Windows, Mac OS to run side-by-side

Parallels, a start-up whose software enables Macs to run Microsoft Windows and the Mac OS at the same time, says it is ready with a final version of its product.

Apple Computer made headlines back in April when it said it would offer its own software--Boot Camp--for loading Windows onto Macs. However, Boot Camp permits people to run only one operating system at a time, meaning either Windows or the Mac OS can be in use, but not both at once.

Around the same time, Parallels started testing for its Parallels Desktop program, which uses virtualization technology to have Windows programs operate alongside Mac applications. The Windows programs open in a separate window within the Mac OS.

Unlike past software that allowed Windows programs to run on a Mac, Parallels Desktop does not need to emulate the hardware that's inside a PC. That's because Macs and PCs now use the same Intel-based chips. As a result, the speed of Parallels is far better than past efforts at bringing together the two operating systems, the software start-up said. In fact, Parallels says Windows programs can run nearly as fast through its virtualization as running natively on a Windows PC.

"The difference in performance between Parallels and Boot Camp is negligible," said Parallels marketing manager Ben Rudolph. "Things move very, very fast."

Being able to run Windows programs is seen as a potentially significant catalyst for Mac sales. Needham analyst Charlie Wolf upgraded Apple's stock on Tuesday, saying that the combination of Boot Camp and programs like Parallels could help the Cupertino, Calif.-based company gain market share.

"The trigger for our upgrade is the prospect that a significant number of Windows users will switch to a Mac once it's able to run Windows applications," Wolf wrote in a report. He cited a survey by his firm, which found that in the U.S., some 8 percent of home PC owners would switch to a Mac if it could run Windows. "An increase of this magnitude would almost triple Apple's share in the home market and increase it 75 percent worldwide," Wolf wrote.

Put through its paces
The Parallels software has been in testing since April, and more than 100,000 people have tried it out, according to the company. Interest has come not only from hobbyists eager to try out Microsoft's operating system on their Mac at home, but also from governments, businesses and schools that want to have their Macs better able to converse in a Windows-dominated world.

Canada's University of Waterloo, for example, has been testing Parallels software. It plans to use it in the Mac lab of its environmental studies department so students can benefit from a number of programs that aren't available for Apple machines.

"I've been very impressed with the performance of it," said Don Duff-McCracken, a graphics and computer-aided design systems manager at the university. Duff-McCracken said he has been using the Parallels tool to run processor-intensive software, such as the World Construction Set software for rendering terrain.

Duff-McCracken compared applications in Parallels with the same ones running directly in Windows via Boot Camp. The performance in Parallels was within 1 to 2 percent of the other, he said. And both Mac-based options were faster than some recently acquired Dell machines the school had.

"It's running this sophisticated software at native speeds," he said.

While Boot Camp is essentially a tool for letting a Mac run either Windows or the Mac OS, Parallels makes both operating systems available at the same time. To do this, Windows runs as what is known as a virtual machine--essentially acting as if it was a separate PC.

Boot Camp, meanwhile, is still in beta, though Apple has said it will be part of Leopard, the next version of Mac OS X. The company is expected to outline Leopard's key features at a developer conference in August.

[ServedUp]

Mac OS Culture.

I'm just worried that because of this people will be using the Mac
more for Windows then using it for the Mac OS.

Could it be the end of Mac Culture as we know it?

Truly bootcamp is great for the user who wants to use both OSes
and of course Apple's top notch hardware but what could this all
add up to in the future?

Will developers now stop developing their software for the MAC?
Will Apple in turn license the Mac OS because of this? Is it
possible Apple could haveshot themselves in the foot? I don't
understand some aspects of why they released Bootcamp,
because they've worked so hard on the Mac OS these past five
years, Its a very tight system and extremely user friendly. Why
throw all that hardwork out the window? A pun.. sheesh that
wasn't intentional.

But clearly the current Mac OS is superior to anything out there
including the Vista beta which in itself could possibly be good
when its released but nowhere near as good as to what Apple
has planned for their next release of Mac OS X dubbed Leopard.

My guess is thats probably one of the reasons why Avie Tevanian
left. Maybe there isn't a Mac OS in the future.. Its possible
Microsoft and Apple are bed mates and are planning something
very big for both OSes. Maybe some wierd hybrid of Windows
and the Mac OS... Or could I just be dreaming??

[dotmike]

No, because

The whole article is about running Windows & Linux inside their
own spaces, but with Mac OS X as the central command.

That is actually making Mac OS X even more important - it is the
main, host OS, and Windows/Linux are the subordinate, guest
OSes.

And as a user from the day dot, I can vouch for the fact that
Parallels is fantastic software.

I'm actually using Windows less, because I can stay in the Mac
for most things and just switch to Windows virtually instantly
when I need it for the odd thing here and there.

Boot Camp is great too, because when you need your Mac to
behave as a PC and take full advantage of the graphics card for
games, scientific visualization, etc, you can simply boot it as a
PC.

Both Parallels and Boot Camp make a Mac a far more desirable
piece of kit than it ever was pre-Intel switch.

Tip of the day: install VirtueDesktops, run a few Parallels
sessions, eg, Windows XP and Ubuntu Linux, then flip between
them with a keystroke. When your coworkers see this, their jaws
will hit the floor!

[airwalkery2k]

Yum

Honestly, I would be interested in a MacOS-Windows hybrid. The best of both worlds. A friendly OS, full of options and a snazzy environment, able to use all the programs you can pick up at the store.

But, that's a bit of a pipe-dream as I see it.

[huddie klein]

I think your dreaming

Of course apple is famous for it's hardware design, but I still think the main reason for buying a mac is OSX. It's mine anyway. It's operation is just so much more elegant, it's a whole other level. So I don't think many people would by a mac just to run XP on it. As for Vista, that's still an long way of, and Apple will have Leopard on the market before Vista arrives I guess, but I doubt that you could call them competitors anyway.

Main thing is, that now you can run win on a mac the switch is made more 'safe' for the windows user. But I think that once you switch, you switch forever. I did, anyway.

[thedreaming]

Don't worry

Steve Jobs was once asked about the possibility of having MACOSX running on an average pc and he basically said that the only true legal way to have MACOSX on your machine is if it's a mac, so to get that great user experience legally, you have to buy the machine and the software from him. That will keep apple alive and kicking for a long time.

I do think, however, that windows and mac are starting to merge in the way of capabilities. The current beta of vista seems to have alot of MACOSX abilities.

I keep reminding people that apple thought up all those things way before they were added to vista. I'm actually surprised they didn't include a dock in vista, since that's about all that's missing.

[brodda2]

End of OS-X?

I think M$ will have to really pull a rabbit out of their hat with
Vista on the security front. Before they are viewed as any great
threat to Apple, Vista users must have the same confidence in
the face of viruses, spyware and such as Mac users currently
enjoy.

Who knows? But I think Mr. Gates will have to have his feet held
to the fire by both the development community and the user
base in order to create an OS half as stable and secure as OS-X.

[drfrost]

I think you're dreaming....

I'll be the first to admit that I could be wrong, but I don't see Apple and Microsoft cooperating on the OS front ever. The legal issues alone are staggering. In fact, one of Microsofts main legal arguments for years was that it wasn't a monopoly was because Apple was a significant player in the OS market (though you could argue that single digit market share isn't that significant).

I'd be completely shocked to see any significant joint venture in the OS arena by these two companies.

[chuck_whealton]

Windows on Macs....

I don't think, or at least I hope we won't see the end of the Mac culture as we know it.

I >LIKE< to think that what we'll see is a continuation of the superior Mac operating system available and the possibility that Windows might have a better choice of hardware to run on.

Of course, we never know what's going on behind the scenes at these companies.

As much as I love the Macintosh OS, I will say that there are SOME good things about Windows. I won't go into them because I'm not out to start some war on this stuff, but there are a couple good things about it. I think it'd be REALLY nice running on superior hardware like the Mac.

Charles Whealton
Chuck Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com

[nealsaferstein]

One lacking feature

This is great software, however when it can run games it will be a home run.

Neal Saferstein

[ServedUp]

Sure games.

In Bootcamp, you can run PC games natively.

[ServedUp]

Why run Virtualization?

Okay Virtualization is nowhere near as fast as running Windows
natively which Apple's Bootcamp provides.

Now how is running Parallel's software, which runs Windows
virtually, any better than running it natively in Bootcamp.

Atleast Bootcamp can make the Mac a true Windows machine.

Bootcamp is still in beta form as well. I'm almost certain you'll be
able to run Windows within Mac OS soon, which is a speculated
feature of Leopard. Just like the fast user switching available in
the Mac OS, which it will most likely imitate.

I just wish they would bring the Classic Environment back in
some form. I still have some Applications I miss using in Mac OS
9. Now that would be truly something.

[brodda2]

XP Running Virtual?

I believe that Windows runs native when using BootCamp. As for
Classic running on Tiger, I think it will only get removed with the
next version on OS-X (10.5). I've had a better experience
running OS-9 software by just picking up an old powerbook, you
should be able to find an old Wallstreet of Pismo for about
$300.00 USD if you do some shopping.

I hope this helps.

[ServedUp]

Why Virtualization

Okay Virtualization is nowhere near as fast as running Windows
natively which Apple's Bootcamp provides.

Now how is running Parallel's software, which runs Windows
virtually, any better than running it natively in Bootcamp.

Atleast Bootcamp can make the Mac a true Windows machine.

Bootcamp is still in beta form as well. I'm almost certain you'll be
able to run Windows within Mac OS soon, which is a speculated
feature of Leopard. Just like the fast user switching available in
the Mac OS, which it will most likely imitate.

I just wish they would bring the Classic Environment back in
some form. I still have some Applications I miss using in Mac OS
9. Now that would be truly something.

[ewelch]

Nope

You're confusing virtualizatin with emulation. They are not the
same thing. Parallels would be VASTLY better than Boot Camp
becuase you don't have to reboot to run Windows. You can run just
one required Windows program (say, Outlook) while running OS X.
Why run all Windows if you only have to run a slice?

Apple may very well offer virtualization with Leopard. If you read IT
publications, virtualization is a big thing coming for more than just
Macs.

[CentrOS]

Sorry, you're wrong. More FUD.

If you can discern any speed difference at all, NOT through
benchmarks but actual use, I'll buy you a beer!

[verucabong]

Native Drivers

While speed differences between virtualization and native "boot camp'd" are not to different to the user, there is one crucial difference. Virtualization does NOT allow you to use native hardware drivers. For instance, if you tried to load the ATI video driver in an intel iMac, it won't let you. You don't get full native speed of the driver.

Now, in most cases, this is just fine because you may be running a very simple application. In our case, with our testing, I'm running our help desk call tracking software in Parallels and it's just fine. However, for someone who wants to run audio software for instance, that may need driver level access, it may not work properly.

Speed isn't an issue. Convenience and driver level access are the issues with virtualization vs. boot camp.

BTW, Vista Beta 2 runs very well on a Boot Camp'd intel mac.

[paulsecic]

OS9

was great. I loved it!

[archer6]

Mac Culture

I hope this IS the end of Mac Culture as we know it. We will all benefit.

[ewelch]

We can hope...

That it's the end of ignorant statments about things people have no
clue about...

[ServedUp]

Apple Haters.

I thought my post would bring out the haters, but why knock a
Mac for being more than what a PC can ever be? Its pointless.
Apple won't die. The Mac OS might, but not the Mac.

But don't worry friend, I'm sure Microsoft is going to find some
way of blocking this feature for Vista. Thus stifling innovation
once again, so your tiny little Windows world will be safe.
But I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft will go as far as buying
Parallels like they bought Virtual PC and watering the software
down. I always thought Virtual PC ran better pre-Microsoft.

[airwalkery2k]

War of the OS's

Frankly, I find people claiming superiority of any system to be a bit out of it. There are pros and cons to both systems. If you were to give me a brand new Mac or a brand new PC, I would be happy either way.

Of course, I'd like to do something more productive than fight with you two sides over the importance of this issue.

[ServedUp]

Choose a Mac.

A Mac now runs all three major OSes.

Windows, Mac OS and Linux either with Bootcamp or Parallel's
software.

Now would you still be happy with a PC?

[Christopher Hall]

Not everyone has to be a warrior.

Your personal computer choice should be determined by what it is you want to do with your computer.

If you're the kind of person who is a through-and-through do-it-yourselfer, go Intel/AMD and put Linux on the box. If you want a positively massive software library or you game, go Windows. If you want a low frills, hands-off computing experience, go Mac. In addition, if you're the kind of person who always turns up a couple dozen bits of spyware with a weekly scan, do the world a favor and go Mac.

While Macs will now run all three major OSes, as ServedUp has pointed out, it still lacks the hardware versatility of the Windows-native machines, making the choice quite clear for the build your own computer crowd.

[Joe Bolt]

You've got a lot of nerve, airwalker!

Jesus! The nerve of some people, huh? In his wild, fanciful diatribe, airwalker actually has the temerity to step beyond cultism and look at the two platforms objectively. Clearly, folks, people like airwalker have no place in such a forum as C-Net.

But here, let's make a little test:

- You open the browser. You click on a link. You read the page.

- You open Photoshop. You play with the image. You save the image.

- You open the word processor. You write a letter to Grandma. You print the letter.

Quick: Which OS are you using?

What's that? Don't know? Can't guess?

Well, then, didn't you just prove airwalker's point?

The vastly amusing thing about reading people quibble over "which OS is better" is that you don't USE the OS, you use these things called "programs". And, once the program is up, who gives a rat's ass which OS is being used? You click on the link. You play with the picture. You write the letter to Grandma. Everything after that is merely cosmetic.

My advice is, if you think the icons on a Mac are prettier or more "elegant" than the icons on a Wintel machine, by all means, buy a Mac.

On a different note, I'm surprised none of the Mac users tackled this delicate little question:

Isn't a program like Parallels a major insult to Mac users? Do you think they would have come out with it if there hadn't been a huge demand by Mac users to run Windows programs?

Just asking. :)

[kelmon]

Bought Without Intel Mac

I've been following the development of this application across its
beta and release candidate releases and have now bought a copy
of it despite the fact that I don't actually own an Intel Mac to run
it on. At this time I am planning on a MacBook Pro in August/
September and I elected to buy Parallels now since the software
will undoubtably be used and the price is nice (50% of the
proposed retail cost at the final release). I'll most probably run
both Boot Camp and Parallels since I have a few PC games that
I'd like to run on the Mac (and this way be able to dispose of the
old PC completely) but most of the time I'll run Parallels so that I
can share data between OS X and Windows, run one OS on one
monitor and the other on another, and not have to muck about
rebooting each time that I want to change OS. At work, Parallels
is most definitely going to be the most practical solution.
Thankfully, the license agreement for Windows means that I only
need a single copy of XP in order to do this.

[balooh]

Why does nobody ever mention Q ?

First of all, there is Q, a free virtualisation software with a native
MacOS X GUI and it has been available before Bootcamp and
before Paralells.

Why is every journalist/blogger getting so excited about
Parallels and no article ever mentions what else is out there? Is
this because of advertising dollars or are journalists/bloggers
just incapable of researching a story these days?

Anyway, Q is here: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.kberg.ch/q" target="_newWindow">http://www.kberg.ch/q</a>

[Note: I am not associated with this project in any way]


Next, it is totally inaccurate to say that Parallels competes with
Apples' Bootcamp. The user experience is totally different.
Besided, Bootcamp doesn't run Windows. Yes, that's right.
Bootcamp does not run Windows. It doesn't run any OS for that
matter.

What Bootcamp does do is this:

1) it installs a second firmware on your Intel Mac

2) it creates a CD with Windows drivers for some of the hardware
found in an Intel Mac

That's all Bootcamp does. Since an Intel Mac is technically just
another Intel PC, Windows can already run on it without help.
The only reason why you couldn't install and boot Windows
before Bootcamp is that Intel Macs use Intel's new firmware
called EFI, whereas all other vendors still use the old firmware
called BIOS. That's the only catch. So, Bootcamp simply installs
BIOS in addition to the default EFI firmware and once that's done
Windows can be installed and booted.

In other words, Bootcamp is a firmware upgrader. If Apple had
called it "Intel Macintosh Firmware Upgrade April 2006" which
they might as well have done because that's what it is, then
nobody would have come up with such funny ideas like Parallels
is competing with Apple. That's like saying that Virtual PC for
PCs is competing with HP because HP have a custom BIOS.

[balooh]

Why does nobody ever mention Q ???

First of all, there is Q, a free virtualisation software with a native
MacOS X GUI and it has been available before Bootcamp and
before Paralells.

Why is every journalist/blogger getting so excited about
Parallels and no article ever mentions what else is out there? Is
this because of advertising dollars or are journalists/bloggers
just incapable of researching a story these days?

Anyway, Q is here: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.kberg.ch/q" target="_newWindow">http://www.kberg.ch/q</a>

[Note: I am not associated with this project in any way]


Next, it is totally inaccurate to say that Parallels competes with
Apples' Bootcamp. The user experience is totally different.
Besided, Bootcamp doesn't run Windows. Yes, that's right.
Bootcamp does not run Windows. It doesn't run any OS for that
matter.

What Bootcamp does do is this:

1) it installs a second firmware on your Intel Mac

2) it creates a CD with Windows drivers for some of the hardware
found in an Intel Mac

That's all Bootcamp does. Since an Intel Mac is technically just
another Intel PC, Windows can already run on it without help.
The only reason why you couldn't install and boot Windows
before Bootcamp is that Intel Macs use Intel's new firmware
called EFI, whereas all other vendors still use the old firmware
called BIOS. That's the only catch. So, Bootcamp simply installs
BIOS in addition to the default EFI firmware and once that's done
Windows can be installed and booted.

In other words, Bootcamp is a firmware upgrader. If Apple had
called it "Intel Macintosh Firmware Upgrade April 2006" which
they might as well have done because that's what it is, then
nobody would have come up with such funny ideas like Parallels
is competing with Apple. That's like saying that Virtual PC for
PCs is competing with HP because HP have a custom BIOS.

[jwmoreland]

Emulation

"Q" is emulation software. Does it run on intel? I couldn't tell. Also, it states that it is "Alpha" software. It isn't even to beta. Parallels is reaching final release.

[huddie klein]

Will MS break compatibillity?

What we're talking about is more win-users switching to mac because of bootcamp and the like.

And once you own a mac, and get used to OSX I promise you you'll stay with OSX. ( it took me 3 days ;-)

And that will mean that MS loses customers. Won't they try to stop windows from running on a mac? Just like apple stops us from running OSX on a PC?

[Peter Bonte]

Is Apple stopping us to run osX on PC?

I don't think so, there is no boxed Intel osX for sale yet so we'll
just have to wait for 10.5.

Apple can't promote XP on Mac and at the same time cripple or
brake osX on PC, so i'll bet it won't be more than just a driver
issue to run it on PC. Even Dell can offer osX optimized PC's
(made for osX logo or such) and just sell it with a copy of osX
10.5 and a CD with drivers, with or without Apples permission or
support. It will be interesting to watch. :)

MS is dead.

[Peter Bonte]

Is Apple stopping us to run osX on PC?

I don't think so, there is no boxed Intel osX for sale yet so we'll
just have to wait for 10.5.

Apple can't promote XP on Mac and at the same time cripple or
brake osX on PC, so i'll bet it won't be more than just a driver
issue to run it on PC. Even Dell can offer osX optimized PC's
(made for osX logo or such) and just sell it with a copy of osX
10.5 and a CD with drivers, with or without Apples permission or
support. It will be interesting to watch. :)

MS is dead.

[regan2]

common mistake you're making...

microsoft doesn't sell hardware. they make MORE money if you
buy windows from them for your mac, than if you buy a Dell with
it preinstalled.

for MS, this isn't a lose for them, really. they'll still receive the
cost of the OS, but their partners will lose the sale.

obviously, it's much more complicated than that and i've taken a
simplistic view on purpose, but the real winner is Apple and
there isn't really a loser besides Dell, etc... if this really takes off.

[verucabong]

Native Drivers

While speed differences between virtualization and native "boot camp'd" are not to different to the user, there is one crucial difference. Virtualization does NOT allow you to use native hardware drivers. For instance, if you tried to load the ATI video driver in an intel iMac, it won't let you. You don't get full native speed of the driver.

Now, in most cases, this is just fine because you may be running a very simple application. In our case, with our testing, I'm running our help desk call tracking software in Parallels and it's just fine. However, for someone who wants to run audio software for instance, that may need driver level access, it may not work properly.

Speed isn't an issue. Convenience and driver level access are the issues with virtualization vs. boot camp.

BTW, Vista Beta 2 runs very well on a Boot Camp'd intel mac.

[verucabong]

Native Drivers

While speed differences between virtualization and native "boot camp'd" are not to different to the user, there is one crucial difference. Virtualization does NOT allow you to use native hardware drivers. For instance, if you tried to load the ATI video driver in an intel iMac, it won't let you. You don't get full native speed of the driver.

Now, in most cases, this is just fine because you may be running a very simple application. In our case, with our testing, I'm running our help desk call tracking software in Parallels and it's just fine. However, for someone who wants to run audio software for instance, that may need driver level access, it may not work properly.

Speed isn't an issue. Convenience and driver level access are the issues with virtualization vs. boot camp.

BTW, Vista Beta 2 runs very well on a Boot Camp'd intel mac.

[kamwmail-cnet1]

Ooh Look! Pay Double the Price for Mac so you can Run Useful Windows Progs

Dummest thing I'd every heard of:

To pay double the price for the same hardware BUT it's "Made By Apple!". Just so you can pay more for a software that lets you run usefull Windows programs. Oh, AND you STILL have to buy a copy of Windows XP.

Apple fanatics are a little slow in da head, huh?

[Peter Bonte]

Not double the price you troll and,

XP is just there for backwards compatibility :D

[brodda2]

...to Just run Windows?

You have to be kidding, right? Who in their right mind would
pay for the expensive Apple hardware just to run XP? The
answer is: nobody. The point is that most Mac users (like
myself) must, from time to time, use some PC software and
being able to use it from a Mac is much more cost-effective than
owning two machines.

[bommai]

Check your facts

Is this just a flame bait or are you serious?

Compare equivalent PCs from Apple with that of other manufacturers such as Sony, Lenovo, HP, Acer, etc. You will find that an equivalent Mac is within $200 of the PC. The software that comes bundled with the Mac is worth way more than $200. Also, if you want to upgrade to Windows XP Professional on the PC, you end up paying about $100 more. So, the price would actually be within $100.

[alwayztheskeptik]

Time to bust that myth...

Dell Precision 690
2 X 2.66 GHz Xeon
1 GB Memory
NVIDIA Quadro 550
250 GB Hard Drive
16X Superdrive
$3,448

Apple Mac Pro
2 X 2.66 GHz Xeon
1 GB Memory
NVIDIA GeForce 7300GT
250 GB Hard Drive
16X Superdrive
$2,499

[idvlpsw]

One laptop or two?

As a software developer working on applications that run on Windows and Mac OS X I think Parallels is a fantastic utility. Before Parallels Desktop I had two laptops. One was an IBM ThinkPad used for Windows development. One was an Apple PowerBook G4, used for Mac development.

I am now happily running all of my development work for our applications on a single MacBook Pro using Parallels. No more lugging around multiple machines, and no need to reboot each time I want to switch between Mac OS X and Windows. By far this is the best way to work if you have to switch back and forth between the two operating systems.

People who point out how much more expensive Apple hardware is might want to do some more shopping. I paid roughly the same amount for my ThinkPad and my PowerBook. They were both approximately $3000. Each one is expensive, highly reliable, quality hardware from a top notch hardware vendor. So, before Parallels and the Intel Mac systems I could usually expect to pay about $6000 every 1-2 years to upgrade to a newer set of systems. Now, things have changed and I need only page $3000 for one MacBook Pro and $39 for Parallels Desktop. That's a net savings of just under $3000.

So, to those who think Apple hardware is more expensive I say "Huh?"

So far my only complaints about Parallels are:
- My Garmin GPS doesn't work with it. There is some sort of problem with the USB driver.
- I can't seem to figure out how to run multiple Parallels environments at the same time.

My only complaints about the MacBook Pro are
- Only expandable to 2GB of ram. I would like to see 4GB.
- The screen does not tilt back far enough for use in some environments.

[idvlpsw]

Parallels Rocks for Software Developers

As a software developer working on applications that run on Windows and Mac OS X I think Parallels is a fantastic utility. Before Parallels Desktop I had two laptops. One was an IBM ThinkPad used for Windows development. One was an Apple PowerBook G4, used for Mac development.

I am now happily running all of my development work for our applications on a single MacBook Pro using Parallels. No more lugging around multiple machines, and no need to reboot each time I want to switch between Mac OS X and Windows. By far this is the best way to work if you have to switch back and forth between the two operating systems.

People who point out how much more expensive Apple hardware is might want to do some more shopping. I paid roughly the same amount for my ThinkPad and my PowerBook. They were both approximately $3000. Each one is expensive, highly reliable, quality hardware from a top notch hardware vendor. So, before Parallels and the Intel Mac systems I could usually expect to pay about $6000 every 1-2 years to upgrade to a newer set of systems. Now, things have changed and I need only page $3000 for one MacBook Pro and $39 for Parallels Desktop. That's a net savings of just under $3000.

So, to those who think Apple hardware is more expensive I say "Huh?"

So far my only complaints about Parallels are:
- My Garmin GPS doesn't work with it. There is some sort of problem with the USB driver.
- I can't seem to figure out how to run multiple Parallels environments at the same time.

My only complaints about the MacBook Pro are
- Only expandable to 2GB of ram. I would like to see 4GB.
- The screen does not tilt back far enough for use in some environments.

[Joe Bolt]

Surprise ending

Wow! A program that will let you run two OS's at once! How modern does it get? Boy, it's great to be a computer operator in the year 2006, when such amazing programs as Parallels is available, isn't it?

Now picture this:

You're on your computer. With the press of two keys, you flip from your OS to a fully-functional Windows.

You press the two keys again and you've flipped to a fully-functional Mac OS.

You press the two keys again and you're back to your original OS.

I can hear your response already. "Jesus, Joe, THREE OS's?? C'mon, buddy, you kiddin' us? Parallels, the most modern program on the planet, can only do TWO! You smoke your breakfast this morning or sumpin'?"

Well, not quite.

You've just flipped from your OS, to Windows, to Mac, on your Amiga 500.

The year is 1989.

Told you it was a surprise ending. :)

[DeusExMachina]

NOT ALL THAT SURPRISING

First, the Amiga MacOS emulator required either illegal hacks or
purchase of boot ROMS, ran windows in emulation (the whole
POINT of this article was that this was NOT emulation)

Second, parallels does NOT restrict you to two,so you might
want
to get your facts straight.

Third, as far as useful OS emulation was concerned, the Atari ST
blew the Amiga out of the water (not to mention how much
workbench sucked!!!)

[cgamboak]

Well is the same with Java

compile here run everywhere.
I saw my friens i 198X compiling rm-cobol and running the same program everywhere.

runcobol myoldprog.obj

that's why hardware is so far from software. They look new stuff we repeat over and over

useless troll

Don't forget that Windows XP is an inferior OS. Hardware has jack and **** to do with anything. It's the user interface that 99% of computer users around the world care about.

And OS X tops XP in this arena in every single aspect. Not to mention the software available for Mac is much more straight forward and handles exceptionally well, unlike the millions of crappy apps on the MS platform.

I use both every single day, and would love it when I don't have to deal with the BS of MS every day.

[drfrost]

I disagree

I would agree that the UI of the Mac OS is better than Windows. And, yes, I have used both extensively.

What I most vehemently disagree with you on, however, is that it's the user interface that 99% of computer users around the world care about. That's not even remotely true. Business users care about solutions to problems. The UI isn't even considered. And consumers have all sorts of concerns, many of which have nothing to do with the UI.

I'll use myself as an example. At work, my computer runs linux because the software I need to do my work is available under, you guessed it, linux and a few flavors of unix (not the one MacOS is now built upon in case you're wondering).

At home I'm primarily concerned with playing games. Unfortunately for Apple, and I hope this changes, the PC game market puts most of it's products out for Windows. And, to be honest, almost none of the Windows UI comes through in the games I play (almost none). It would be a similar situation on Macs, the OS UI just isn't part of the gaming experience. These games develop their own UI's. And, the performance of these games have far more to do with the hardware I'm using than the OS.

So why don't I use Mac OS at home. Despite the fact that I believe it to be a superior OS to anything I've ever used up to this point, my main reason for having a computer at home has absolutely nothing to do with a UI. And I assure you, I'm not alone. The hardware is more important, and I can get better performing hardware for less money putting together my own systems.

My 2 cents...

[Seaspray0]

So don't use it and quit complaining

Nobody said you MUST run windows on you Mac. What a cry baby!

[benjiernmd]

Agree!

Tama ka riyan. Ganyan din ang experience ko.

[mandrake3k]

And it actually works!

I've got Vista (beta 2) running on my MacBook Pro via Boot Camp (you know, just for fun), but I've been using Parallels to run XP for actual work. See:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPkP9XOyXaw" target="_newWindow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPkP9XOyXaw</a>

for the whole shebang. I was hoping VMware would step up, but if they don't, Parallels is going to own this space.

[mystereojones]

Lower the price of the Mac

If they lowered the price, they could actually be affordable for the masses. C'mon Apple, you know you want to do it.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.techknowcafe.com/content/view/434/42/" target="_newWindow">http://www.techknowcafe.com/content/view/434/42/</a>

[yikes31]

macs too expensive? C'mon!

Looking at the prices of PCs, Id say that they are pretty
reasonable in price for high specification good quality hardware.
At the end of the day, you get what you pay for.
A British Expression:
If you pay peanuts, you get a monkey! I have several apple mac
pcs of different ages and an ipod and I have found them all to be
robust and reliable. for the most part, it seems that Apple PCs
outlive the useful lifespan of an equivalent PC counterpart.

Example: I have a g3 ibook 800mhz which still works well for
basic office tasks, web browsing and low end gaming. I have no
worries about freezes, crashes and it has a wireless card too. A
similar spec Intel/AMD laptop would make a good paperweight!

[willpenington]

Yeah,

It's not like thier service department costs that much to run!

[chuck_whealton]

I agree...

I'd have to agree. I know people constantly make arguments that the Mac is really comparably priced to a similar Intel based system, but I'm still having a hard time believing it (I have several Intel based boxes and a PowerBook).

I love my Macintosh.

There's no question, if they cost less, I'd have already bought at least one if not two more.

Charles Whealton
Chuck Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com

[mystereojones]

I wanted to get the MacBook

I hear it can run XP pretty darn good on it with the Mac OS. The only thing preventing me from getting it is the darn price.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.techknowcafe.com/content/view/336/42/" target="_newWindow">http://www.techknowcafe.com/content/view/336/42/</a>

[jdginky]

Macs too costly?

The price for a Mac is not high when compared to comparably
equipped Windows machines. Buying a cheap Windows box doesn't
mean it is of high quality.

[g3 creative]

The MacBook Cost

The MacBook is a really great wee computer one of the
designers here has one. Anyway you guys in the US should be
laughing when it comes to purchasing PCs you dont have to
pay our horrible UK VAT charges.

Although when you think our prime ministers wife Sheree Blair
has spent £3000.00 in one week on hair cuts and claimed it as
expenses you can see why our tax levels are so high.

God bless em.

[nmannella]

Cruel Little Mac Joke

Has anyone else noticed that that the new icon for My Computer is the Shutdown icon? Or that the new My Documents icon is the Help icon? What are you trying to say?

[peestandingup]

10.5 (Leopard) is gonna have this built it...

...so save your money because its coming by the end of the year. There are even rumors that you will be able to run Windows programs natively within OS X, without installing a Windows OS at all. We shall see.

[metalhead11]

no...

Apple has specifically said they will not sell, license, or promote
windows. Allowing you to run windows on a mac without insalling
it would be them promoting windows, and selling it.

[metalhead11]

no...

Apple has specifically said they will not sell, license, or promote
windows. Allowing you to run windows on a mac without insalling
it would be them promoting windows, and selling it.

[willpenington]

MS will sue

"Windows programs natively within OS X, without installing a Windows OS at all"

They can't do this because they will sell. Microsoft like parralels because you still buy a copy of xp or vista, what ever you are using, but if apple go through with this, they will either have to stop, or lisence windows. They have vowed not to do this, and even if they somehow manage to win all the legal action, Microsoft will cease developing and selling Office for mac and virtual PC, and create update and dll hell for mac OSX.

If os x has native support for windows apps, it has native support for windows viruses, and the only difference between the two OSs will be what hardware it can be installed on (and it's cost), UIs and the reasons and behaviour in crashes. What is the point in a "Secure BSD core" if it is vunerable to Windows viruses? none, so I'll stick with Windows because I like the Vista UI, and regedit.

[Mendz]

Plastic Mac Lovers

Mac lovers who bought Mac realized they need Windows applications... Duh?

[Stan Johnson]

Most brilliant move Apple could make.

One of the only things keeping Windows users from using Mac hardware is that they are HEAVILY invested in Windows software. To run both operating systems at the same time would be the smartest growth move Apple could possibly make. It spells out growth for Apple computers better than anything else Apple could do. Period.

[mystereojones]

This is better than Boot Camp

I think I'm going to get this and give it a shot.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.techknowcafe.com/content/view/527/42/" target="_newWindow">http://www.techknowcafe.com/content/view/527/42/</a>

[rmiecznik]

Windows no way better then OS X

I've been using every single version of windows and currently use XP Pro. When the time came to choose a new computer, I went G5 Power Mac with the IBM Power PC Chip, I figured that with Univeral Binary file, it won't be a problem, and it's not.

I got sick of XP, so I wanted to try something else. At 33 I don't care for games no more, that's what the Xbox 360 is for. I would not trade my G5 for no other computer. So then the dilema came as to what I will do with all this PC Hardware. I would love to be able to Install Mac OS X on it and totally trash the XP, but I can't.

So I keep one XP running for work pruposes and everything else was cleaned out and Slackware Linux installed and those computers not run rock solid my web network and apache software. The Vista Beta 2, that I did install, nothing worked as far as drivers and there weren't any on the manufacturers web site. Most don't even mention anything about drivers at all for any of their products. Alot of my 32-bit programs don't even work anymore on Vista, I get all kinds of errors. So ya it looks cool and sleek, but at this point Vista is useless.

By the time drivers are written for it a good year will pass after it's release, by that time OS X will have major updates :- )

There is no way that XP is better the OS X, don't even give me that, I don't believe it.