Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

MarkTheMac · Mar 23, 2009, 09:32 AM

Hi there,

I'm getting my 24" iMac next month and have a couple of questions regarding running Windows on it.

1. I am aware of issues surrounding Vista so should I stick with XP Pro, go with Vista (home, business or ultimate?) or even go with Windows 7?
2. Is it easy to change my installation of Windows if I want to upgrade?
3. If I want to run Windows within OSX instead of rebooting do I need separate software such as Parallels or VMWare Fusion? And if so which of these applications is the best one to purchase?

Thanks.

cwkmacuser · 08:22 PM

Hi. I can answer questions 1 and 3. Yes, I would stick with XP or Windows 7 (I think it's still out in Beta) because a lot of people hat Vista. Yes, if you want to run Windows and Mac side-by-side, you need virtualization software. Are you going to get an intel, or a PowerPC? With intel machines, you would have to use Parallels or VMWare. I'm not sure about how much VMware is, but Parallels 4 is $79 (I think)!
I believe Parallels is the most commonly used and probably the easiest to use. I am not really a windows user, so I can't answer your 2nd question. I use Windows a bit and my mom does a lot, but me and my dad both hate it. I hope this helps you out.

sek929 · Mar 28, 2009, 05:49 PM

Upgrading your OS (to Vista or Win7) will be as easy as it would be on a PC. It'll reside on it's own partition, so no worries about any installation taking your Mac with it. Remember, if you are going to have more than 3GB of RAM in your new iMac you'll need to make sure you get the 64-bit WinXP Pro (or 64 bit Vista, not sure if Win 7 has 32 and 64 bit versions) to make use of all your memory, otherwise it'll only see 3GB max.

I use Fusion, which was $80, and run XP. Seems that both Parallels and Fusion are pretty much on par with each-other at this point, so I don't have any advice on which to get. Don't expect to run any recent games through the virtualization software, you'll need to reboot the machine into Windows to play anything that requires DirectX 9 or higher, maybe some games will work, but none that I've encountered.

VirtualBox is a free alternative from Sun Microsystems to the pay programs, but seeing how easy Fusion (and I expect Parallels) makes the process I would be weary of a free, yet more confusing alternative.

besson3c · Mar 28, 2009, 10:31 PM

Virtualbox is actually quite easy to use. Last I checked it didn't support bridged networking though, meaning that your VM guests would not be network accessible from other machines. It may lack some USB support too for using certain peripherals such as printers from within the VM environment.

cwkmacuser · Mar 31, 2009, 01:41 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Virtualbox is actually quite easy to use. Last I checked it didn't support bridged networking though, meaning that your VM guests would not be network accessible from other machines. It may lack some USB support too for using certain peripherals such as printers from within the VM environment.

Oh, my parallels trial will expire soon. Is this a really good alternative to spending $75 or whatever it is?

Maflynn · Mar 31, 2009, 03:01 PM

Try it out, I've some reports that its not as polished as Parallels and VMware and some people report that there's been some stability issues. I'm not sure if that was related to an older version. The only way to truly discern this, is to try it out and see if it meets your needs.

Personally I've been very happy with VMware and while virtualbox is free, the updates, stability and customer support of VMware are well worth the price of the application imho.

besson3c · Mar 31, 2009, 03:41 PM

I think that eventually VMWare will be free. Microsoft's VM is free, VMWare Server is free, VMWare ESXi is free (although with many pulls to upgrade and start paying). I think eventually Apple will probably provide their own VM solution like Microsoft does, and these vendors will transition to relying on making their money through service and support like VMWare is doing.

I guess we'll see...

EmmEff · Mar 31, 2009, 09:00 PM

VMware Fusion will not be free, the same way VMware Professional (for Linux & Windows) is not free. It is a niche product and it costs VMware proportionally more to maintain it as they do not have any other OS X product sharing the code base.

I could only see Apple offering virtualization built into OS X (the non-Server product) if it only was able to virtualize OS X itself. Doesn't make sense for them to build in a feature that allows people to run other OSes.

besson3c · Mar 31, 2009, 10:07 PM

VMWare Professional? What is that? Like I said, VMWare Server and VMWare ESXi are both free. How is it a niche product? It's their hyperviser ported to OS X... Sure, the GUI and perhaps Unity feature is unique to OS X, but the bulk of VMWare Fusion is surely similar to their other products.

I can see Apple offering virutualization as an option under OS X Server first, because that is the direction that servers have moved towards. Apple makes their money selling XServes, not OS X Server.

EmmEff · Mar 31, 2009, 10:27 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

VMWare Professional? What is that?

Sorry, I meant VMware Workstation.

Like I said, VMWare Server and VMWare ESXi are both free.

And they both are missing features that are found in VMware Workstation...

How is it a niche product? It's their hyperviser ported to OS X... Sure, the GUI and perhaps Unity feature is unique to OS X, but the bulk of VMWare Fusion is surely similar to their other products.

There are far less users "paying" for the developing of VMware Fusion than are for the Linux & Windows offerings. That makes it a niche product.

besson3c · Mar 31, 2009, 10:36 PM

Missing features? You are comparing apples to oranges.

ESXi is a bare metal enterprise solution that is designed to work with SANs and VM clusters and supports really advanced stuff like vmotioning, etc. Server runs on top of an OS and provides remote console support which Fusion doesn't. There is absolutely no point that I can see in trying to compare the two this way, they have different designs and purposes. However, the one big hole on OS X is that there is no suitable VM server solution. Apple is truly doing themselves a disservice by not embracing this more on the server side.