Tomorrow, I get the joyous task of installing Windows Vista on my shiny new MacBook Pro. The purpose for this is to do some software testing, so I need to be able to launch Vista all by itself, just like a real Windows machine.
For the times when I just need a bit of Windowy goodness, I’d like to run Parallels, but I cannot discern from their website if it will let me boot in pure Windows, or if it will only run on a virtual machine on the mac.
Can anyone fill me in?
Parallels runs in a virtual machine. The only way I know of to run Windows on a Mac is to straight dual-boot.
I don’t think Boot Camp is rated for Vista. Only for XP. As for Parallels, no idea.
AFAIK, BootCamp does not do Vista. At least it’s not officially supported - I found some developer-type sites that indicated BootCamp will boot Vista, but that was with pre-release versions of Vista, and I don’t know that the shipping version will work or not.
Parallels probably will run Vista, but you can’t boot the Mac with it as it’s a virtual machine application. Current official support for Parallels is to run Vista Beta versions RC1 and RC2. Again, no word yet on the shipping version.
Seeing as Vista doesn’t hit the shelves until tomorrow, what’s the hurry?
We have some software that we are hoping to send off for duplication this week. It seems to make sense to test it on Vista before we do.
I have read a couple of sites saying that boot camp does Vista quite nicely.
This just in… Vista works kinda, sorta, almost under Parallels, and it’s currently a violation of the Windows EULA (license) to run Vista in any sort of virtualized environment.
EULA notwithstanding, The Aero visual effects don’t work, and media playback is rotten with Vista in Parallels.
However, Vista does run quite nicely via BootCamp.
Perhaps you are misunderstanding the idea of virtualization - if you run Vista under a Parallels virtual machine, Vista is running all by itself, just like a real (or pure) Windows machine. The virtual machine is a real Windows machine.
If you ignore the slight performance slowdown, Vista will behave exactly the same under Parallels as it would if you were running it under Boot Camp. There is no reason to run Windows separately, unless you are testing a 3D game or something.
The performance isn’t really the big issue, but rather direct access to the hardware, which in and of itself isn’t a big deal unless you want to play games or run other DirectX software. This means that in Boot Camp you get Aero, in Parallels no; in Boot Camp you get non-game DirectX compatability, in Parallels no. Me? I don’t waste my time with Boot Camp because direct 3D isn’t a deal killer for me. I’m confident that Parallels will have a solution for that anyway, soon.
Okay…Assuming that you need Vista specifically, I’m not terribly sure it can be done, but I’ll do a bit of research here…
some facts…
In case you were confused about what is going on here. Bootcamp repartitions your hard disk and creates space for Vista to coexist with Mac OS X. So you have the choice of booting either at boottime.
Parallels runs Windows in a self-contained box on OS X. Windows has no direct access to the hardware at all. Everything goes through Parallels which then accesses the requisite resources on the Mac. If you look at your hardware profile on a machine running under parallels, you’ll see things like "Parallels hard disk, Parallels network adaptor. It’s simply a software entity that receives inputs/outputs to the hardware and then emulates the function on its behalf using the Mac’s resources.
Parallels 3150 Beta can boot an XP bootcamp partition (installed via bootcamp) as a Virtual Machine inside OS X
That means with XP you don’t need two separate installations. You can have the same installation running natively by choosing to do so at boot time (holding down option) or start it up in OS X under parallels.
Vista is apparently working with Bootcamp
Vista is apparently working with Parallels.
www.onmac.net seems to be a good place to start.
Now i don’t know if Parallels can boot a Vista partition that is already installed natively under bootcamp. My guess is that it can’t because it requires separate hardware profiles, etc.
Now, you can bet, with the speed at which Parallels is working, they will have a similar solution pretty soon. In the mean time you can have two installs, one bootcamp, and one VM.
So it depends on what you need. Parallels works great for almost everything except 3d graphics, which isn’t supported, which means you can’t use the fancy schmantzy Aero interface. But if you don’t need 3d graphics, there is really no need for bootcamp. Parallels is faster in some ways than native installs (especially booting). I’d recommend the Parallels route unless you specifically need 3D graphics. Of course bootcamp is free for the time being.
Let me simplify.
Use Boot Camp.
It’s not currently legal to run anything other than the “Ultimate” version of Vista on an emulated machine, and the penalty from lack of hardware would be too high in Parallels even if it were. When the new version of Parallels comes out soon, you may be able run that same Boot Camp install as a Parallels VM (assuming legal issues are worked out). But for now, go Boot Camp.
You’re both wrong. You cannot run the two Vista Home versions in a virtual machine. There are, IIRC, at least 3 versions of Vista you can run in a virtual machine: Business, Enterprise, and Ultimate.
I’d forgotten that Microsoft had a merger with Baskin-Robbins to produce so many flavors and price-points of their new OS. 
At any rate, if you want to run Vista under Parallels, just be prepared to cough up a lot more for the privelege.
I’ll further clarify some of the above. Not all 3D graphics won’t work in Parallels; only those 3D graphics that rely on Direct3D, which is part of DirectX. For example Punch! Pro home design suite works perfectly and at native speed. My work’s proprietary 3D CAD program also runs perfectly fine (better than on my work laptop, as a matter of fact). Older 3D games should work fine.
As for Vista Home, there’s still no real word on whether or not installation is permitted in a virtual machine. In many, many Slashdot discussions you’ll see quoted all of the relevant parts of the license agreement. To my non-lawyer mind, I’m pretty convinced that the license implies that if you have Vista Home installed on your computer as the native operating system, then you cannot also use that same license in a virtual machine on that same computer while the license is in use, i.e., you need an additional license. On the surface, it only appears that they don’t want you running two copies of the OS at the same time, just as in the past (only now they treat the virtual machine as a separate, physical computer).
Oh, also, violating a contract isn’t necessarily illegal. If installing Vista Home indeed does violate the license agreement, you’ve not done anything illegal at all; you’ve only broken the contract (license agreement) between you and Microsoft.
I can see it now:
Windows with Sprinkles[sup]TM[/sup] is not compatible with SCSI disks.
DoubleScoop Windows[sup]TM[/sup] required for Dual-core processors.
Yes, good point. It is up to you if you want to break the contract. It is up to Microsoft to come after you. It won’t happen. And to clarify just a bit more about parallels. It is correct, you won’t have problems running anything in 3D. The problem is that it can’t emulate 3D graphics cards, although there are some games that have software rendering. Sim City 4 is an example of a game that has this. Direct3D rendering is impossible in Parallels. I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if they eventually supported it as they will likely be focusing on making running Vista as good as possible. But right now Vista Aero Glass interface requires some heavy duty graphics hardware, which Parallels can’t emulate.
This idea of buying an expensive version of Vista is dumb. Microsoft is stupid to stipulate such things in a completely arbitrary manner. But yeah, the EULA is a contract between you and Microsoft, break it if you want. It’s not like stealing software, which is a crime. I’m pretty sure breaking a contract is only enforced if the other party decides to do something about it.