Audio & Video
Business Center
Cameras
Cell Phones & PDAs
Desktop PCs
Gadgets
Gaming
HDTV
Laptops
Macs & iPods
Monitors
Printers
Software
Spyware & Security
Storage
Upgrading
Windows Vista & XP
Resource Centers
Asus Notebook Center
Intel Technology Center
CDW Solution Center
Lenovo Laptop Showcase
Try It Free
White Paper Library
Webcast Library
Most Popular Products
Most Popular Downloads
Thursday, April 06, 2006 12:01 AM PT Posted by Harry McCracken
Parallels: A Better Way to Run Windows on a Mac?
Another day, another significant development on the running-Windows-on-an-Intel-Mac front: Parallels, which makes virtualization software for running multiple operating systems on one computer, is releasing a beta of an Intel Mac version of its Parallels Workstation software today. (Here's the download page.)The young company shouldn't feel too bad about Apple stealing some of its thunder with Boot Camp, because Parallels Workstation's approach promises some significant advantages over the official Apple offering. (I say "promises" because we haven't had the opportunity to try it for ourselves yet.) Its virtualization technique (similar to the approach that VMWare has used for years on the PC platform) lets you, essentially, run multiple virtual x86 computers inside windows in a host operating system. So while Boot Camp's very name indicates that forces you to boot between Windows and OS X, using only one at a time, Parallels Workstation will let you run Windows within OS X. Which should in theory be a lot more seamless, particularly if you want to spend most of your time in OS X and Mac apps, but need to use one or two Windows programs, too.
Parallels also supports other operating systems, opening up the possibility of a tri-OS Mac that runs Windows and Linux inside OS X. And it leverages Intel's Virtualization Technology architecture (built into all the Intel Macs but the Mini, according to Parallels), which is designed to boost virtualized PC performance.
Downsides? Compared to simply running Windows natively on an Intel Mac, as Boot Camp permits, there's a performance hit with the Parallels approach. But the company says it's modest--and it should certainly be far less of a slowdown than with Microsoft's Virtual PC, which had to perform the far trickier feat of running an x86 OS on a Power PC system. The company says that there shouldn't be any driver issues (I'll be intrigued to see, though, how its support for graphics adapters and add-ons compares to Boot Camp's).
The final version of Parallels Workstation will cost $49.99, and if it's solid, it could provide a logical upgrade path from the free Boot Camp for people who want a more powerful Winapple experience and are willing to pay for it.
One last thing: The Parallels folks gave us some tantalizing screenshots showing their software at work. Here are Windows XP and Red Hat Linux running within OS X:
And should you have an inexplicable hankering to run OS/2 Warp within OS X, Parallels is apparently up to the job (this screen also shows OS X running a platform called eComStation):
Archives
View posts from:
PC World's Marketplace
PC World's Free Whitepapers
QUICK LINKS:
cheap laptops
cell phones
laser printers
HDTV reviews
LCD TV Plasmas
digital cameras
laptop reviews
security antivirus
windows vista reviews
digital camera reviews
inexpensive desktop
LCD wide screen monitors
tech news tech blogs community & forums laptop prices software reviews downloads
tech news tech blogs community & forums laptop prices software reviews downloads
The best of all worlds
This is all macs need to become mainstream.
Now if only Apple would release OSX for individual scale, and I could run it on a PC using primarily Windows, and popping into OSX occasionally.
That ain't gonna happen. To release OS X for PC's would kill Apple. If it were possible to run OS X on, say, an eMachine, Apple would lose hardware sales ? which is where Apple makes it's money. Whereas running XP on a Mac can only increase hardware sales. So don't look for Apple to release OS X for machines made by other manufacturers. It's just not going to happen
More important and even better will be the Darwine Project's launch of WINE for Mac OS X, allowing users to run Windows software on the Mac -- without Windows.
Does anyone really want or need to run Windows on a Mac?
If the Darwine and WINE projects are ever successful both Apple and Linux market share would greatly expand. However, I don't see either of these two projects ever developing a program that is mainsteam-acceptable.
Re: DarWine
not sure running Windows binaries along side OS X apps would be a good thing to do ... with all the malware, virus and spyware out there, just inviting a whole mess of problems to the Mac.
Is its possible to run OSX on an intell bases computer, one that is using Wndows XP as its operating system already?
Re: OS X on non-Apple Intel hardware...
Nope, can't be done without serious hacks from what I understand. OS X doesn't use BIOS, would need a PC with something compatible to EFI (or possibly even Apple's version of it).
Pardon the naivety, but will this positioning of OS X as first in line for an incoming signal mean it will act as a firewall for PC-targetted viruses?
I'm curious about this idea that Apple is a hardware company. On one hand I can see where this idea comes from historically, but on the other hand, surely most of their money now comes from iPods and iTunes. How big is their profit from computer hardware sales? (Computer hardware, not iPods. I realise that iPods are technically harware...) If it is still substantial, fair enough.
If it isn't, though, wouldn't there be some advantage in having separate hardware, software and music businesses? Their hardware business may suffer somewhat, but surely Google (and Yahoo, and AOL, and the EU...) would be interested in forming some sort of partnership to promote OSX as a Windows alternative. Even if Steve Jobs doesn't like the concept, there is money to be made from selling operating systems.
Ask Bill.
In regard to iPods and iTunes - the huge bulk of the money is from selling the hardware (iPods). iTunes is freee. iTunes Music Store hardly makes any money.
In regard to computers, the huge bulk of the money is from selling the hardware (Macs). The OS comes free with the computer. Upgrades come with a nominal pricee every few years.
Apple uses software to get people to buy the hardware. I myself have bought 18 Macs since 1984 - each between $1500 to $5000, when all the upgrades are tallied up.
Now we'll be able to take screenshots of bluescreens all the time! It'll be quite funny to see the pretty aqua background with the thing microsoft does best in the foreground, bluescreens! WOOOOO
Windows XP doesn't really have bluescreens. I haven't had one is three or fours years, and that was when my motherboard overheated.
Well Windows XP DOES have bluescreens and I know it for a fact....
Parallels is a good thing for Apple.
Most of the sales for apple is from their H/W. Their OS division hardly makes any more (compared to their H/W - not including ipods..)
The danger as I see it is that now MacOS bugs will be exploited.. and Apple has to build it's own version of Bluescreens (maybe red screens?) Blue vs Red... Hmm.. what does it remind me of....
Huh? Apple usually charges $100/upgrade - that's hardly nominal
--->Upgrades come with a nominal pricee every few years
Very convenient for the occasional Windows-only program, particularly in a corporate environment.
--->Does anyone really want or need to run Windows on a Mac?
Yet in the other direction Apple's Rosetta runs PowerPC programs pretty well, including, I'm rather amazed to say, some real-time music software, and soft-synths
-->Microsoft's Virtual PC, which had to perform the far trickier feat of running an x86 OS on a Power PC system
The Parallels software seems to work really well, however they don't support sound today, which is a real problem for me.
I'd love to see DirectX support too, then OS's like Media Center can run in this too :)
Regards,
Shane.
I don't think that apple will need to maak blue screen's (or red) it dosen't crach like my lovle'y windows ( hope to get a mac sonn) and I think that paallels isn't great it is like bootcamp It will kill mac OS X and be a computer with the great blue screnn's
I was just woundering if someone could tell me the difference between Virtual PC 7 and Parallels or Bootcamp, which would be better for me? I just bought my first Mac (iBook 12, a 40 gig HD, 1.33GHz processor, 512 MB RAM, and OS X Tiger). I want to be able to use all my old software I had on my PC, but most of them are Windows XP only!
Thanks for your help.