AT&T Tech Support 360
June 14, 2006 9:00 PM PDT
Windows, Mac OS to run side-by-side
- Related Stories
-
Dare I say this aloud? Boot Camp is a gimmick
April 10, 2006 -
Macs: Intel and Windows inside
April 7, 2006 -
FAQ: Windows on Macs
April 5, 2006
Apple Computer made headlines back in April when it said it would offer its own software--Boot Camp--for loading Windows onto Macs. However, Boot Camp permits people to run only one operating system at a time, meaning either Windows or the Mac OS can be in use, but not both at once.
Around the same time, Parallels started testing for its Parallels Desktop program, which uses virtualization technology to have Windows programs operate alongside Mac applications. The Windows programs open in a separate window within the Mac OS.
Unlike past software that allowed Windows programs to run on a Mac, Parallels Desktop does not need to emulate the hardware that's inside a PC. That's because Macs and PCs now use the same Intel-based chips. As a result, the speed of Parallels is far better than past efforts at bringing together the two operating systems, the software start-up said. In fact, Parallels says Windows programs can run nearly as fast through its virtualization as running natively on a Windows PC.
"The difference in performance between Parallels and Boot Camp is negligible," said Parallels marketing manager Ben Rudolph. "Things move very, very fast."
Being able to run Windows programs is seen as a potentially significant catalyst for Mac sales. Needham analyst Charlie Wolf upgraded Apple's stock on Tuesday, saying that the combination of Boot Camp and programs like Parallels could help the Cupertino, Calif.-based company gain market share.
"The trigger for our upgrade is the prospect that a significant number of Windows users will switch to a Mac once it's able to run Windows applications," Wolf wrote in a report. He cited a survey by his firm, which found that in the U.S., some 8 percent of home PC owners would switch to a Mac if it could run Windows. "An increase of this magnitude would almost triple Apple's share in the home market and increase it 75 percent worldwide," Wolf wrote.
Put through its paces
The Parallels software has been in testing since April, and more than 100,000 people have tried it out, according to the company. Interest has come not only from hobbyists eager to try out Microsoft's operating system on their Mac at home, but also from governments, businesses and schools that want to have their Macs better able to converse in a Windows-dominated world.
Canada's University of Waterloo, for example, has been testing Parallels software. It plans to use it in the Mac lab of its environmental studies department so students can benefit from a number of programs that aren't available for Apple machines.
"I've been very impressed with the performance of it," said Don Duff-McCracken, a graphics and computer-aided design systems manager at the university. Duff-McCracken said he has been using the Parallels tool to run processor-intensive software, such as the World Construction Set software for rendering terrain.
Duff-McCracken compared applications in Parallels with the same ones running directly in Windows via Boot Camp. The performance in Parallels was within 1 to 2 percent of the other, he said. And both Mac-based options were faster than some recently acquired Dell machines the school had.
"It's running this sophisticated software at native speeds," he said.
While Boot Camp is essentially a tool for letting a Mac run either Windows or the Mac OS, Parallels makes both operating systems available at the same time. To do this, Windows runs as what is known as a virtual machine--essentially acting as if it was a separate PC.
Boot Camp, meanwhile, is still in beta, though Apple has said it will be part of Leopard, the next version of Mac OS X. The company is expected to outline Leopard's key features at a developer conference in August.
See more CNET content tagged:
Apple Macintosh,
Apple Computer,
Apple Mac OS,
operating system,
virtualization
more for Windows then using it for the Mac OS.
Could it be the end of Mac Culture as we know it?
Truly bootcamp is great for the user who wants to use both OSes
and of course Apple's top notch hardware but what could this all
add up to in the future?
Will developers now stop developing their software for the MAC?
Will Apple in turn license the Mac OS because of this? Is it
possible Apple could haveshot themselves in the foot? I don't
understand some aspects of why they released Bootcamp,
because they've worked so hard on the Mac OS these past five
years, Its a very tight system and extremely user friendly. Why
throw all that hardwork out the window? A pun.. sheesh that
wasn't intentional.
But clearly the current Mac OS is superior to anything out there
including the Vista beta which in itself could possibly be good
when its released but nowhere near as good as to what Apple
has planned for their next release of Mac OS X dubbed Leopard.
My guess is thats probably one of the reasons why Avie Tevanian
left. Maybe there isn't a Mac OS in the future.. Its possible
Microsoft and Apple are bed mates and are planning something
very big for both OSes. Maybe some wierd hybrid of Windows
and the Mac OS... Or could I just be dreaming??
Neal Saferstein
natively which Apple's Bootcamp provides.
Now how is running Parallel's software, which runs Windows
virtually, any better than running it natively in Bootcamp.
Atleast Bootcamp can make the Mac a true Windows machine.
Bootcamp is still in beta form as well. I'm almost certain you'll be
able to run Windows within Mac OS soon, which is a speculated
feature of Leopard. Just like the fast user switching available in
the Mac OS, which it will most likely imitate.
I just wish they would bring the Classic Environment back in
some form. I still have some Applications I miss using in Mac OS
9. Now that would be truly something.
natively which Apple's Bootcamp provides.
Now how is running Parallel's software, which runs Windows
virtually, any better than running it natively in Bootcamp.
Atleast Bootcamp can make the Mac a true Windows machine.
Bootcamp is still in beta form as well. I'm almost certain you'll be
able to run Windows within Mac OS soon, which is a speculated
feature of Leopard. Just like the fast user switching available in
the Mac OS, which it will most likely imitate.
I just wish they would bring the Classic Environment back in
some form. I still have some Applications I miss using in Mac OS
9. Now that would be truly something.
Of course, I'd like to do something more productive than fight with you two sides over the importance of this issue.
beta and release candidate releases and have now bought a copy
of it despite the fact that I don't actually own an Intel Mac to run
it on. At this time I am planning on a MacBook Pro in August/
September and I elected to buy Parallels now since the software
will undoubtably be used and the price is nice (50% of the
proposed retail cost at the final release). I'll most probably run
both Boot Camp and Parallels since I have a few PC games that
I'd like to run on the Mac (and this way be able to dispose of the
old PC completely) but most of the time I'll run Parallels so that I
can share data between OS X and Windows, run one OS on one
monitor and the other on another, and not have to muck about
rebooting each time that I want to change OS. At work, Parallels
is most definitely going to be the most practical solution.
Thankfully, the license agreement for Windows means that I only
need a single copy of XP in order to do this.
MacOS X GUI and it has been available before Bootcamp and
before Paralells.
Why is every journalist/blogger getting so excited about
Parallels and no article ever mentions what else is out there? Is
this because of advertising dollars or are journalists/bloggers
just incapable of researching a story these days?
Anyway, Q is here: http://www.kberg.ch/q
[Note: I am not associated with this project in any way]
Next, it is totally inaccurate to say that Parallels competes with
Apples' Bootcamp. The user experience is totally different.
Besided, Bootcamp doesn't run Windows. Yes, that's right.
Bootcamp does not run Windows. It doesn't run any OS for that
matter.
What Bootcamp does do is this:
1) it installs a second firmware on your Intel Mac
2) it creates a CD with Windows drivers for some of the hardware
found in an Intel Mac
That's all Bootcamp does. Since an Intel Mac is technically just
another Intel PC, Windows can already run on it without help.
The only reason why you couldn't install and boot Windows
before Bootcamp is that Intel Macs use Intel's new firmware
called EFI, whereas all other vendors still use the old firmware
called BIOS. That's the only catch. So, Bootcamp simply installs
BIOS in addition to the default EFI firmware and once that's done
Windows can be installed and booted.
In other words, Bootcamp is a firmware upgrader. If Apple had
called it "Intel Macintosh Firmware Upgrade April 2006" which
they might as well have done because that's what it is, then
nobody would have come up with such funny ideas like Parallels
is competing with Apple. That's like saying that Virtual PC for
PCs is competing with HP because HP have a custom BIOS.
MacOS X GUI and it has been available before Bootcamp and
before Paralells.
Why is every journalist/blogger getting so excited about
Parallels and no article ever mentions what else is out there? Is
this because of advertising dollars or are journalists/bloggers
just incapable of researching a story these days?
Anyway, Q is here: http://www.kberg.ch/q
[Note: I am not associated with this project in any way]
Next, it is totally inaccurate to say that Parallels competes with
Apples' Bootcamp. The user experience is totally different.
Besided, Bootcamp doesn't run Windows. Yes, that's right.
Bootcamp does not run Windows. It doesn't run any OS for that
matter.
What Bootcamp does do is this:
1) it installs a second firmware on your Intel Mac
2) it creates a CD with Windows drivers for some of the hardware
found in an Intel Mac
That's all Bootcamp does. Since an Intel Mac is technically just
another Intel PC, Windows can already run on it without help.
The only reason why you couldn't install and boot Windows
before Bootcamp is that Intel Macs use Intel's new firmware
called EFI, whereas all other vendors still use the old firmware
called BIOS. That's the only catch. So, Bootcamp simply installs
BIOS in addition to the default EFI firmware and once that's done
Windows can be installed and booted.
In other words, Bootcamp is a firmware upgrader. If Apple had
called it "Intel Macintosh Firmware Upgrade April 2006" which
they might as well have done because that's what it is, then
nobody would have come up with such funny ideas like Parallels
is competing with Apple. That's like saying that Virtual PC for
PCs is competing with HP because HP have a custom BIOS.
And once you own a mac, and get used to OSX I promise you you'll stay with OSX. ( it took me 3 days
And that will mean that MS loses customers. Won't they try to stop windows from running on a mac? Just like apple stops us from running OSX on a PC?
Now, in most cases, this is just fine because you may be running a very simple application. In our case, with our testing, I'm running our help desk call tracking software in Parallels and it's just fine. However, for someone who wants to run audio software for instance, that may need driver level access, it may not work properly.
Speed isn't an issue. Convenience and driver level access are the issues with virtualization vs. boot camp.
BTW, Vista Beta 2 runs very well on a Boot Camp'd intel mac.
Now, in most cases, this is just fine because you may be running a very simple application. In our case, with our testing, I'm running our help desk call tracking software in Parallels and it's just fine. However, for someone who wants to run audio software for instance, that may need driver level access, it may not work properly.
Speed isn't an issue. Convenience and driver level access are the issues with virtualization vs. boot camp.
BTW, Vista Beta 2 runs very well on a Boot Camp'd intel mac.
To pay double the price for the same hardware BUT it's "Made By Apple!". Just so you can pay more for a software that lets you run usefull Windows programs. Oh, AND you STILL have to buy a copy of Windows XP.
Apple fanatics are a little slow in da head, huh?
I am now happily running all of my development work for our applications on a single MacBook Pro using Parallels. No more lugging around multiple machines, and no need to reboot each time I want to switch between Mac OS X and Windows. By far this is the best way to work if you have to switch back and forth between the two operating systems.
People who point out how much more expensive Apple hardware is might want to do some more shopping. I paid roughly the same amount for my ThinkPad and my PowerBook. They were both approximately $3000. Each one is expensive, highly reliable, quality hardware from a top notch hardware vendor. So, before Parallels and the Intel Mac systems I could usually expect to pay about $6000 every 1-2 years to upgrade to a newer set of systems. Now, things have changed and I need only page $3000 for one MacBook Pro and $39 for Parallels Desktop. That's a net savings of just under $3000.
So, to those who think Apple hardware is more expensive I say "Huh?"
So far my only complaints about Parallels are:
- My Garmin GPS doesn't work with it. There is some sort of problem with the USB driver.
- I can't seem to figure out how to run multiple Parallels environments at the same time.
My only complaints about the MacBook Pro are
- Only expandable to 2GB of ram. I would like to see 4GB.
- The screen does not tilt back far enough for use in some environments.
I am now happily running all of my development work for our applications on a single MacBook Pro using Parallels. No more lugging around multiple machines, and no need to reboot each time I want to switch between Mac OS X and Windows. By far this is the best way to work if you have to switch back and forth between the two operating systems.
People who point out how much more expensive Apple hardware is might want to do some more shopping. I paid roughly the same amount for my ThinkPad and my PowerBook. They were both approximately $3000. Each one is expensive, highly reliable, quality hardware from a top notch hardware vendor. So, before Parallels and the Intel Mac systems I could usually expect to pay about $6000 every 1-2 years to upgrade to a newer set of systems. Now, things have changed and I need only page $3000 for one MacBook Pro and $39 for Parallels Desktop. That's a net savings of just under $3000.
So, to those who think Apple hardware is more expensive I say "Huh?"
So far my only complaints about Parallels are:
- My Garmin GPS doesn't work with it. There is some sort of problem with the USB driver.
- I can't seem to figure out how to run multiple Parallels environments at the same time.
My only complaints about the MacBook Pro are
- Only expandable to 2GB of ram. I would like to see 4GB.
- The screen does not tilt back far enough for use in some environments.
Now picture this:
You're on your computer. With the press of two keys, you flip from your OS to a fully-functional Windows.
You press the two keys again and you've flipped to a fully-functional Mac OS.
You press the two keys again and you're back to your original OS.
I can hear your response already. "Jesus, Joe, THREE OS's?? C'mon, buddy, you kiddin' us? Parallels, the most modern program on the planet, can only do TWO! You smoke your breakfast this morning or sumpin'?"
Well, not quite.
You've just flipped from your OS, to Windows, to Mac, on your Amiga 500.
The year is 1989.
Told you it was a surprise ending.
I saw my friens i 198X compiling rm-cobol and running the same program everywhere.
runcobol myoldprog.obj
that's why hardware is so far from software. They look new stuff we repeat over and over
And OS X tops XP in this arena in every single aspect. Not to mention the software available for Mac is much more straight forward and handles exceptionally well, unlike the millions of crappy apps on the MS platform.
I use both every single day, and would love it when I don't have to deal with the BS of MS every day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPkP9XOyXaw
for the whole shebang. I was hoping VMware would step up, but if they don't, Parallels is going to own this space.
- Lower the price of the Mac
-
by mystereojones
June 15, 2006 10:44 AM PDT
- If they lowered the price, they could actually be affordable for the masses. C'mon Apple, you know you want to do it.
-
Reply to this comment
View
all 3 replies
-
-
See all 155 Comments >>http://www.techknowcafe.com/content/view/434/42/