NY Times’ Pogue on running Mac OS X and Windows XP on your Apple Mac

“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,” David Pogue writes for The New York Times. “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.”

Boot Camp is a free download from Apple that lets you “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,” Pogue reports. “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,” Pogue reports. “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… 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.”

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

Full article here.

Advertisements:
Apple’s brand new iPod Hi-Fi speaker system. Home stereo. Reinvented. Available now for $349 with free shipping.
Apple’s new Mac mini. Intel Core, up to 4 times faster. Starting at just $599. Free shipping.
MacBook Pro. The first Mac notebook built upon Intel Core Duo with iLife ’06, Front Row and built-in iSight. Starting at $1999. Free shipping.
iMac. Twice as amazing — Intel Core Duo, iLife ’06, Front Row media experience, Apple Remote, built-in iSight. Starting at $1299. Free shipping.
iPod Radio Remote. Listen to FM radio on your iPod and control everything with a convenient wired remote. Just $49.
iPod. 15,000 songs. 25,000 photos. 150 hours of video. The new iPod. 30GB and 60GB models start at just $299. Free shipping.
Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.

Related articles:
Apple’s Boot Camp vs. Parallels Workstation for running Windows on Intel-based Macs – April 14, 2006
Baig: Boot Camp works so well it reminds me why I prefer Mac OS X to Windows XP in the first place – April 13, 2006
Apple’s Boot Camp is first step towards Mac OS X Leopard’s inevitable support for virtualization – April 11, 2006
Video of Parallels running Windows XP on Mac OS X showing real time clock – April 11, 2006
Microsoft Windows Vista Beta running on Apple Intel-based Mac – April 10, 2006
VMware plans Mac version of virtualization software – April 09, 2006
Video of Parallels running Windows XP on Mac OS X – April 07, 2006
Parallels releases first virtualization solution for Intel-powered Apple Intel-based Macs – April 06, 2006
Ed Bott on Apple’s new Boot Camp: virtualization would be better – April 06, 2006
Dude, you got a Dell? What are you, stupid? Only Apple Macs run both Mac OS X and Windows! – April 05, 2006
Apple introduces Boot Camp: public beta software enables Intel-based Macs to run Windows XP – April 05, 2006
Parallels to intro virtualization software for Intel-based Macs – April 04, 2006
Apple Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard likely to feature Windows support, drivers for Intel Macs – March 28, 2006
RUMOR: Apple’s Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard to include VMWare-like ‘Chameleon’ virtualization software – March 24, 2006
Using virtualization to run Windows and Linux apps plus Mac OS X could double Apple’s market share – February 11, 2006
Intel’s Virtualization Technology runs multiple operating systems simultaneously – February 08, 2006
Will future Intel-based Apple Macs offer multiple OS worlds via virtualization? – November 16, 2005
Intel’s built-in virtualization tech could be one way to run Windows on Intel-based Apple Macs – June 16, 2005
Intel-based Macs running both Mac OS X and Windows will be good for Apple – June 10, 2005
Why buy a Dell when Apple’s Intel-based computers will run both Mac OS X and Windows? – June 08, 2005

32 Comments

  1. Why doesn’t Apple roll up Filemaker into iWork to help offer an alternative to Windows “corporate-ware”? I agree Access keeps a lot of business hooked on Windows. And I believe Access is one of the best pieces of software Microsoft ever released. But I don’t understand why no one is willing to step up to the plate and challenge its dominance. As it stands now, Filemaker is way more expensive than Access, and has harsh and restrictive licensing terms. Now that Apple owns Filemaker, why don’t they MAKE something out of it?

  2. The truth doesn’t hurt me at all. And Vista will certainly not be better than whatever alternative Apple will offer at the time of its release, if that time ever comes. Maybe that’s the truth that hurts you.

  3. Apple has always owned Filemaker. Filemaker came out of Apple’s software “division”, Claris, they made Apple software that wasn’t the OS. Claris was decommissioned, Claris Works became Apple Worksand Filemaker became its own entity. Wholly owned by Apple. So blame Apple for all that’s wrong with Filemaker.

  4. Pondering on Pogues criticism of the impossible copy and paste situation he describes led me to the conclusion that this is the best solution available, i.e, keep both Oses really apart in their own partiitons.
    Why? Because doing otherwise means you are not running Mac OS X OR Windows, you are running both at the same time AND this could bring the woes of Windows to the Mac and would not be running a Mac to use Mac OS X, but running a Mac to use a mish-mash of OSes…
    Besides, when you want to play a Windows game only, you are playing a Windows game, period. You are not interested in interacting with Mac OS X at the moment…
    Also, remenber that from the Mac OS X partition, you can read and write files to the Windows partiiton, so when the need comes, you do that from your OS X session. To imagine a situation where you are constantly flipping from one OS to the other looks idiotic to me.
    What kind of computation would someone need to copy and paste data produced from Windows apps only to an app in the Mac OS X partition? When you need that Windows only app’s data, you need it because of the format it has in the Windows world. If you could export an Access database to some file format handled by FileMaker Pro, you wouldn’t need Access in the first place. But if you have a complex database written in Access where you need some of its functions for the program to work, then waht’s the point in bringing that data to FileMaker in OS X?
    Simple cases, where you would want to paste some text from Windows to OS X is not a case, since you could save those tidbits in a more universal file format handled by both OSes.
    This looks a lot like the “Mac has not sufficient apps to run” myth pc users love to talk about. How many times will someone reboot the machine to change OSes a day? 2? 3?
    Really, if someone will reboot a Mac Intel 5 times during a work day to flip flop OSes, it better get its head examined…

  5. I’ve been using Filemaker since version 2.2. It is really easy to use (unlike Access) and very powerful. It’s also available in Mac and Windows versions. My brother teaches graduate students and is a hard core PC user. He switched to Filemaker and loves it. If you’re looking for a cheap version of it, the database module in Appleworks is very similar to an old version of Filemaker.

    Stop sniveling about the price just because you can’t afford it. Geee’s, get a second job or something. Filemaker is a really well proven and powerful database application.

  6. I’m not “sniveling” about the price. I’m saying there is no way that it can challenge Access’s dominance when it is priced and licensed the way it is. In order to get a version of FileMaker with web database creation and hosting features comparable to those I use at work in Access 2003, I would need to buy “Filemaker Server 8 Advanced” for $2,499! Yeah, I’d love to switch to Filemaker and make these web pages on a Mac. But the price of that software is more than an iMac! I can already hear my boss laughing and I didn’t even asked yet.

  7. PPC,
    Virtual PC handles the “impossible copy and paste situation” rather nicely, and it does not “bring the woes of Windows to the Mac.” It’s actually a rather useful feature that has been appreciated by many people.

  8. Additional note: Office 2003 Professional + Windows Server 2003 Professional doesn’t even come close to the price of that Filemaker package I would need to do my job on a Mac. Do you see my point yet?

  9. …bullheaded sites that require Microsoft Internet Explorer on Windows…”

    Ha! They only require it because Microsoft wrote their own proprietary JavaScript functions. And some idiots use Active X.

    Most web developers today want to code sites that are independent of proprietary crap.

    Internet Explorer for Windows also doesn’t fully support CSS, so a perfectly good looking site in Firefox for PC, Firefox for Mac, Safari, etc. looks like crap on Explorer for Windows. For example, if you create a menubar completely using CSS, Explorer for Windows will only render the first item in the list. What the hell?

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.