Linked by Eugenia Loli-Queru on Thu 15th Jun 2006 00:32 UTC
"Currently there are 2 solutions for Mac owners with an Intel chip for running Windows XP on their machine. First up is the solution from Apple called Boot Camp and secondly is the Virtual Machine (with Virtualization) from Parallels. So what's the difference? With Boot Camp Windows will be running 'natively', this means it will be running on the machine as if it was running on any regular PC from any manufacturer. This means full access to the CPU, Graphics and all other aspects. With Parallels Windows XP will be running on a 'Virtual Machine', this means that OS X will be running like normal with WinXP running inside a separate application, in effect two operating systems running at once."
Thread beginning with comment 133613
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: It's generally agreed...
by Eugenia on Thu 15th Jun 2006 01:19
in reply to "It's generally agreed..."
Member since:2005-06-28
RE[2]: It's generally agreed...
by JustAnotherMacUser on Thu 15th Jun 2006 01:24
in reply to "RE: It's generally agreed..."
Member since:2006-01-08
RE[3]: It's generally agreed...
by DigitalAxis on Thu 15th Jun 2006 01:54
in reply to "RE: It's generally agreed..."
Member since:2005-08-28
Well, Windows was on x86 first, but it seems to have stolen/been inspired by a lot of stuff Mac OS came up with...
I'd have to say Windows is the step child though, since Windows XP half-inherits a lot of stuff from DOS/Windows 3.1/95/98/ME, wheras Mac OS X seems to be VERY different from previous Mac operating systems.
:-)
Edited 2006-06-15 01:55
RE[2]: It's generally agreed...
by bikeham on Thu 15th Jun 2006 05:44
in reply to "It's generally agreed..."
Member since:2006-06-15
RE[3]: It's generally agreed...
by aesiamun on Thu 15th Jun 2006 13:13
in reply to "RE[2]: It's generally agreed..."
Member since:2005-06-29
If you want to run your windows games, I believe you should own a license for MS Windows. I don't know if it's probable, but I would like to see Apple create a virtualization layer to run MS Windows apps like they did for OS9. I imagine it would require a license of MS Windows, and I would be more than happy to pay for a license if I never had to physically boot into the OS.
Member since:
2006-01-08
...on a MacTel box that if you need performance for 3D gaming and the like then Apple's "BootCamp" with Windows is the way to go.
If you want more options to run many different versions of Windows (other OS's too) and don't need quite as much performance then the Parallels Workstation solution is the way to go. Also more secure than "BootCamp". Maybe any present Win viruses might not be able to access a HFS+ partition where Mac OS X lives, but eventually one or a hacker will.
I would like to see the next version of Mac OS X (10.5) have these features.
1: Run Windows apps without needing to boot or run Windows.
2: If Windows is needed, then a sandboxed invisible 'plug-in', the only time one will see 'Windows' is with the logo on the cd cover it comes on. No rebooting necessary. EFI can run the fans/other hardware specifics.
3: At any time if the user or OS detects the Windows sandbox partition is corrupted/infected/compromised a Mac OS X option/window will ask the user if they want to 'rebuild' the Windows partition data from a previously saved/encrypted partition. This way getting the Windows machine back up and running will be a snap. Of course it would be nice if Mac OS X had this option too.
Apple should treat Windows like the red-headed step child it is.