Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

fk51785 · May 18, 2006, 12:09 PM

Sorry if this is a little off topic. I'm considering a MB for work use. Am I dumb to get a MB if I expect to use it 85% of the time for Windows XP? Not that I don't like OS X, but besides being disorienting for me (as a long time Windows user), my company is pretty much PC based (can you say 'Lotus Notes'?). I figure I'd use OS X for mutimedia and some personal stuff, but daily work stuff would be XP and even legacy DOS box apps. Is the MacBook going to fit the bill?

TIA,
Brett

icruise · May 18, 2006, 12:58 PM

Personally, I think that doesn't sound like such a great plan. If you really want to buy a Mac and still use your Windows software, look into something like Parallels, which allows you to run Windows in a Window while still running OS X.

fk51785 · May 18, 2006, 01:36 PM

Thanks.
Okay, here is an odd question:
Can the Windows version of Parallels be used to load OS X, so that OS X is running under native XP (with boot camp). This seems like it would meet my needs better, rather than Windows running under OS X (unless I am misundestanding how Parallels works).

ChrisF · May 18, 2006, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by Brett530

Can the Windows version of Parallels be used to load OS X

No.

icruise · May 18, 2006, 08:46 PM

No, Parallels only works to run Windows in OS X, but it runs it well enough that you might not mind. You can even run it full screen and switch between Windows and Mac OS X with a key combination.

harrisjamieh · May 19, 2006, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by Icruise

Personally, I think that doesn't sound like such a great plan. If you really want to buy a Mac and still use your Windows software, look into something like Parallels, which allows you to run Windows in a Window while still running OS X.

If he is planning to use windows 85% of the time, like he says, then why would he want to use parallels? Surely he would want optimal performance as it is such a large %age of the time using Windows, and Boot Camp offers that performance. I really don't see why he would want to use parallels over Boot Camp in this situation

icruise · May 19, 2006, 07:22 AM

Because using Windows XP 85% of the time on a Mac doesn't make much sense?

At least at the moment, Windows isn't supported by Apple and there aren't drivers for all of the hardware. If he wants to use Windows, he should buy a Windows notebook. If he's interested in Mac OS X, though, then by all means use Parallels/Boot Camp as a means to ease the transition. Boot Camp is not (at least in its present form) intended to allow people to run Windows as their primary OS.

Maflynn · May 19, 2006, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by Brett530

Sorry if this is a little off topic. I'm considering a MB for work use. Am I dumb to get a MB if I expect to use it 85% of the time for Windows XP?
...
Is the MacBook going to fit the bill?

Thanks to bootcamp it will fit the bill, but just because you can doesn't mean you should and only you can determine if spending over thousand bucks to run windows and a little OSX is a wise investment.

I disagree with the other posters recommending that you use paralells. This runs under OSX and thus suffers from performance and lack of direct access to hardware.

If your looking to play games (even under windows) then you may better suited with a computer (such as a Macbook pro) that has a superior GPU.

icruise · May 19, 2006, 08:07 AM

Have you used Parallels? It's surprisingly fast. It'll never work for games, but for normal apps it's really quite good. For example, running Office 2000 for Windows in Parallels is considerably faster than Office 2004 for OS X. This is partially because the Mac version of Office is still running in Rosetta, but I was blown away at how fast I could scroll through a long PowerPoint presentation. That's not to say that I prefer it to the Mac version of Office by any means, but in terms of performance, Parallels really has no major problems as long as you have enough memory.

torifile · May 19, 2006, 05:58 PM

You know, there is a Lotus Notes client for OS X, right? I'm just sayin'....

Maflynn · May 19, 2006, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by Icruise

Have you used Parallels? It's surprisingly fast.

Yes I have, and to be honest while faster then VPC I was disappointed. Slower then booting up via boot camp, no direct access to the hardware. buggy usb support at best. Inability to use my kodak 1400 printer, no way to access my shared printers via bonjour.

I don't want a fast VPC but rather I want to be able to use my windows programs and print my images on my kodak 1400. If that means booting up in bootcamp, so be it. I would have preferred using parallels. I've been using and playing with that since the first beta. Admittedly I have not tried the release candidate yet but I'll give it a shot.

Mike

icruise · May 19, 2006, 07:57 PM

We're veering off the subject a bit, but any minor loss in speed (and I can't say that I really noticed any) is more than offset by the fact that you don't have to reboot. I reboot my computer very infrequently and often have quite a few programs going, a number of documents open, etc.

What computer did you use Parallels on? Admittedly I haven't given it a thorough testing, mostly because I don't really NEED to run Windows. So I've been mostly using things like Firefox and Office. Perhaps more demanding programs would show more of a difference.

In any case, I maintain that buying a Mac with the express purpose of using Windows as your primary OS is not a very good idea right now.

Cadaver · May 20, 2006, 11:13 AM

Parallels is going to be a great product. Its clearly still in beta, though. Its got a few bugs related to USB devices, bluetooth and networking. And I'm not sure how well it works with two displays (say full screen on a MacBook/MacBook Pro and an external monitor). But... it will get there. For what it was, Virtual PC also took a view versions to become as good as it was going to get.

Booting straight into Windows via BootCamp, however, solves a lot of these problems. Dual displays works well (though the ATI driver's system of turning on/off external monitors, swapping main screen with secondary, etc., kind of sucks - but its exactly the same as a "real" PC would be). Bluetooth and USB devices work fine. Wireless & wired networking work as they should, and the machine is quite fast. I have noticed, however, that the machine runs much hotter in Windows than it does in MacOS X (at least my MBP does), and as such may get uncomfortable if using it on your lap.

For me, I need to run two specific medical imaging apps that aren't available for the Mac, but require full access to hardware Direct X acceleration. Parallels just isn't quite there yet (but I expect that eventually it will).

Personally, I think using BootCamp to run the occasional piece of software not available for the Mac, but with maximum speed & compatibility, BootCamp is great. But never forget you're still using a Mac. Using the computer to run Windows, with occasional use of MacOS X, I think isn't the way to go. If this is what you want to do, invest in a decent PC laptop and get a cheap iBook G4 or something for occasional Mac use.

icruise · May 20, 2006, 12:22 PM

Parallels already works well with dual screens. I can have Xp running full screen on my iMac's internal LCD and OS X on my Cinema Display. That's pretty cool, if you think about it.

Conversely, I had a lot of trouble setting up the dual displays in Boot Camp. Whichever display was set to be the "secondary" display would always be rotated 90 degrees and no amount of adjusting could fix it. I did eventually fix it somehow by randomly switching around the settings, but it was frustrating.

I'm coming off as a bit of a Parallels fanboy here, which I'm not, really. I imagine that a better solution will appear sooner or later (although probably not a cheaper one, unless it's from Apple and included in the OS). I just like the concept of virtualization a lot more than rebooting.

baharnabarn · 07:04 PM

I will be buying a mac book and useing Windows mostly on it as well.

I will be buying the base black model with the 120 gig HD and add after market ram(2gigs)

I will put 3 partions, 50 for max 50 for windows and to put files into both OSs

Macola · May 23, 2006, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by Raidboss

I will put 3 partions, 50 for max 50 for windows and to put files into both OSs

Just so you know, Boot Camp will not allow that partition scheme...see the other threads here.

ghporter · May 23, 2006, 08:37 PM

...But you CAN do it with a third party application AFTER setting up with Boot Camp. It's NOT free, but you can use PartitionMagic to repartition the Windows partition into two. You could also use Disk Utility to alter the Mac partition...and in theory XP can handle partitioning and formatting free space in the Disk Management tool in the Computer Management app (in Pro anyway).

baharnabarn · May 24, 2006, 04:07 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

...But you CAN do it with a third party application AFTER setting up with Boot Camp. It's NOT free, but you can use PartitionMagic to repartition the Windows partition into two. You could also use Disk Utility to alter the Mac partition...and in theory XP can handle partitioning and formatting free space in the Disk Management tool in the Computer Management app (in Pro anyway).

sound slike a plan thats for clearing this up for me, It ok if I have to pay, I just want the MAc side for me at home and PC side for my work.