
But can anyone out there try to connect a PocketPC device (via USB cradle) and see if ActiveSync/Visual Studio detect and deploy to it correctly?
If so, then 'goodbye' to every single PC I own, and work can take their Dell back
gkhaldi said:
http://www.prodedgy.com/article/51
I used ScreenSnapz Pro from AmbosiaSW. I had trouble the first two times because it seems to be failing on the H.264 encode. The third time I just used Apple Animation codec, it worked out fine...so forgive me if my demonstration started to get sloppy!
-Carlos
www.prodedgy.com
kainjow said:
The data is stored on the server, and when a user logs on, it pulls loads to the local computer and then updates the server when any changes are made. He's afraid that a corruption on my system could wipe out the data on the main server. Obviously, he backs it up, but we could lose anything since the last update. If there are real risks, I'll just use dual booting, but if the risks are the same, I'd like to use Windows within OSX.
sushi said:
In a Sandbox environment like Parallels, it could only affect Windows, and not the Mac.
In a dual boot setup, it can't read the Mac partition so the virus should be unable to even see any of your Mac's files. So it could only affect the Windows partition.
GFLPraxis said:
But surely if a Windows app can repartition the hard drive, a Windows virus/trojan could do likewise? Thus potentially wiping whatever was on the Mac partition?
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.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Boot Camp has Windows residing it it's own partition seperate from everything else- it won't even be able to read the Mac partition. Parallel's solution and Boot Camp are equally likely to be infected; with Parallel's solution, you trash the file and start over, with Boot Camp's solution, you trash the partition and start over.
http://www.prodedgy.com/article/51
It's resized down 50% in ScreenSnapz Pro, but it was running in 1024x768. I tried to keep the cursor moving to prove I wasn't doing any "creative editing" to make it look any better than it already does on its own! Gives you a nice sense of time too.
-Carlos
www.prodedgy.com
mark88 said:
It's resized down 50% in ScreenSnapz Pro, but it was running in 1024x768. I tried to keep the cursor moving to prove I wasn't doing any "creative editing" to make it look any better than it already does on its own! Gives you a nice sense of time too.
-Carlos
www.prodedgy.com
This news was the tipping point for us. We have been needing to get a new computer for a while now to help us increase our workflow and provide better service to our clients but my wife who co-owns our business with me has been a little hesitant to get the a new Machine until we could use Windows in some form either through dual booting or virtualization on the intel machines. So I just bought an Intel iMac via the Apple Store's special deal refurbished section with Apple Care. We are currently running a Dell 8200 with XP SP2 and and older iBook with Tiger. I've been looking forward to this day for a long time. Money has been a bit tight but the potential of this machine will help us get to the next level.
whooleytoo said:
I've been hit by hundreds of viruses over the years (both as a kid and now because of computer illiterate family). Not one has ever affected my Linux partition (invisible to Windows) or formatted the hard drive. Nor have I ever met anyone who has had a virus format their hard drive (though a number of people who formatted their drive to get rid of a virus that completely destroyed Windows and made it unusable).
Also, most of the hard-drive-destroying viruses simply destroy the File Allocation Table (FAT) that the FAT32 format uses. That would, again, only affect the Windows partition
I guess it might be theoretically possible, but so unlikely that I personally wouldn't pay attention to it. Maybe if a virus was specificly designed to attack Mac users running Windows...but the percentage of Mac users running Windows is even lower than the amount of Mac OS X users (well duh) so you'd think a virus writer would just write it for OS X.
Not necessarily.GFLPraxis said:
Just like a program running in VPC can go outside of the sandbox.
What I am talking about here, is sharing of HDs/Folders. So technically it is possible for a Windows application to get at items outside of the PC sandbox.
Granted this is a low probability, but technically it can be done. So there is some risk when you are sharing a HD/Folder.
Would someone please test out whether you can run DRMed WMP10 files in a Windows XP guest OS? I assume you can, but a friend asked me to confirm. Because he wants to see. Um.. dirty stuff on demand
sushi said:
Yes, but even then it would have to be a file deletion risk. It's not like some piece of Windows malware is going to "infect" the Mac environment.
And if you don't share filesystems, there is zero risk.
People, folks have been doing virtualization for YEARS on x86.
To rehash something I said in a previous thread:
A Windows environment running in VM is the same as any other Windows environment, and can be subject to the same vulnerabilities.
However, it's much less likely to be problematic for the following reasons:
- The entire environment is "sandboxed", network-wise, within the host OS's networking. Most Windows XP installations will now be behind the integrated software firewall anyway, but this is just another layer of protection: it's essentially like being behind a NAT router.
- A virtual machine environment, being secondary to the primary environment, is typically only used for targeted tasks, not routinely used for things like web browsing, email, and downloading - the major vectors of infection for much spyware/malware
- Since the virtual machine's disk is just a file on the host OS's drive, it can be immediately trashed and restored from a known-good pristine backup in seconds
- If no filesystem sharing is done via the VM between the Windows environment and the host (Mac OS X) environment, there is no[1] way that even severe malware within the Windows environment can cause any damage to the Mac OS X environment
- If filesystems are shared, e.g., a folder on the Mac side is shared as a drive letter on the Windows side, any malware that alters filesystems could theoretically alter the shared filesystem. If a virus, for example, attempted to delete all files on drives other than C:, that would be affected. But, 1.) Most malware doesn't just arbitrarily delete files, because its goal is to spread itself, and 2.) ONLY files that are shared could even theoretically be affected. Also, Windows malware will typically target Windows OS features and filesystem elements. But if you really are paranoid and want to be safe, you probably wouldn't want to, say, share your entire Mac OS X volume as a drive letter into the PC environment.
The bottom line is that from a technical and practical usage standpoint, running Windows in a VM is probably the safest possible way to run Windows, and there aren't really any ways, except for very specific ways via the explicit filesystem sharing, that anything that happens in the Windows environment can even touch your Mac OS X installation. And even if something went horribly wrong in your Windows environment, you can just trash the file that represents it on the Mac side of things, and replace it with your most recent and/or pristine backup of that file.
You guys, and many, many others, are going to *love* virtualization on Mac OS X on Intel-based Macs: running other x86 OSes - Linux, Windows, FreeBSD, etc., at near-native speed of the hardware - right along side Mac OS X, instantly able to switch back and forth.
[1] Sure, you could argue that someone could make Windows malware that specifically also targets an unknown vulnerability in a particular piece of virtual machine software, thereby somehow gaining access to the host side. But that is *extremely* unlikely to the point that it's not even worth mentioning.
---
Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu
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.
Yeah, game are great without the graphics acceleration or AUDIO!
Either way, a windows virus is useless on your Mac Partition and you can reinstall windows, parallels, whatever.
AidenShaw said:
I understand this, its just a problem for games mainly. But we can dual boot I guess, so this is for apps. And dual booting is for games.
Virtualization Hardware Disabled In Minis??!!
WHY? The mini is the one a lot of Windoze users would naturally gravitate to because it's less expensive. Duh!
BUT From Post #150:
Now that's what I would have to call INSANE.dakis said:
WHY? The mini is the one a lot of Windoze users would naturally gravitate to because it's less expensive. Duh!
BUT From Post #150:
Thanks Dave.daveschroeder said: