Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

shinji · Mar 4, 2007, 04:18 AM

I realize this is unthinkably sacrilegious to many of you, but please bear with me. I'd appreciate it.

I absolutely love the Mac Pro case inside and out, and it has the PC hardware I want...Dual Xeons with a non-quadrofx/non-firegl graphics card. For work, I need to always have a Windows program running that depends on the Microsoft JVM. I went over this here: http://forums.macnn.com/104/alternat...microsoft-jvm/

Anyway, I don't want to waste resources running it in Parallels if it has to be open all the time. So what I am thinking is, buy a Mac Pro with the specs I want, but reformat, get rid of Mac OS X, and put Windows XP on there.

Has anyone done this? I assume this should be possible considering the Mac Pro is essentially a PC capable of running Mac OS X? Apple doesn't somehow block this on the hardware level, do they? Is there anything I should watch out for? I don't know if Apple has some weird proprietary stuff in the Mac Pro that has no Windows XP driver? Also if I did this, I could use whatever graphics card I wanted, correct? It wouldn't have to be an Apple-blessed one since I'd have no need for an OS X driver.

The other option would be to use boot camp, but I don't really see the point in that- already have and can do everything I need on my PC. This PC is from late 2003, and I want to upgrade. The last Mac I had was a Powerbook G3, which rocked, but I just cannot switch to Mac OS X right now.

So does anyone have any advice here? Comments, suggestions, tips, flames?

shinji · Mar 4, 2007, 04:23 AM

And btw, it is cheaper to do it this way than to buy the same specs through Dell or HP.

goMac · 05:13 AM

It's cheaper and it's possible to simply wipe out Mac OS X and load Windows.

Another alternative is Crossover Office. Crossover Office can actually run Internet Explorer and maybe the Microsoft JVM without Windows.

Also, of note, you realize that the Microsoft JVM is no longer made? I wasn't even aware it ran under XP, it certainly isn't included under XP anymore. And by the end of the year, support for the Microsoft JVM will be completely discontinued. Microsoft is recommending that user use the Sun JVM, and the Sun JVM is included with Mac OS X. Are you sure your software won't work under the Sun JVM? After all, Microsoft is recommending all users on Windows use the Sun JVM anyway.

Edit: My new answer is no, a Mac Pro will not work for you. The Mac Pro drivers only work under XP SP2 or higher. The problem is XP SP2 does not have the Microsoft JVM (the exception is upgrading to SP2 from an earlier version of Windows will keep the Microsoft JVM, but the Mac Pro requires SP2).

Get off the Microsoft JVM. Support is being dumped on the PC side. If you bought a new PC with Windows Vista you'd be in the same boat. Or, see if your software runs under the Sun JVM.

Macola · Mar 4, 2007, 12:05 PM

So does anyone have any advice here? Comments, suggestions, tips, flames?

Yes, just build a PC to the specs you neeed instead.

shinji · 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

It's cheaper and it's possible to simply wipe out Mac OS X and load Windows.

Another alternative is Crossover Office. Crossover Office can actually run Internet Explorer and maybe the Microsoft JVM without Windows.

Also, of note, you realize that the Microsoft JVM is no longer made? I wasn't even aware it ran under XP, it certainly isn't included under XP anymore. And by the end of the year, support for the Microsoft JVM will be completely discontinued. Microsoft is recommending that user use the Sun JVM, and the Sun JVM is included with Mac OS X. Are you sure your software won't work under the Sun JVM? After all, Microsoft is recommending all users on Windows use the Sun JVM anyway.

Edit: My new answer is no, a Mac Pro will not work for you. The Mac Pro drivers only work under XP SP2 or higher. The problem is XP SP2 does not have the Microsoft JVM (the exception is upgrading to SP2 from an earlier version of Windows will keep the Microsoft JVM, but the Mac Pro requires SP2).

Get off the Microsoft JVM. Support is being dumped on the PC side. If you bought a new PC with Windows Vista you'd be in the same boat. Or, see if your software runs under the Sun JVM.

I am fully aware of this

However the Microsoft JVM still runs under Windows XP SP2, it is bundled with the software I need to use, yes I know it is outdated and MS is dropping support for it. The same program also runs in Vista without a problem. The software absolutely 100% does not run in the Sun JVM, and I went over that a bit in the other thread. http://forums.macnn.com/104/alternat...microsoft-jvm/

There's nothing I can really do about that. I have to use it. Parallels or Crossover Office or a VMware solution I feel will be a resource hog if it has to be running all the time, even on 2 gb RAM.

Originally Posted by Macola

Yes, just build a PC to the specs you neeed instead.

If I were building a Core 2 duo system, that wouldn't be a problem. But I cannot buy Dual 3.0 ghz Woodcrest Xeons, the motherboard, expensive Xeon cooling (not the same as using stock cooling with a core 2, by a long shot), 2 gb of quality FBDIMM's, the graphics card I want, sound card, the particular hard drives I want, and this lookalike case Lian Li Industrial Co., Ltd. for the same price I can get it at Apple. Xeons, workstation motherboards, and FBDIMM's are not cheap like core 2's are- the difference in price is barely a few hundred bucks from building it myself.

goMac · Mar 4, 2007, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by shinji

I am fully aware of this

However the Microsoft JVM still runs under Windows XP SP2, it is bundled with the software I need to use, yes I know it is outdated and MS is dropping support for it. The same program also runs in Vista without a problem. The software absolutely 100% does not run in the Sun JVM, and I went over that a bit in the other thread. http://forums.macnn.com/104/alternat...microsoft-jvm/

If you've got a copy of the Microsoft JVM, everything you want to do is possible.

What else do you want to use the machine for? Does the Microsoft JVM even run under XP 64 bit? If not, you're wasting quite a bit of the power of the Xeons.

shinji · Mar 4, 2007, 02:09 PM

I already have a Dell Precision 450 with single core 2.8 ghz Xeon running Windows XP SP2 32-bit with this software I need running (and I'm already well-aware of the advantages and disadvantages of a multi-core CPU, multithreaded applications, etc.). I just want to upgrade, I want to continue using Xeons, and the cost is not the issue- the issue is whether or not Apple prevents XP from running just like it would on a PC not built by Apple.

Is it possible to reformat and use Windows, or does Apple block this and want you to use boot camp? If I put in a different graphics card, I don't know if Apple has some strange proprietary issue in the Mac Pro that prevents me from doing what I want to do. I've read some conflicting things about that on Anandtech.

Anyway, it was this series of articles that got me interested AnandTech: Apple's Mac Pro - Upgrading CPUs, Memory & Running XP

TheoCryst · Mar 4, 2007, 04:04 PM

This is completely possible, and something I have actually seen done in the past. However, I don't recommend completely deleting OS X from your disk, as it is the only way to get driver updates for Windows XP that will work with the specific components of a Mac. Instead, this is what I suggest:

1) Buy the Mac Pro, set it up as usual (through OS X).
2) Download Boot Camp and install it as suggested.
3) Run the Boot Camp utility, creating a driver CD that you will need to get various components working (full keyboard support, brightness control, etc).
4) When it asks you to partition your drive, leave a small amount for OS X, and do not uninstall it (~10 GB should be adequate).
5) Install Windows like you would on any PC, then install the Boot Camp drivers that you burned in step 3.
6) In the Windows control panel, you'll find a new entry called "Startup Disk." From here, you can tell your computer to boot into Windows by default.

Of course, if you are not interested in getting driver updates, feel free to skip step 4 altogether, and just let Windows format and partition your drive for you. In all honesty, there probably won't be many (any?) Boot Camp updates coming, as Apple wants it to be a Leopard-only utility in the future.

shinji · Mar 4, 2007, 05:09 PM

you are a pimp theocryst, thanks.

goMac · Mar 4, 2007, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by shinji

I already have a Dell Precision 450 with single core 2.8 ghz Xeon running Windows XP SP2 32-bit with this software I need running (and I'm already well-aware of the advantages and disadvantages of a multi-core CPU, multithreaded applications, etc.). I just want to upgrade, I want to continue using Xeons, and the cost is not the issue- the issue is whether or not Apple prevents XP from running just like it would on a PC not built by Apple.

I'm just not sure what kind of return you're going to get buying a new machine and tying it to old software. If you're not going to be using the 64 bit capability of the Xeons, PC hardware with 32 bit Xeons is going to be cheaper. It almost might be better to keep your current machine around for your MS JVM needs, and run OS X on your new machine.

wyatt · Mar 5, 2007, 04:59 AM

It's possible, though you can't wipe OSX, you have to be able to run Boot Camp to emulate BIOS.

But, IMHO, it's inadvisable.

The Windows drivers are a bit spotty and have a few quirky side-effects.

I notice lag time between the computer when used for XP and various components, including XP. I am often having to unplug and replug my speakers in Windows because the port gets disabled from time to time. And a few other nikpicks. Also, don't plan on loading the machine with RAM, under Boot Camp, XP only identifies 2GBs of it.

Does this stop me from running XP? No, but it is faster and more responsive as a OSX machine and I will migrate applications over to OSX as the new universal apps (Adobe CS3, etc.) come out.

In short, you could buy or build a real dedicated XP system for less $$$ which would have fewer quirks and may even be faster.

Philip J. Fry · Mar 5, 2007, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by wyatt

It's possible, though you can't wipe OSX, you have to be able to run Boot Camp to emulate BIOS.

But, IMHO, it's inadvisable.

The Windows drivers are a bit spotty and have a few quirky side-effects.

I notice lag time between the computer when used for XP and various components, including XP. I am often having to unplug and replug my speakers in Windows because the port gets disabled from time to time. And a few other nikpicks. Also, don't plan on loading the machine with RAM, under Boot Camp, XP only identifies 2GBs of it.

Does this stop me from running XP? No, but it is faster and more responsive as a OSX machine and I will migrate applications over to OSX as the new universal apps (Adobe CS3, etc.) come out.

In short, you could buy or build a real dedicated XP system for less $$$ which would have fewer quirks and may even be faster.

No, the only reason you'd need Boot Camp is for the drivers. It's perfectly capable of booting from the XP disc and just formatting the whole drive and installing Windows. I've done it with my MBPro just to see if it would let me, and I had no problems. It's not recommended, of course, in case the drivers are updated.

Tomchu · Mar 5, 2007, 02:52 PM

wyatt: He already said that an equivalent self-built system will cost him more. Did you even read the thread?

aristotles · Mar 5, 2007, 04:07 PM

The emulation of the BIOS is accomplished through the updated firmware that contains a BIOS compatibility module. It has nothing to do with Bootcamp.

wyatt · Mar 5, 2007, 08:25 PM

Originally Posted by Tomchu

wyatt: He already said that an equivalent self-built system will cost him more. Did you even read the thread?

Yes. I did. And it's not true, if he builds from scratch (especailly if he gets a wholesale discount somewhere) . Still, he is spending a fortune to deal with small quirks that he shouldn't have to deal with if he had a dedicated wintel machine.

brokenjago · Mar 5, 2007, 08:50 PM

He also mentioned that he loves the Mac Pro's case, for the easy access and sexyness of it, etc.

besson3c · Mar 5, 2007, 09:14 PM

If it were me, not that anybody asked my opinion, I would run Linux and Windows side by side via Xen. This way, at least I'd be able to use a more useful OS in Linux.

I don't understand exactly what the problem is with having Parallels open all the time though. While it is sitting idle, its CPU utilization should be absolutely negligible.

peeb · Mar 5, 2007, 09:42 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

If it were me, not that anybody asked my opinion, I would run Linux and Windows side by side via Xen. This way, at least I'd be able to use a more useful OS in Linux.

I don't understand exactly what the problem is with having Parallels open all the time though. While it is sitting idle, its CPU utilization should be absolutely negligible.

It is slower than running windows natively.

peeb · Mar 5, 2007, 09:45 PM

What are you actually wanting to run?

Cadaver · Mar 6, 2007, 12:45 AM

I'm using Windows Vista Ultimate on my Mac Pro most of the time currently. Its on its own hard drive, so I don't have to worry about any potential corruption of the MacOS X installation. I still use MacOS X on my Mac Pro for certain apps (iDVD and Osirix mainly), but most of the time its booted into Vista.

My MacBook Pro runs MacOS X most of the time. Its got Parallels installed for when I need it, and its also got a small (6GB) Windows XP boot camp partition for when I need to run Windows in a dual-screen environment, like with a projector as display #2 (which Parallels doesn't yet support).

While Office 2004 for the Mac is a reasonable program, I've found too many incompatibilities between PowerPoint 2004 and the Windows versions of PowerPoint. And unfortunately, for my job, 100% infallible PowerPoint compatibility is paramount. So I've had to migrate to Office for Windows. With that said, the version of OneNote included with Office 2007 for Windows is a really slick program, and there's really no Mac equivalent. And at work, we're completely tied to a Microsoft Exchange servers for email, calendars, etc., so I need full Exchange support, something that I can't get with Entourage. So basically, I'm forced on to Windows for 90% of what I do.

The Mac Pro makes a really fast, really stable PC, by the way, though I may build myself a new PC so I can at least let the Mac be a Mac. My current "real" PC is a bit underpowered by todays standards, though still very decent considering (AMD Athlon XP 3200+, GeForce 6800GT, 1.5GB RAM, 320GB SATA HD, Windows Vista Home Premium).

shinji · Mar 6, 2007, 05:16 PM

Thanks for all the advice.

This is the program I need to run StatsRemote :: Home :: The ultimate webmaster tool - All your stats at a glance! - requires the Microsoft JVM, and even with 2 gb RAM, I don't see how it won't be a resource hog through Parallels...I'd be running a JVM on top of an OS on top of an OS. On this PC, it uses up at least 80% CPU once an hour when it checks stats, but after that it uses very little resources.

Regarding building it myself...I really want the case

I know me, and I know what'll make me happy. I am fine with the cost, I appreciate Apple's build quality, etc. And if a Mac version of this program ever comes out (supposedly it's being considered), then I'm all set.

goMac · Mar 6, 2007, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by shinji

Thanks for all the advice.

This is the program I need to run StatsRemote :: Home :: The ultimate webmaster tool - All your stats at a glance! - requires the Microsoft JVM, and even with 2 gb RAM, I don't see how it won't be a resource hog through Parallels...I'd be running a JVM on top of an OS on top of an OS. On this PC, it uses up at least 80% CPU once an hour when it checks stats, but after that it uses very little resources.

It won't be a resource hog. And also remember the Mac Pro has 4 cores. All it would do is max out a single core, leaving the rest free for everything else.

wingdo · Mar 6, 2007, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

It is slower than running windows natively.

How much slower will Paralles be considering it'd be on 4 processors and he's running 32bit XP SP2 for a MS JVM application? Seriously the MP will be much much faster than anything that program would have ever been designed for.

peeb · Mar 6, 2007, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by wingdo

How much slower will Paralles be considering it'd be on 4 processors and he's running 32bit XP SP2 for a MS JVM application? Seriously the MP will be much much faster than anything that program would have ever been designed for.

I'm not certain how fast it would be, but the point is that for any machine, it will be slower running Parallels than it would be running Windows natively with Bootcamp.

itai195 · 04:41 AM

Slower, sure, but probably not perceptibly slower. We're talking about an app that supports NT4. As for Parallels, I don't think it'd use up much CPU when it's sitting idle, but I don't have enough experience with it so far to make that call.

shinji · Mar 7, 2007, 01:32 PM

Parallels only makes use of one core though, right? Might it be better to use a VMware solution instead? Someone was saying that on the Parallels forum: Performance with Microsoft JVM? - Parallels Support Forum

goMac · Mar 7, 2007, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by shinji

Parallels only makes use of one core though, right? Might it be better to use a VMware solution instead? Someone was saying that on the Parallels forum: Performance with Microsoft JVM? - Parallels Support Forum

Yes, VMWare can use multiple cores. I'm a VMWare person myself, but remember, the Microsoft JVM can only use a max of one core also. Giving the Microsoft JVM more than one Core to work with won't make it run any faster.

iMacYouMac · Mar 8, 2007, 01:21 PM

Bootcamp is in beta right now. I'd wait until Leopard comes out with the final version of Bootcamp and the posibility of a fully functional virtual machine built in (speculation). By then the Mac Pro would most likely have the 8 cores via the two 4-core Xeons. It'd be a win-win.

Philip J. Fry · Mar 8, 2007, 07:54 PM

Originally Posted by iMacYouMac

Bootcamp is in beta right now. I'd wait until Leopard comes out with the final version of Bootcamp and the posibility of a fully functional virtual machine built in (speculation). By then the Mac Pro would most likely have the 8 cores via the two 4-core Xeons. It'd be a win-win.

That's funny, considering Apple stated they wouldn't do virtualization with Boot Camp, leaving that to Parallels and others.

motoxpress · Mar 9, 2007, 10:35 PM

There is absolutely no reason why you can't do what you are asking Shinji. The MacPro will work as a great Windows workstation. It is also VERY true that to build the equivilent PC is more money than what Apple charges. I have priced it several times myself.

I wouldn't hesitate at all to do it. Even if you decide you don't like it, the resale value is VERY good on these.

-mx

Ashari · Mar 10, 2007, 08:37 AM

For starters, don't think that I'm not a Mac Guy... because I am. I am just in a situation at my work where I am forced to run Windows (I am a software developer in a business that only runs Windows based software). I was lucky enough to talk them into buying me a Mac Pro, and I've never been happier in my job.

I have been running a dual 3Ghz Mac Pro with Windows XP SP 2 for months, and the Mac Pro is absolutely the best Windows machine that I have ever used! I've had a string of Dell machines, all of them complete rubbish. Failing hardware was the norm. The Mac Pro has been as solid as a rock, and Windows has been very stable (not a single BSoD or even a weird blip).

One thing to remember -- make sure and give Mac OS X a place to live on your HDD so that you can boot into it and play with it when you want to. And who knows, maybe you'll find a replacement for your program that runs on Mac OS X, and then you can switch to a real OS.

Good luck!

ERG · Mar 10, 2007, 10:22 AM

No problems here but with different approach: running Visual Studio into a VM machine (from Paralles, GOOD, or VMware, could be better) works well and gets customers converted/interested..
No need for dualboot

timewind · Mar 13, 2007, 01:34 PM

I would recomend the Paralells approach as well, but point out that there is no reason to limit yourself to 2GB of RAM in the MacPro. Not that I would choose any of Apple's BTO options beyond 2GB. I would look for a reasonable price for putting another 2GB into the other bank of 4 memory slots...

This should make the memory resources issues a no issue. I would also choose this option because you are looking at a situation where you are runnig a program which appears to require/interact with IE, and relies on a Microsoft product (the JVM) which is going "out of support." In this situation I would want to run the program on a VM all by itself, with only the supporting software that it needs to run. Then if there is ever a security problem with the JVM or any of the rest of the bundle it will be by itself, unable to damage any software outside the VM. This also allows for a backup of the VM HD file to be kept for instant restoration to a working state if anything goes wrong with the software, JVM or Windows. A quick test has told me that I can copy out of my Windows applications and paste into my Mac applications, meanig that you should need very few windows apps inside the VM to support doing whatever you do with the data that the reporting program returns.

My one program for which I want/need Windows runs fine in Paralells on a 2GB MacBook Core 2 Duo with just 512MB allocated to it (the reason besides money that I stuck wih XP and not Vista), in a MacPro you could easily give Paralells/windows 2GB and have 6 left over.

shinji · Mar 13, 2007, 02:11 PM

I've decided to buy the Mac Pro, and I will definitely give Parallels a shot...just not sure if I should buy the Mac Pro now or wait for the newer version, supposedly coming out soon if the Apple UK store leak is any indication? I really don't need 8 cores...but it'd be nice if the model one less than the most expensive gave a newer video card and more RAM.

shinji · Mar 15, 2007, 03:13 AM

Well I'm now a Mac owner, and I see Crossover can use the Microsoft JVM CodeWeavers - Compatibility - Forum - Alibre Design so I'll give that a shot- is Crossover generally a better idea than Parallels?

hldan · Mar 16, 2007, 01:53 AM

Originally Posted by shinji

Well I'm now a Mac owner, and I see Crossover can use the Microsoft JVM CodeWeavers - Compatibility - Forum - Alibre Design so I'll give that a shot- is Crossover generally a better idea than Parallels?

It is if you are just going to use one or two Windows apps. It doesn't matter if the application is a lightweight or bloated, Codeweavers can handle it just perfectly. You will have to check the Codeweavers website for compatibility with the software you are using. If Codeweavers doesn't support the app it may still work fine, you will just have to install it and try it. It's worth it to try it first since you won't have to waste disk space and money using Microsoft Windows. Codeweavers is worth it any day of the week if you can get away from Windows permanently.

shinji · Mar 16, 2007, 02:47 AM

I'm amazed how little resources Parallels is taking to do what I want, it's actually way faster than my Dell was heh.

So I prob won't even bother now.

trappedatuf · Mar 29, 2007, 12:45 AM

I bought and use my MacBook because I think Mac makes EXCELLENT hardware. I think OSX is nice as well but I am a PC user so I installed Boot Camp and have been using my MacBook just for WinXP and it works great!!! They just released a new version (1.2b) of Boot Camp and so it's even smoother than ever. Just do that because it works great.

ghporter · Mar 29, 2007, 08:31 AM

FYI, trappedatuf, "Apple Computer" makes Macintosh computers... And you should give OS X a shot; I was a PC user from 1985 until I could finally afford a Mac. I have not given up on PCs, but for a reliable, solid and well integrated computer there's no way to beat a Mac.

hldan · Mar 31, 2007, 02:55 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

FYI, trappedatuf, "Apple Computer" makes Macintosh computers... And you should give OS X a shot; I was a PC user from 1985 until I could finally afford a Mac. I have not given up on PCs, but for a reliable, solid and well integrated computer there's no way to beat a Mac.

Ha Ha, you beat me to that. I was about to say the same thing, but while we are correcting people, it's actually now "Apple Inc", not Apple Computer.

ghporter · Mar 31, 2007, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by hldan

Ha Ha, you beat me to that. I was about to say the same thing, but while we are correcting people, it's actually now "Apple Inc", not Apple Computer.

The sender's address on the box my MacBook Pro came in was "ACI" as in "Apple Computer Inc." Nit picking, but that's what it means, so that's why I said what I did. Of course I'm now reminded that they dropped the "computer" from the name THIS YEAR, so you're more correct than I was.