So I want to be able to run some Windows programs on my Mac. From previous threadson this topic, it looks like I need Parallels, plus some version of Windows Vista - is that right? any suggestion which flavour of Vista I need? (I don’t plan on using it for games or 3d stuff - the programs I’m looking at are number crunching types that aren’t available for the Mac).
Also, what type of security software would I need? I’ve always run my Macs naked, so to speak, and don’t know what kind of anti-virus stuff I need.
You don’t necessarily need to use Parallels. Boot Camp is also a choice, and I’d recommend it over Parallels myself. However, using Vista with Boot Camp isn’t currently supported by Apple - there are lots of people doing it, however.
You do indeed need Windows anti-virus and anti-spyware and appropriate security precautions. Windows on the Mac is real Windows, and when you’re running it you’re running an Apple-branded PC. Don’t think of it as a Mac when you’re running Windows.
You might also want to try CrossOver. It’s way cooler than either Boot Camp or Parallels, in my opinion, as you don’t have to run the Windows OS under it. It’s still very much a work-in-progress, but it works on quite a lot of programs that I’ve tried. The trial is free, so give it a whirl and see if your software will work with it.
Don’t use Norton AV, whatever you do. And I say that as someone who hasn’t used a Mac since 1990. I can’t imagine it will work any better on a Mac than it does under Windows, which will run dog slow and maybe crash the operating system. Norton sucks.
If you do go the Parallels route, you have to use one of the top ones — Vista Ultimate or Business(?). The Microsoft license (somewhat arbitrarily) doesn’t allow virtualization with any of the other versions of Vista.
This restriction doesn’t hold for Boot Camp, because you’re running on the hardware natively.
This highlights the big difference between the two - using Boot Camp, your computer boots up and runs and works exactly like a PC. Without some sort of software to read the Mac-formatted partition, you might not know you have a Mac (cf. GQ thread “Boot Camp broke my Mac!”).
In Parallels (or any other virtualization method) you’re running “side-by-side” on the same hardware - in some sense, the Windows version is running ‘on top’ of OS X. It’s a little like Classic (MacOS 9) used to be. The advantage with Parallels is that you can switch back and forth without a reboot. This mode doesn’t tend to work well with highly graphic intensive stuff (like CAD or gaming), but it’s better than what you’d think of as emulation - multiple processing cores really help out here.
It’s rumored that some sort of virtualization (at the least, an improved Boot Camp) will come with the next version of OS X (Leopard, due later this year).
I’d suggest Parallels over BootCamp, even though the latter is free of charge. Do you really want to boot and reboot your Mac every time you want to run a single Windows program?
I’d also suggest XP as being quicker than Vista, and perhaps more stable as it’s more fully developed. However, that’s subject to debate and I won’t argue with anyone that steers you towards Vista. If all you’re looking for is Vista’s Aero interface, it won’t work in Parallels anyway.
I don’t run anti-virus or popup blockers (other than Firefox’s built-in one) or any other protection other than that which comes natively with XP SP2. I just do the full Windows XP install without a network activated. At this point, the XP firewall is running and you can activate networking and do all of your security updates before anything happens to you. If you’re behind a NAT router or sharing your Mac’s connection, then you’re futher protected by their firewalls. Yeah, there are people out there that claim unprotected XP boxen are infected within minutes, but those are naked connections to the net. Of course your security updates require a valid Windows license these days.
Okay, I’ll concede one point – if you’re an irresponsible net surfer or use IE, then maybe you’ll want added-cost protection, but I’m too cheap and safe (and really, what’s better about running FireFox in Parallels than running it on my Mac, other than the fact that PDF’s won’t open in the Mac Intel version yet?).
Oh, once you have a perfect, updated, virgin, just-as-you-want-it system, I like to back up the virtual machine outside of Windows on the Mac – just duplicate the files. If you should get a virus or some other nasty, just trash your installation and go back to the pristine one.
It’s pretty decent and doesn’t cost anything. Runs pretty well, imo.
Personally, I don’t bother with any security software at home. As long as you keep your computer updated, don’t use IE much and are not in the habit of clicking on/downloading stupid things you should be okay.
Worry no longer. Parallels released an update yesterday that let’s you use your Boot Camp install directly from within the Mac OS – i.e. you can run under virtualization (“emulation”) when you can put up with the speed hit, and reboot to the SAME ENVIRONMENT only when you can’t. Even better, you can run a windows application on your Mac desktop, without having to see the Windows desktop. That’s got to be the best of both worlds.
It worked for about 50% of the programs I tried it on. Like I said, it’s worth a shot, just make sure you have the proper bottle (a few times programs didn’t work because I had it set to open a Win2K bottle instead of an XP bottle).
They say they did, but this user of Parallels has been trying to download it since yesterday and hasn’t been able to, either from the website, or through Parallels itself (which claims it is completely up to date).
Grrr.
On Edit: Any particular reason you think you need Vista? Parallels supports many older (more stable and supported) versions of Windows.
I don’t have a need for BootCamp, and in fact haven’t tried it. It won’t work on already partitioned drives. In any case, I’ve been running the beta for quite a while, and yeah, Coherence is cool. It’s like Classic for Windows!
I am running BootCamp and Parallels… Parallels gives me no end of problems running in Coherence mode, though. The majority of what I do is in Windows*, though, so I find I don’t use the Mac side much–I just want to have it available, since I’m a graphics person and feel that I should be getting more comfy with a Mac.
I just ordered Vista (full version, OEM packaging via zipzoomfly.com, for way cheaper than you can buy the retail upgrade) which I am going to upgrade to, however. Why? Because it turns out that you can’t play EQII on a Core2Duo MacbookPro under XP. At all. EQII is the only game I play, and it is just about the only “entertainment expense” I allow myself, actually. Other than watching TV, it’s the only thing I do for fun. It feels like taking a big leap to move to Vista this soon after release, and I confess to being quite nervous… but hopefully it won’t be so bad.
*I could never afford to replace all my Windows software with Mac versions–replacing Adobe CS2 alone would kill me. When I move up in the world to new software, I’ll probably buy Mac versions, but for now, I gots what I gots.
It runs under XP, it just doesn’t work with a specifical dual-processor core laptop configuration. It worked under the first generation of dual core MacBook Pros, but when they came out with Core2Duo something went kerplooie. The thread discussing it is here: http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?&topic_id=38412
Seems that people even had problems on IBM laptops that use the same dual processor. Apparently using Vista solves the problem, though.
Well, just so you know, Parallels has no support for 3D Graphics at the moment, but I expect it to be forthcoming. VMWare Fusion (The VMWare solution) has released one that supports older versions of Direct3D, but probably not the new one, so it looks like you’re going to have to use bootcamp to play that game, unfortunately.
As far as the legality of running Vista on a box that isn’t allowed by the license agreement, that’s a question of whether the user wants to do that or not. IANAL, but from what I understand, it’s a contract between you and Microsoft. You can break it if you want, and the only thing to stop you is prosecution from Microsoft, which is highly unlikely. Fortunately, Microsoft hasn’t taken a page from the MPAA/RIAA and decided to go the route of suing their customers. I dare say that Microsoft takes piracy seriously, but it’s not likely to seriously hunt down those who have legally bought the software. I think Microsoft is much more focused on large-scale piracy that goes on in Asia.
IMO, parallels from a bootcamp partition is a lot slower. First you have to boot it every time. Kinda takes away part of the advantage of virtualization.
Secondly, I’d say you don’t need any AV in a virtualized machine. It won’t spread to the Mac for two reasons. Firstly the Mac is a more difficult target, in general, and secondly it’s running in a sandbox with no direct access to any hardware at all. So if your Windows box gets nuked, you can just fire up an older image, if you feel like it. Besides, you are likely to only use your pet programs under Parallels anyway. I had to use it for my bank software which doesn’t support OSX. (Actually just some stupid security key). Also, non-3d DirectX games don’t work sometimes either. I couldn’t get Fallout to work.
I’m aware of the 3D limitations of Parallels and had no intention of even trying to run EQII that way. In fact, I almost never use Parallels at all, since virtually everything I do is under Windows, I find Bootcamp makes more sense.
As far as the EULA of Microsoft, it’s only the Home edition of Vista that is disallowing use via Parallels, and none of the versions disallow use with Bootcamp.
Just a clarification: Parallels is no more emulation than Boot Camp. Both run natively and access hardware directly. If (and I mean if) Parallels is actually slower, it’s because it’s sharing memory and processor cycles with the running OS X apps. Some of the tests I’ve seen suggest that given enough RAM, Windows apps run as quickly in Parallels as in Boot Camp as long as you’re not grinding away at stuff on the Mac side at the same time.
Not true in general, as this thread has already pointed out. Parallels can’t use your video card – it emulates a much lower-end one. Similarly, the netword adaptors, CD-ROM drives, and such aren’t “real,” they’re emulated. Even where hardware IS accessed directly, it’s competing with the Mac OS for use.
I understand the point you’re trying to make, which is why I put “emulated” in quotes (after virtualization) in my original post – but you’re implying that Parallels is as fast as Boot Camp, which simply isn’t true for many, many programs–because Parallels is emulating (some) hardware, and Boot Camp is not. In my experience, Boot Camp is almost always noticably faster for the things I do: games (obviously BC would be faster), but also development work and simple Office stuff. I think people tend to underestimate how powerful graphics cards, for example, have become – it’s a major hit not having one, even just at the desktop.
The big advantage of Parallels is convenience – it’s awfully nice not having to reboot every time I have to run a simple Windows app. But performance-wise, it’s a mixed bag, and depends on what you’re doing. Boot Camp is really Windows running natively on Apple hardware with native drivers – nothing more, but nothing less, either.