Run Windows and Mac OS Both at Once

April 13, 2006
David Pogue

Run Windows and Mac OS Both at Once

ONLY a week ago, Apple released what seemed like an astonishing piece of
software called Boot Camp. This program radically rewrote the rules of
Macintosh-Windows warfare — by letting you run Windows XP on a Macintosh
at full speed.

Now, some in the Cult of Macintosh were baffled by the whole thing. Who
on earth, they asked, wants to pollute the magnificence of the Mac with
a headache like Windows XP?

Back in the real world, though, there was plenty of interest. Lots of
people are tempted by the Mac's sleek looks and essentially virus-free
operating system — but worry about leaving Windows behind entirely.
Others would find happiness with Apple's superb music, photo and
movie-making programs — but have jobs that rely on Microsoft Access,
Outlook or some other piece of Windows corporate-ware.

Even many current Mac fans occasionally steal covert glances over the
fence at some of the Windows-only niceties they thought they'd never
have, like QuickBooks Online, AutoCad for architects, high-end 3-D
Windows games, or the occasional bullheaded Web site that requires
Internet Explorer for Windows.

Few could have guessed that only days later, Boot Camp would be eclipsed
by something even better.

Boot Camp remains a free download from Apple.com. It's a public beta,
meaning it's not technically finished. It's available only for Mac
models containing an Intel chip. (So far that's the 2006 Mac Mini, iMac
and MacBook Pro laptop.)

The uncomplicated installation process takes about an hour, and entails
burning a CD, inserting a Windows XP installation CD (not included), and
waiting around a lot.

Then you designate either Mac OS X or Windows as your "most of the time"
operating system. You can also choose an operating system each time you
start up the computer.

If you choose Windows, then by golly, you're in Windows. You can install
and run your favorite Windows programs — speech recognition, business
software, even games — and, incredibly, they run as fast and well as
they ever did.

Correction: they run faster than they ever did. Most people comment that
an Intel Mac runs Windows faster than any PC they've ever owned. And if
the Windows side ever gets bogged down with viruses and spyware, you can
flip into Mac OS X and keep right on being productive.

Boot Camp's problem, though, is right there in its name: You have to
reboot (restart) the computer every time you switch systems. As a
result, you can't copy and paste between Mac and Windows programs. And
when you want to run a Windows program, you have to close everything you
were working on, shut down the Mac, and restart it in Windows — and then
reverse the process when you're done. You lose two or three minutes each
way.

NO wonder, then, that last week, the corridors of cyberspace echoed with
the sounds of high-fiving when a superior solution came to light. A
little company called Parallels has found a way to eliminate all of
those drawbacks — and to run Windows XP and Mac OS X simultaneously.

The software is called Parallels Workstation for Mac OS X, although a
better name might be No Reboot Camp. It, too, is a free public beta,
available for download from parallels.com. You can pre-order the final
version for $40, or pay $50 after its release (in a few weeks, says the
company).

Parallels, like Boot Camp, requires that you supply your own copy of
Windows. But here's the cool part: with Parallels, unlike Boot Camp, it
doesn't have to be XP. It can be any version, all the way back to
Windows 3.1 — or even Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, OS/2 or MS-DOS. All of
this is made possible by a feature of Intel's Core Duo chips (called
virtualization) that's expressly designed for running multiple operating
systems simultaneously.

In the finished version, the company says, you'll be able to work in
several operating systems at once. What the heck — install Windows XP
three times. If one becomes virus-ridden, you can just delete it and smile.

But before your head explodes, consider the most popular case: running
one copy of Windows XP on your Mac.

Suppose you're finishing a brochure on your Mac, and you need a phone
number from your company's Microsoft Access database. You double-click
the Parallels icon, and 15 seconds later — yes, 15 seconds — Windows XP
is running in a window of its own, just as you left it. You open Access,
look up and copy the contact information, click back into your Mac
design program, and paste. Sweet.

Using Boot Camp, you'd restart the computer in Windows, look up the
number — but then what? Without the ability to copy and paste, what
would you do with the phone number once you found it? Write it on an
envelope?

Parallels is very fast — perhaps 95 percent as fast as Boot Camp. (It's
definitely not a software-based emulator like Microsoft's old, dog-slow
Virtual PC program.) It's even fast enough for video games, although not
the 3-D variety; for now, those are still better played in Boot Camp.

So if Parallels' side-by-side scheme is so superior, should Apple just
fold up its little Boot Camp tent and go home? It's much too soon to
say. Turns out Apple's and Parallels' definitions of "beta" differ wildly.

The Boot Camp beta feels finished and polished. Parallels, on the other
hand, is obviously a labor of love by techies who are still novices in
the Macintosh religion of simplicity. Its installation requires fewer
steps than Boot Camp (there's no CD burning or restarting the Mac), but
even its Quick Installation Guide is filled with jargon like "virtual
machine" and "image file." (Parallels says it's completely rewriting its
guides.)

The dialogue boxes look a little quirky, too. And to get the best
features — like copying and pasting between operating systems and
enlarging the Windows window to nearly full-screen size — you're
supposed to install something called Parallels Tools. They ought to be
installed automatically.

Even then, as of the current version (Beta 3), some features are missing
in the Windows side: your U.S.B. jacks won't work, for example, and
DVD's won't play (CD's do). Sometimes, beta really means beta.

Note, too, that while it's easy to copy text between Mac OS X and
Windows programs, copying files and folders is trickier. You don't
actually see a Windows "hard drive," as you do when using Mac OS X with
Boot Camp. To drag icons back and forth, you have to share the "Mac" and
the "PC" with each other over a "network" that you establish between
them. Things sure get weird fast when you're running two computers in one.

Now, if you're a Mac fan, knowing that you can run Windows software so
easily in Mac OS X might make your imagination run wild with
possibilities. One of them, unfortunately, is a buzz killer of epic
proportions: If such a feat becomes effortless, will the world's
software companies lose their incentive to write Mac versions of their
programs?

No one can say. But if that fate can be avoided, then the Uni-Computer
will be a win-win-win. The Mac will be known as the computer that can
run nearly 100 percent of the world's software catalog. Microsoft will
sell more copies of Windows. Consumers will enjoy the security, silent
operation and sophisticated polish of the Mac without sacrificing
mission-critical Windows programs.

Apple, no doubt, is also gleefully contemplating the reaction of the
masses when they experience Mac OS X and Windows side by side, day in
and day out. Its Web site makes the point without much subtlety:
"Windows running on a Mac," it says, is "subject to the same attacks
that plague the Windows world. So be sure to keep it updated with the
latest Microsoft Windows security fixes." Ouch!

So in the course of seven days, the brilliant but technical
Windows-on-Mac procedure written by a couple of hackers last month —
OnMac.net — has become obsolete, and two more official ways to do the
unthinkable have been born. You can use Boot Camp (fast and
feature-complete, but requires restarting) or, in a few weeks, the
finished version of Parallels (fast and no restarting, but geekier to
install, and no 3-D games).

Can't decide? Then install both. They coexist beautifully on a single Mac.

Either that, or just wait. At this rate of change and innovation,
something even better is surely just another week away.

E-mail:

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Either that, or just wait. At this rate of change and innovation,
something even better is surely just another week away.

E-mail:

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

YAWN!!! And your point is????????????????????

You requoted the entire article (boring to you as it may be)
for just a one-line reply? Bad form, old man.

Tom Lake

Alex wrote:
"Sparky Spartacus" wrote in message
...

April 13, 2006
David Pogue

Run Windows and Mac OS Both at Once
snip

E-mail:

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company


YAWN!!! And your point is????????????????????

His point is maybe the best of both worlds. Guess you have never
used a MAC. To bad for You.

On 4/13/06 9:07 PM, in article , "Alex"
wrote:


"Sparky Spartacus" wrote in message
...
April 13, 2006
David Pogue

Run Windows and Mac OS Both at Once

ONLY a week ago, Apple released what seemed like an astonishing piece of
software called Boot Camp. This program radically rewrote the rules of
Macintosh-Windows warfare — by letting you run Windows XP on a Macintosh
at full speed.

Now, some in the Cult of Macintosh were baffled by the whole thing. Who on
earth, they asked, wants to pollute the magnificence of the Mac with a
headache like Windows XP?

Back in the real world, though, there was plenty of interest. Lots of
people are tempted by the Mac's sleek looks and essentially virus-free
operating system — but worry about leaving Windows behind entirely. Others
would find happiness with Apple's superb music, photo and movie-making
programs — but have jobs that rely on Microsoft Access, Outlook or some
other piece of Windows corporate-ware.

Even many current Mac fans occasionally steal covert glances over the
fence at some of the Windows-only niceties they thought they'd never have,
like QuickBooks Online, AutoCad for architects, high-end 3-D Windows
games, or the occasional bullheaded Web site that requires Internet
Explorer for Windows.

Few could have guessed that only days later, Boot Camp would be eclipsed
by something even better.

Boot Camp remains a free download from Apple.com. It's a public beta,
meaning it's not technically finished. It's available only for Mac models
containing an Intel chip. (So far that's the 2006 Mac Mini, iMac and
MacBook Pro laptop.)

The uncomplicated installation process takes about an hour, and entails
burning a CD, inserting a Windows XP installation CD (not included), and
waiting around a lot.

Then you designate either Mac OS X or Windows as your "most of the time"
operating system. You can also choose an operating system each time you
start up the computer.

If you choose Windows, then by golly, you're in Windows. You can install
and run your favorite Windows programs — speech recognition, business
software, even games — and, incredibly, they run as fast and well as they
ever did.

Correction: they run faster than they ever did. Most people comment that
an Intel Mac runs Windows faster than any PC they've ever owned. And if
the Windows side ever gets bogged down with viruses and spyware, you can
flip into Mac OS X and keep right on being productive.

Boot Camp's problem, though, is right there in its name: You have to
reboot (restart) the computer every time you switch systems. As a result,
you can't copy and paste between Mac and Windows programs. And when you
want to run a Windows program, you have to close everything you were
working on, shut down the Mac, and restart it in Windows — and then
reverse the process when you're done. You lose two or three minutes each
way.

NO wonder, then, that last week, the corridors of cyberspace echoed with
the sounds of high-fiving when a superior solution came to light. A little
company called Parallels has found a way to eliminate all of those
drawbacks — and to run Windows XP and Mac OS X simultaneously.

The software is called Parallels Workstation for Mac OS X, although a
better name might be No Reboot Camp. It, too, is a free public beta,
available for download from parallels.com. You can pre-order the final
version for $40, or pay $50 after its release (in a few weeks, says the
company).

Parallels, like Boot Camp, requires that you supply your own copy of
Windows. But here's the cool part: with Parallels, unlike Boot Camp, it
doesn't have to be XP. It can be any version, all the way back to Windows
3.1 — or even Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, OS/2 or MS-DOS. All of this is made
possible by a feature of Intel's Core Duo chips (called virtualization)
that's expressly designed for running multiple operating systems
simultaneously.

In the finished version, the company says, you'll be able to work in
several operating systems at once. What the heck — install Windows XP
three times. If one becomes virus-ridden, you can just delete it and
smile.

But before your head explodes, consider the most popular case: running one
copy of Windows XP on your Mac.

Suppose you're finishing a brochure on your Mac, and you need a phone
number from your company's Microsoft Access database. You double-click the
Parallels icon, and 15 seconds later — yes, 15 seconds — Windows XP is
running in a window of its own, just as you left it. You open Access, look
up and copy the contact information, click back into your Mac design
program, and paste. Sweet.

Using Boot Camp, you'd restart the computer in Windows, look up the
number — but then what? Without the ability to copy and paste, what would
you do with the phone number once you found it? Write it on an envelope?

Parallels is very fast — perhaps 95 percent as fast as Boot Camp. (It's
definitely not a software-based emulator like Microsoft's old, dog-slow
Virtual PC program.) It's even fast enough for video games, although not
the 3-D variety; for now, those are still better played in Boot Camp.

So if Parallels' side-by-side scheme is so superior, should Apple just
fold up its little Boot Camp tent and go home? It's much too soon to say.
Turns out Apple's and Parallels' definitions of "beta" differ wildly.

The Boot Camp beta feels finished and polished. Parallels, on the other
hand, is obviously a labor of love by techies who are still novices in the
Macintosh religion of simplicity. Its installation requires fewer steps
than Boot Camp (there's no CD burning or restarting the Mac), but even its
Quick Installation Guide is filled with jargon like "virtual machine" and
"image file." (Parallels says it's completely rewriting its guides.)

The dialogue boxes look a little quirky, too. And to get the best
features — like copying and pasting between operating systems and
enlarging the Windows window to nearly full-screen size — you're supposed
to install something called Parallels Tools. They ought to be installed
automatically.

Even then, as of the current version (Beta 3), some features are missing
in the Windows side: your U.S.B. jacks won't work, for example, and DVD's
won't play (CD's do). Sometimes, beta really means beta.

Note, too, that while it's easy to copy text between Mac OS X and Windows
programs, copying files and folders is trickier. You don't actually see a
Windows "hard drive," as you do when using Mac OS X with Boot Camp. To
drag icons back and forth, you have to share the "Mac" and the "PC" with
each other over a "network" that you establish between them. Things sure
get weird fast when you're running two computers in one.

Now, if you're a Mac fan, knowing that you can run Windows software so
easily in Mac OS X might make your imagination run wild with
possibilities. One of them, unfortunately, is a buzz killer of epic
proportions: If such a feat becomes effortless, will the world's software
companies lose their incentive to write Mac versions of their programs?

No one can say. But if that fate can be avoided, then the Uni-Computer
will be a win-win-win. The Mac will be known as the computer that can run
nearly 100 percent of the world's software catalog. Microsoft will sell
more copies of Windows. Consumers will enjoy the security, silent
operation and sophisticated polish of the Mac without sacrificing
mission-critical Windows programs.

Apple, no doubt, is also gleefully contemplating the reaction of the
masses when they experience Mac OS X and Windows side by side, day in and
day out. Its Web site makes the point without much subtlety: "Windows
running on a Mac," it says, is "subject to the same attacks that plague
the Windows world. So be sure to keep it updated with the latest Microsoft
Windows security fixes." Ouch!

So in the course of seven days, the brilliant but technical Windows-on-Mac
procedure written by a couple of hackers last month — OnMac.net — has
become obsolete, and two more official ways to do the unthinkable have
been born. You can use Boot Camp (fast and feature-complete, but requires
restarting) or, in a few weeks, the finished version of Parallels (fast
and no restarting, but geekier to install, and no 3-D games).

Can't decide? Then install both. They coexist beautifully on a single Mac.

Either that, or just wait. At this rate of change and innovation,
something even better is surely just another week away.

E-mail:

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

YAWN!!! And your point is????????????????????


The point is simple: CHOICE IS A GOOD THING! Now there are more choices!

Joan Hansen writes:
Alex wrote:
"Sparky Spartacus" wrote in message
...

April 13, 2006
David Pogue

Run Windows and Mac OS Both at Once
snip

His point is maybe the best of both worlds. Guess you have never
used a MAC. To bad for You.

A minor note, just a week or two earlier Microsoft announced a trial
version of a bit of software that would let you run more than one
MS OS at the same time on the same machine:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/default.mspx

But this doesn't require that you reboot the machine to switch from
one MS OS to another.

Then Apple announces their idea, but you have to reboot the machine
to switch from one to the next.

How long until someone fuses these two ideas? And we can use the
Apple OS as the firewall to protect the MS OS from the real world?
Now that might be interesting.

I have to wonder whether Microsoft's announcement is either setting
the stage for something like this with Apple OR whether MS has a
horde of customers that won't migrate because they still can't get
critical applications to work on newer OS and MS is trying to lure
them into a gradual transition.

But I suppose with the way things are going we will need one gig
of memory for each OS kernel and another gig for video memory,
and THEN add on whatever user memory you need.

But this doesn't require that you reboot the machine to switch from
one MS OS to another.

Then Apple announces their idea, but you have to reboot the machine
to switch from one to the next.

How long until someone fuses these two ideas? And we can use the
Apple OS as the firewall to protect the MS OS from the real world?
Now that might be interesting.

Almost done:

Parallels Workstation uses the native virtual machine capability of the
Intel
CPU used in the new Mac.

http://www.parallels.com/en/download/mac/

Tom Lake

"Tom Scales" wrote in
news

I think you're completely misunderstandning the technology.

1) Microsoft's solution uses Software emulation, which is
SLOWWWWWWW


Tom,

Virtual PC ( available for 18 months + ) creates a multiple virtual
PC environment. Any O/S that can be installed on a PC can be
installed as a guest O/S under Virtual PC.

Application code runs at full speed: *no software emulation* is
involved.

BTW: VMware is offering a similar product, for free!

Alex wrote:

"Sparky Spartacus" wrote in message
...

snip you dunce

YAWN!!! And your point is????????????????????

It seemed like the sort of info some people here would find of interest.

"Frazer Jolly Goodfellow" wrote in message
...
"Tom Scales" wrote in
news

I think you're completely misunderstandning the technology.

1) Microsoft's solution uses Software emulation, which is
SLOWWWWWWW


Tom,

Virtual PC ( available for 18 months + ) creates a multiple virtual
PC environment. Any O/S that can be installed on a PC can be
installed as a guest O/S under Virtual PC.

Application code runs at full speed: *no software emulation* is
involved.

BTW: VMware is offering a similar product, for free!

Yes, but noth Virtual PC and VMWare are running the hosted OSs in emulation
(software) mode. I use VMWare and it is an incredible product, but unless
you run it on a very high-end server, the running OS is very slow.

Tom

Sparky Spartacus wrote:
It seemed like the sort of info some people here would find of interest.

It is, and I thank you for the pointer. I can't actually see
bothering with it myself, as we've got PCs _and_ Macs, but it's an
interesting hack.

When the quad-cores come out and I can run Linux, OSX, and WinDoze
simultaneously, with copy and paste between them, that might be a lot
of fun! 8*)