Parallels Beta Adds Boot Camp, Desktop

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Parallels Beta Adds Boot Camp, Desktop

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Sunday December 3, 2006 @04:08AM from the stuff-to-play-with dept.

Verunks writes "Parallels has released a new beta of its virtualization product for Mac OS X. This new release includes one major new feature, something Parallels calls Coherency: "Shows Windows applications as if they were Mac ones. Try it and enjoy best of both worlds truly at the same time. No more switching between Windows to Mac OS." Check out this Screenshot" More interesting to me is the Boot Camp support so you can have a single partition to run IE7 in Parallels to test compatibility of a website but reboot to play video games that need a little more juice.

244 comments

Incidentally... by BluhDeBluh · 2006-12-03 04:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

I've been wondering why a Linux distro doesn't do this automagically with WINE. It seems like such an obvious feature to implement, and would be great for people new to Linux or even those whose who don't know how to use it if it just ran as if native...
1. Re:Incidentally... by MustardMan · 2006-12-03 04:21 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Wine is not the same thing as parallels - parallels is a virtualization environment that runs the full windows xp operating system concurrently with mac os x. Wine is a from-scratch implementation of the windows API. There is a wine-derivative package for mac (crossover from codeweavers), so people can pick-and-choose the best solution for them.
2. Re:Incidentally... by AchiIIe · 2006-12-03 04:40 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  This is a very early beta. Essentially the way they allow one to boot from the "Boot Camp" partition is by adding an extra field in the Boot.ini file and by creating a new hardware profile (mainly used on docked notebooks)
  
  The beta is far from complete, I just tried it on my boot camp partition and the mouse/keyboard were unresponsive. (Even after installing the given tools)
  
  Moreover each time you switch between parallels and boot camp Windows is deactivated Thus I have to go through the reactivation procedure each time !!! i've done this about three times already and I'm afraid it'll just stop allowing me to reactivate it (even though it's a legitimate license)
  
  --
  Nature journal lied in Britannica vs Wikipedia Ask to retrac
3. Re:Incidentally... by Klaidas · 2006-12-03 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  Well, yes. A lot of cool things could be done on linux if developers wanted to do it...
  As for now, you might want to take a look at VMware - although I still prefer dual booting
4. Re:Incidentally... by Paradise+Pete · 2006-12-03 05:15 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  i've done this about three times already and I'm afraid it'll just stop allowing me to reactivate it (even though it's a legitimate license)
  So you have a bought and paid for copy of Windows and they've made you afraid to use it. Seems like there's a moral in there somewhere.
5. Re:Incidentally... by friedmud · 2006-12-03 05:21 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  what do you mean?
  
  This is the default with Wine... and I believe it's also the way crossover office works. You have to go in and specify that you want a "desktop" to get one. Also... the window borders with wine are actually drawn using your window manager in linux... so you don't even get the ugly XP titlebar and stuff.
  
  So what "feature" is it that is missing from Wine that you see here?
  
  Friedmud
6. Re:Incidentally... by Firehed · 2006-12-03 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Good point - I know it's do-able. Crossover for Mac, which is based around WINE, puts the OS X skin on Windows apps. It's not able to replace the File/Edit/Options/Help menubar and stick it in the shared one at the top that OS X has, but it makes it more of a subtle change that keeps things consistent.
  
  Now that I've looked at the screenshots, though, it's almost the exact opposite of what's happening here by the sounds of it. So I just got the new beta... and it doesn't seem to want to enable the new coherence mode. However, there are plenty of other subtle changes that seem to be for the better.
  
  The (new, as far as I can remember) transporter tool sounds like the perfect thing for new users and switchers - run a Windows .exe on a computer and it'll create a VM image that you can copy over to your new Mac. Or so it's described anyways, I haven't tried it.
  
  --
  How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
7. Re:Incidentally... by bar-agent · 2006-12-03 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  It seems like such an obvious feature to implement
  
  Whoah, slow down, cowboy. Let's just see what the Supreme Court says about that, aight?
  
  --
  i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
8. Re:Incidentally... by Ethan+Allison · 2006-12-03 07:10 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, beta software can do odd things at times. Mod parent down please.
  
  --
  I make websites and stuff. Buy one.
9. Re:Incidentally... by Jeremi · 2006-12-03 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  I've been wondering why a Linux distro doesn't do this automagically with WINE
  
  Isn't that pretty much what Lindows/Linspire tried to do? As I recall, they had technical difficulties and eventually stopped promoting that feature.
  
  --
  
  I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
10. Re:Incidentally... by madcow_bg · 2006-12-03 08:25 · Score: 2
  
  > Yeah, beta software can do odd things at times. Mod parent down please.
  So you claim that Windows XP is beta?
  
  I think that their activation procedure is stupid and insulting, but hey, it's just my opinion. The GP has a very good point.
11. Re:Incidentally... by heinousjay · 2006-12-03 09:32 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Yeah, follow the license terms. Of course, you probably meant something completely different.
  
  --
  Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
12. Re:Incidentally... by brianosaurus · 2006-12-03 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  The feature of showing Windows Apps on the same desktop, intermingled with MacOSX apps is going beyond mere virtualization. This is pretty bitchen.
  
  They're running Windows, but somehow intercepting some API calls (or something...i dunno) to trick the virtualized Windows into drawing its apps intermingled on the MacOSX desktop instead of on the (now hidden) XP desktop.
  
  Or they're doing something really ugly. :)
  
  --
  blog
13. Re:Incidentally... by Sam+Ritchie · 2006-12-03 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  So what "feature" is it that is missing from Wine that you see here?
  
  Windows. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine whether that's a feature or a bug. :)
  
  --
  This sig is false.
14. Re:Incidentally... by IAmTheDave · 2006-12-03 13:01 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  So you have a bought and paid for copy of Windows and they've made you afraid to use it. Seems like there's a moral in there somewhere.
  
  Yeah, and the moral - for those of us who make our $ writing software for Windows - is to crack that activation shit. I bought it, I own it, back off me.
  
  Same damn installation too.
  
  --
  Excuse my speling.
  Making The Bar Project
15. Re:Incidentally... by Octorian · 2006-12-03 14:56 · Score: 1
  
  From what I can tell, they're doing something really ugly :-) They're basically screen-scraping a full-screen Windows desktop session, and only rendering portions where your windows are located. (and maybe adding support so Windows windows and MacOS windows can more elegantly overlap like X11 ones.
  
  You actually notice this when Parallels has minor visual redraw lags, and you can see the windows desktop under a window area that just moved or disappeared.
16. Re:Incidentally... by Salmar · 2006-12-03 16:47 · Score: 1
  
  Aha! You'd think that, but take a look at this.
  
  Intriguing, no? Also, the Windows taskbar is situated just underneath the Apple menu bar, and is itself behind a Mac window, which further suggests that they're doing more than just superimposing everything but the background. They're messing directly with the GUI APIs.
  
  --
  This is not the signature you're looking for.
17. Re:Incidentally... by mrchaotica · 2006-12-03 18:42 · Score: 1
  
  So you have a bought and paid for copy of Windows and they've made you afraid to use it. Seems like there's a moral in there somewhere.
  
  Yeah: boycott activation. When I'm forced to use Windows, I only use 2000.
  
  (Of course, it would be nice to figure out a way to run it in Boot Camp so that I can have a Mac/Win box and a dedicated Linux box, instead of a Lin/Win box and a dedicated Mac...)
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
18. Re:Incidentally... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-03 18:42 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Essentially what Parallels does in Coherency mode is creates a borderless OS X window with the Parallels desktop in it, then hide any visible desktop pixels. All the windows are on the same layer, so you can't have Notepad under Text Edit under Safari under IE, for instance. Clicking inside one window in Parallels brings every Windows application to the foreground. It's just one window as far as OS X is concerned.
19. Re:Incidentally... by HTH+NE1 · 2006-12-04 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  IIRC, instead of reactivating every time, you should be able two swap in and out two special files that contain the system profiles of the two configurations to keep the system happy. I don't recall what they are though, so everyone gets to do some googling to find out.
  
  --
  Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
20. Re:Incidentally... by SoopahMan · 2006-12-05 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  And it'd get me, a long-time Windows user, to switch to Linux.
21. Re:Incidentally... by Katchu · 2006-12-05 20:45 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, there is a moral in there. I installed a new copy of Win XP within Parallels on my new iMac. Within minutes, I was up and running. I was so astounded to suddenly create a Blue Screen of Death (BSoD) on my macintosh! That really is compatability. I really _was_ rolling on the floor, laughing!
  
  --
  Keep Doing Good.
Slowdowns? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-03 04:13 · Score: 0

Won't this have the extreme slowdowns of other virtualizations?
1. Re:Slowdowns? by MustardMan · 2006-12-03 04:23 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Actually, with modern multi-core processors and oodles of RAM, virtualization kicks pretty much ass. When I run parallels in fullscreen mode on my macbook, you pretty much can't tell it's virtualized. It's more responsive than the dell desktop sitting in my office at work. The only thing you really notice is that the video card doesn't support hardware acceleration, so stuff like games suck. Then again, the video card in my macbook is pretty crappy, so even with 3d support they would suck =/
2. Re:Slowdowns? by cwaldrip · 2006-12-03 04:44 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  And, in addition to what MustardMan said, don't confuse virtualization with emulation.
3. Re:Slowdowns? by Hal_Porter · 2006-12-03 05:06 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Emulation is slow. E.g. a PowerPC executing x86 code by emulation will be much slower than a native x86. There are tricks, like profiling the application and translating, rather than emulating the frequently used bits, but it in general there will always be a hefty penalty. And modern performance critical code will use multimedia instructions which don't have 1:1 mappings to a different instruction set.
  
  But on an Intel Mac none of this is an issue, since the Windows app and a mac one run on exactly the same instruction set. Of course, the API the applications use will be completely different. Virtualisation is about running two kernels simultaneously on the same hardware. Now this is tricky, because OS kernels want to be in sole control of the hardware. The x86 isn't completely self virtualisable, i.e. you can't trap and emulate all the instructions you need to fool the kernel, so you go back to profiling and translating, at least for kernel mode code. Or you can trap many more instructions than you need to. But recent intel chips have a technology called VT which plugs the holes and allows self virtualisation.
  
  So you can run the guest kernel code at full speed, and trap and emulate just enough to keep the guest OS under control of the hypervisor.
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
4. Re:Slowdowns? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-03 05:35 · Score: 0
  
  In fact wine stands for Wine Is Not an Emulator. It's the difference between cygwin and Virtual PC (in the windows world)
5. Re:Slowdowns? by Peter+Cooper · 2006-12-03 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  For reference, Windows XP boots in 7 seconds under Parallels on my iMac. Funny thing is, it takes longer to restore from a snapshot!
6. Re:Slowdowns? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-03 09:14 · Score: 0
  
  I finally bit the bullet and bought Parallels upon hearing that it supported booting from Boot Camp partitions. However, it takes about 2 minutes to boot up, during which my entire MacBook Pro (1 GB ram, I admit) grinds to a halt.
  
  Anyone else experience this kind of behavior? Is it possible that Parallels runs Boot Camp XP slower than a regular old VM?
7. Re:Slowdowns? by Octorian · 2006-12-03 15:10 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong. Windows XP appears to have booted in 7 seconds. It takes quite a bit longer for it to actually finish starting to the point of stable usability. This is something MS did in WinXP to make it seem to start faster than Win2k, and probably frustrates power users too. (while making the lesser users *think* their machines start faster)
8. Re:Slowdowns? by Peter+Cooper · 2006-12-04 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  *guffaw*
  
  Yes, there is a delay between actually seeing the desktop and the Start menu working, which is a couple of seconds. I should admit I'm talking about a heavily tweaked XPLite adaptation of XP, rather than the usual one which does take somewhat longer. Of course, even once XP is 'booted', it's still churning for a while loading who knows what, but I consider it 'booted' as soon as I can hit the Start Menu and the system works, whether it's still loading programs or not.
DRM Angle? by CheeseburgerBrown · 2006-12-03 04:13 · Score: 2, Funny

Are these guys in Microsoft's pocket with some kind of authorization for the WindowsOS itself, or can I just go on exploiting the fruits of Swedish piracy?

Also, does it come in different colours? Because I know some girls who use Macs. They like their GUI to match their purses.

--
These stories are free but worth money.
1. Re:DRM Angle? by __aaclcg7560 · 2006-12-03 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  They like their GUI to match their purses.
  
  They like their guys to match their purses? So they have a different guy for every day or do they keep the same old sack?
2. Re:DRM Angle? by Jugalator · 2006-12-03 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  Also, does it come in different colours? Because I know some girls who use Macs. They like their GUI to match their purses.
  
  They need to learn how to switch Windows XP visual styles. :-)
  
  This is Windows XP. :-p
  
  --
  Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
3. Re:DRM Angle? by jb.hl.com · 2006-12-03 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  This is Windows XP. :-p
  
  How about an example which doesn't make my eyes want to die?
  
  Jesus, when making XP themes people seem to be completely incapable of making something that eyesplittingly gaudy...
  
  --
  By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
4. Re:DRM Angle? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-03 04:41 · Score: 0
  
  Is that actually supposed to look good, or were you trying to be funny? I feel like taking a toothbrush to my eyes after viewing it.
Parallels Vs. VMWare by mcrbids · 2006-12-03 04:18 · Score: 0, Troll

I have to do software development for Windows, Macintosh, and Linux simultaneously.

I came *THIS CLOSE* (holds fingers close together) to buying a Macbook Pro a month ago - it was the lack of a right mouse button and non-native support for Linux that killed it for me.

However, I've been waiting for VMWare to come out with a decent release for OSX - the ability to have a portable Windows install that works on any of the three platforms would just ROCK.

But, with features like this, it seems that Parallels is keeping "one step ahead" of their 300-lb competitor... Features such as this would be TOTALLY AWESOME if VMWare were to come out with it for their workstation product. (Can you imagine IE 7 and IE6 as standalone programs on a KDE desktop?!)

--
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
1. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by MicrosoftRepresentit · 2006-12-03 04:26 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  MacBooks and MacBookPro's do support right mouse buttons. Tap one finger on the touch pad for left click, tap two fingers for right click (and drag two fingers around the trackpad for scrolling, or zooming with Control pressed).
2. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by SoulRank · 2006-12-03 04:32 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I came *THIS CLOSE* (holds fingers close together) to buying a Macbook Pro a month ago - it was the lack of a right mouse button and non-native support for Linux that killed it for me.
  Something tells me your intent to buy the Macbook Pro wasnt put off by the lack of the right mouse button. Firstly the Macbook Pro doenst come with mouse because it's a notebook. Secondly, OSX supports just about any USB 2 and 3 button mice.
3. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by oyenstikker · 2006-12-03 04:36 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  Many people use their laptops in places not condusive to using a separate mouse. Not having three mouse buttons and a track point is a major reason not to get one.
  
  --
  The masses are the crack whores of religion.
4. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by shmlco · 2006-12-03 04:37 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Just an FYI, but the new MacBook Pros have a "right-click" control panel option whereby if you put two fingers on the pad while you click the button it's interpreted as a right click. Much easier to do than say, and no more "control-click". And the Parallels/Boot Camp drivers for Windows look for this as well.
  
  As to Linux... well, it's open source. Just change the driver yourself. ;)
  
  --
  Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
5. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by silverdr · 2006-12-03 04:40 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  What do you call "non-native support for Linux"?! Apple laptops run linux _as natively as it goes_ for ages and this doesn't exclude the Intel based machines. I even could setup a triple-boot on an Intel based Mac (vs. all the dual-boots I had in the past). All running "natively" of course
  
  --
  Now, mod me down freely. My karma can't get any worse...
6. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by proxy318 · 2006-12-03 04:46 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  I think he's referring to the fact that Intel Macs use EFI instead of BIOS, which makes it tricky to load anything other than MacOS. Bootcamp lets you run Windows, but as far as I know, it's still a PITA to get Linux to run on any Intel Mac.
  
  --
  Saying your "phone ran out of batteries" is like saying your "car ran out of gas tanks".
7. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by proxy318 · 2006-12-03 04:48 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  (Can you imagine IE 7 and IE6 as standalone programs on a KDE desktop?!)
  You can - http://www.tatanka.com.br/ies4linux/news/ It's in beta now, but it does support IE6 and IE7's rendering engine.
  
  --
  Saying your "phone ran out of batteries" is like saying your "car ran out of gas tanks".
8. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-03 04:51 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  > I think he's referring to the fact that Intel Macs use EFI instead of BIOS,
  > which makes it tricky to load anything other than MacOS.
  
  http://elilo.sourceforge.net/
9. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by bgerlich · 2006-12-03 04:51 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Can you imagine IE 7 and IE6 as standalone programs on a KDE desktop?!
  I did, once. Woke up sweaty and screaming.
10. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by oakgrove · 2006-12-03 04:53 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Well, my solution may be a bit much for some people but, I bought one of those miniature cordless travel mice with the little usb stick that you plug in and just disassembled the little mouse to make it as small as possible (basically a circuit board and a couple of buttons) then just stuck it on my mac beside the trackpad just far enough to be out of the way but with the right and middle mouse buttons conveniently located to use when necessary.
  It's so small, it doesn't get in the way at all. I used the kind of adhesive that doesn't leave residue when you pull it off and you can keep sticking it on over and over. I don't know, works for me.
  
  --
  The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
11. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by gEvil+(beta) · 2006-12-03 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  Is that built into the firmware/hardware, or is it a function of the touchpad driver? Does it still behave that way when fully booted into Windows or Linux?
  
  --
  This guy's the limit!
12. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by HolyCause · 2006-12-03 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  Or you could just attach a two button mouse via a USB port...
  
  --
  Visit http://theshrine.ca/ at irregular intervals and you might see something interesting.
13. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by LiquidFire_HK · 2006-12-03 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  (Can you imagine IE 7 and IE6 as standalone programs on a KDE desktop?!)
  You mean like this?
14. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by phillymjs · 2006-12-03 05:11 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It's driver dependent. Support for it is built right into OS X, the latest Boot Camp beta adds a trackpad driver so you can do it in Windows as well. As for Linux, I have no idea-- there are certainly no Apple-provided drivers.
  
  ~Philly
15. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by mccalli · 2006-12-03 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  It's a function of the driver - there are drivers for both Windows and Linux however, and they both support the right-clicking functionality.
  
  Cheers,
  Ian
16. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by jsjacob · 2006-12-03 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  Holding the Command/Apple key while clicking is the equivalent to right-clicking. Or as others have said, you can plug in (or Bluetooth) your own mouse with 2/3/4/5/* buttons. I use both of these techniques when I remote-desktop into my Win XP machine from my PowerBook G4.
  
  --
  John S. Jacob * jsjacob@iamnota.com * www.iamnota.com * pgp: ac6ace17
17. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by Millenniumman · 2006-12-03 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  Intel Macs' EFI can function as a BIOS, and will run Linux fine. This feature was added at the same time as boot camp (the drivers), but it works fine with any OS. It's quite simple to get Linux to run on an Intel Mac.
  
  --
  Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
18. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by silverdr · 2006-12-03 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  I see. It's not that much of a PITA - various explanations on how to do it are available on the web and quite understandable. Following them is a matter of minutes, rather than hours, but of course HMMV.
  
  --
  Now, mod me down freely. My karma can't get any worse...
19. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by aztracker1 · 2006-12-03 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  Can also get a Blootooth mouse, that "Just Works"... there are a few out there, since the Macbook has built in Bluetooth, no need for a usb dongle hanging off your laptop.
  
  --
  Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
20. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-03 05:30 · Score: 0
  
  Dude, two finger tap. Tap the pad with one finger and it's a normal click (left click, for a windows user). Tap the pad with two fingers and it's a context click (right click for windows users). The two finger scroll is also nice. slide on the pad with two fingers and it scrolls the active window (sideways or up and down, whatever)
  
  Combined with hot cornered expose options, it makes the most out of small real-estate (laptop screen). Expose + hot corners drops off in usefulness on large high-res screens. I also find the single menu bar to be less useful on really large high res screens; annoyingly far to keep dragging the mouse.
  
  Actually, when I go back to my Windows machines my workflow slows way down because expose and advanced trackpad options aren't there (and yes, I have utility widgets that add expose-like functionality). I use about 40% Ubuntu (programming), 30% mac (business applications), 30% windows (graphics applications). I'd use less windows except I have really fast Athlon processors and GPUs in my main workstation and my ThinkPad T42P has a FireGL2 and 1600x1200 making it a good portable platform for graphics development. Too bad, since I like the OSX desktop better (yields faster workflow in most cases). I'd replace my Athlon based workstation with a MacPro except: the MacPro is more expensive compared to a similarly powerful AMD based system *and* the mac versions of the applications aren't yet native x86 and for 3 of them I'd have to pay to "upgrade" to a downlevel version on a different platform. Fargin' iceholes.
21. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by Phoobarnvaz · 2006-12-03 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  Can you imagine IE 7 and IE6 as standalone programs on a KDE desktop?!
  
  While you can't run IE 7 in Linux yet...IE 6/Flash 9 & below is certainly possible with Wine from any desktop at the following address:
  http://www.tatanka.com.br/ies4linux/downloads/ies4 linux-2.0.tar.gz
  
  --
  Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia. - Charles M. Schulz
22. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by oakgrove · 2006-12-03 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  That's what I did at first. Didn't work too well for me for some reason. Maybe I just had a bum mouse but the setup I have now works better. I never lose the signal and I can live with the dongle.
  
  --
  The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
23. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-03 05:37 · Score: 0
  
  it was the lack of a right mouse button
  
  You obviously didn't get close enough. The MacBook Pro's trackpad is multi-point, meaning you can right-click just by putting another finger on the pad. Also, you can scroll up/down left/right the same way.
24. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by gEvil+(beta) · 2006-12-03 05:43 · Score: 0
  
  Thanks for the info. That's pretty much what I figured the situation was, but I wanted confirmation.
  
  --
  This guy's the limit!
25. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by aztracker1 · 2006-12-03 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  wild, I have a few friends using the Belkin Bluetooth mouse and it's been working great for them.. *shrug* as long as it works for you.. :) just surprised the bluetooth didn't cut it.
  
  --
  Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
26. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by ModernGeek · 2006-12-03 05:51 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Do you have pictures of it? I'd also like to see your desktop/setup at home, sounds "l33t" :)
  
  --
  Sig: I stole this sig.
27. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by thestuckmud · 2006-12-03 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  Not having three mouse buttons and a track point is a major reason not to get one.
  Whatever floats your boat. On the other hand, many people won't see a need for the extra buttons.
  
  I run a VNC (desktop sharing) server on my windows box so I can interact with windows programs from my MacBook Pro. Recently, I've noticed that I spend far more time using windows-based CAD/CAM software this way rather than directly on the windows box. Right button clicks are easily simulated. The middle button is useful with this program, but not necessary, and I find myself working just as well without it.
  
  Ergonomically, I have come around to the belief that the single button is very nice. Two button laptops now feel uncomfortable, requiring a little stretch of the thumb for every left click. As for trackpoints, I'm willing to call that personal preference. More power to you if you don't get a sore index finger using them.
28. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-03 06:07 · Score: 0
  
  no native linux support ? what are you talking about exactly here..
  linux runs NATIVELY on x86, doesn't matter if its a mac or a regular pc.
  for the record, linus uses a g5 (powerpc)
29. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-03 06:10 · Score: 0
  
  I came *THIS CLOSE* (holds fingers close together) to buying a Macbook Pro a month ago - it was the lack of a right mouse button and non-native support for Linux that killed it for me.
  
  Well, concerning the mouse buttons...
  
  When I bought a Powerbook 1 1/2 years ago I concidered the fact that there was only one button below the trackpad as the major shortcoming. But after starting to use the notebook, I realised that just doing CTRL+Click as a replacement was not inconvenient at all. When I use a separate mouse, having several buttons is convinient, because you have your fingers on them anyway, But with the track pad, I ususally don't, and just pressing the one big button with the thumb while pressing CTRL (if necessary) is not more inconvenient than the additional gymnastics required to select the right button in the first place. The MacBook feature (1- and 2-finger click) might be even nicer, but I don't have it.
  
  Summary: despite being sceptical initially, I don't miss additional buttons below my track pad at all.
30. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by Niten · 2006-12-03 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  Come on now... as a long-time Mac user, I've probably already suffered a lethal exposure to the Steve Jobs reality distortion field(TM). Even so, I have to point out that there are some places where it just isn't practical to use a mouse with your laptop. Want to try your solution in an airplane seat?
  
  I really don't get why Apple won't just come out with a real, honest-to-goodness two-button laptop. None of this gimmicky stuff meant to keep it looking like a one-button setup while ever-so-awkwardly implementing a secondary click feature. Lack of a real two-button touchpad is the only reason at least two of my friends haven't yet bought Mac laptops, and I can only chalk this kind of reality-defying failure to address the market to direct veto from Jobs himself.
31. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by yo_tuco · 2006-12-03 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  "tap two fingers for right click"
  
  If configured that way. Optionally, place two fingers on the trackpad and click the button for the secondary right click. This is a check box option in System Preferences->Keyboard & Mouse->Trackpad. You get the two-finger tap or this option but not both at the same time.
  
  Also, on the PowerBook and MacBook, you can press the ctrl key and click the for the secondary right-click.
32. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by WaltFrench · 2006-12-03 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  MacBooks and MacBookPro's do support right mouse buttons.
  Or get a $9 2-button-and-scrollwheel USB mouse, plug it in & use all of its features exactly as expected.
  
  --
  "Inquiring Minds Want to Know!"
33. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by P-Nuts · 2006-12-03 08:11 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I really don't get why Apple won't just come out with a real, honest-to-goodness two-button laptop. None of this gimmicky stuff meant to keep it looking like a one-button setup while ever-so-awkwardly implementing a secondary click feature. Lack of a real two-button touchpad is the only reason at least two of my friends haven't yet bought Mac laptops, and I can only chalk this kind of reality-defying failure to address the market to direct veto from Jobs himself.
  
  I never even use the single button below the trackpad on a Macbook. I tap with one finger for left click, tap with two fingers for right click, and drag with two fingers for scroll. This method doesn't strike me as awkward at all (whereas holding down option while clicking the button is indeed awkward.)
34. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by iphayd · 2006-12-03 08:11 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Because there are plenty of people like myself that recognize that the single button has kept carpel tunnel at bay, since I can vary where I click the button.
  
  I _love_ the two finger click on the MBP. It is an elegant solution to an inelegant problem.
  
  I don't know why they haven't implemented it in the AlBooks that support two finger scrolling, since it is obvious that they would support this as well.
35. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by oyenstikker · 2006-12-03 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  "requiring a little stretch of the thumb for every left click"
  On my ThinkPad, I can hit the the left mouse button with a 1/2" movement of my left thumb, the right mouse button with a 1/2" movement of my right thumb, the middle with a 3/4" movement of either thumb, and comfortably hit the trackpoint with either index finger, all without taking my fingers off the home row. I have always found Apple's mouse button placement awkward.
  
  --
  The masses are the crack whores of religion.
36. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by Philnet.HFZ · 2006-12-03 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  I have memories of this odd input device. It looked very similar to a regular computer mouse, but the ball was ON TOP. I think they called it a "trackball". Oddly enough, by simply manipulating the ball with one's thumb, you get the same effect as moving the mouse across the desk, but the trackball remained stationary! I do wonder if that might be useful to you, as it could, theoretically, be placed on any surface and work just fine.
  
  --
  I don't get why posts are limited to 120 characters. Seems unreasonable to me. I mean, just because I like having a real
37. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by thestuckmud · 2006-12-03 10:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Aha! You like trackpoints because you keep your fingers on the home row.
  
  Good for you. That helps explain your preference.
  
  Still, you said not having three buttons was part of the problem without explaining why. And that makes me wonder since my experience shows it works quite well, even for applications that need 2 or 3 buttons.
  
  I am also puzzled because you confirmed my complaint about 3-button laptops - that you have to move your thumb sideways for every mouse click - and then said Apple's interface is the awkward one. Have you tried them both long enough to get used to them?
  
  Anyway, my point is that many people who are used to three-button laptops may well find Apple's one-button approach more than adequate. Having used both for thousands of hours, I have - to my own surprise - come to prefer the single button trackpad. Not only for native OS X applications, but for Windows (under parallels and via VNC) and X11, using 2- or 3-button emulation. So much so, that I prefer using my laptop to interface with my Windows box rather than the very nice keyboard and mouse on it.
  
  Apple's trackpad is very good. I'm not asking you to like it. But I'd like you to accept that it will be adequate (even excellent) for many users.
38. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-03 11:22 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Apple doesn't sell a portable (they aren't laptops) with two trackpad buttons because they suck. I'm on my sixth Apple portable (PB 5300cs, Duo 230, PB 520 w/PPC, PB G3 Wallstreet, iBook G4, and MacBook) and I've found the single button to work great on every one. Only the last three even supported trackpad click and only the MacBook supports two-finger click out-of-the-box, but I STILL wouldn't want two buttons. And yes, I've used PC laptops with two buttons and its a lousy solution.
39. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by RemovableBait · 2006-12-03 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  I'll be honest and say that I really thought the one-button trackpad would get on my nerves. I mean, who wants to hold the Option key just to get a right click? I deliberated for a few weeks and spent a bit of time playing with the laptops in the local Apple store, before eventually taking the plunge and buying a MacBook.
  
  Having used it for about 2 months now (I'm a first time switcher), I can say that the one-button design is perfectly fine. I use the trackpad features, like two finger scrolling and two finger tap for right click, so often that when I sit down with another laptop I find myself tapping away, wondering why the context menu won't come up. The same thing happens with two finger scrolling (and my Expose screen corners).
  
  If the only reason for not buying a Mac laptop is the one-button trackpad, then I'd advise your friends to go down to the Apple store and spend 20 minutes playing with one. If they decide it's really not for them, then that's great. I can attest though, once you've used the trackpad features for a couple of days you'll wonder how you ever lived without them.
40. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by jimmyharris · 2006-12-03 12:23 · Score: 1
  
  It's actually really easy to install Linux on a MacBook Pro. Use Bootcamp to partition your drive, and then when it next boots up, just install Linux instead of Windows. Fedora Core 6 worked without any problems for me.
41. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by Divebus · 2006-12-03 16:02 · Score: 1
  
  "my last computer purchase was a mac. the retarded one button mouse makes it unusable as a laptop in class. its slow. its hot. its fragile. it needs to constantly be plugged into the wall. its breaking after under 2 years of usage"
  
  We stopped using the G3 Wallstreets a long time ago
  
  Seriously, our experience is quite the opposite. I don't know what you do with your machines but I've deployed Dell Inspirons, ThinkPads, HP somethings, iBooks and PowerBooks over the last few years. The sample size is in the dozens of laptops. Before two years was up, all the Dells were on the junk pile and the ThinkPads (which mostly still worked) were rejected in favor of the Apple machines. None of the Dells survived a drink spill but several spills into PowerBooks did not damage the machine. Just let it dry overnight and get back to work. The ThinkPads were too clunky and nobody liked them. After 3 years of deployment, only a single HP laptop is still being used and the rest are all the original iBooks and PowerBooks. The HP can't be left in a car in the winter because it won't boot until it's room temperature. Even then, you may have to bend the chassis a little to get it to start. Now, our oldest Mac laptops are 4 years old and we still haven't lost any to failures.
  
  Thanks for playing.
  
  --
  
  Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
42. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-03 17:13 · Score: 0
  
  I _love_ the two finger click on the MBP. It is an elegant solution to an inelegant problem.
  
  I disagree. It's an ugly hack to work around the fact that Apple won't give its users something that everyone else has had for decades.
43. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by mrchaotica · 2006-12-03 18:54 · Score: 1
  
  I came *THIS CLOSE* (holds fingers close together) to buying a Macbook Pro a month ago - it was the lack of a right mouse button and non-native support for Linux that killed it for me.
  
  I own an iBook, and the biggest concern I had when I bought it was that I might hate not having a second trackpad button. After having used it, though, I'll tell you one thing: having only one button actually works better. It's actually easier and more natural to hit a modifier key with my left hand while pointing and clicking with my right, and I don't have to look down to find the 2nd mouse button.
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
44. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by mrchaotica · 2006-12-03 19:00 · Score: 1
  
  Try this: when mousing on a Mac laptop, move both hands down two rows. Use your right index finger for the trackpad, right thumb for the mouse button, and left index, middle, and ring fingers for the cmd, option, and ctrl keys. That's what I do, and I prefer it to having two (or three) physical trackpad buttons.
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
45. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by mrchaotica · 2006-12-03 19:04 · Score: 1
  
  Old McTorvalds had some code, E-L-I-L-O!
  
  /sorry
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
46. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by LKM · 2006-12-03 20:50 · Score: 1
  
  I disagree. It's an ugly hack to work around the fact that Apple won't give its users something that everyone else has had for decades.
  
  I disagree, too. First, it's not an ugly hack. It's a gesture. The trackpad supports several of these, there's nothing hack-ish about it. Seconds, just because everyone has it doesn't mean it's a good idea. Discussions about the second mouse button inevitably devolve into crap flinging, but sufficient to say there are very good reasons to stay with one button.
47. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by Kremmy · 2006-12-03 22:28 · Score: 1
  
  Trackballs were a godsend in comparison to trackpads.
  Trackpoints, like the ThinkPad nipples, are also much better.
  I just can't understand how trackpads got so popular - they weren't even usable when they started showing up on laptops. I tried using one of the first trackpads for the pre-USB Mac desktops a number of years ago and the damage to my soul still hasn't healed. The trackpad on my recent Dell laptop isn't terrible, but I still plug in a mouse whenever possible.
  
  Does anyone make laptops with trackballs anymore?
48. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by QuantumFTL · 2006-12-04 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  Something tells me your intent to buy the Macbook Pro wasnt put off by the lack of the right mouse button. Firstly the Macbook Pro doenst come with mouse because it's a notebook. Secondly, OSX supports just about any USB 2 and 3 button mice.
  Am I the only one who actually uses the trackpad on notebooks instead of external mice? Occasionally (for gaming) I might pull out a mouse, but I've always disliked the lack of a second mouse button on my Powerbook 17" G4. And yes, I know you can use the control button, but that is simply not the same.
49. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by mark-ss · 2006-12-04 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  "I came *THIS CLOSE* (holds fingers close together) to buying a Macbook Pro a month ago - it was the lack of a right mouse button..."
  You've got to be kidding. Right mouse click works perfectly fine on my MacBook Pro with Mac OS X, and on both Windows XP and Fedora Core Linux using Parallels.
50. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by bill_mcgonigle · 2006-12-04 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  Two button laptops now feel uncomfortable, requiring a little stretch of the thumb for every left click
  
  The left button isn't as bad as the right - I can usually hit a left button with my thumb/hand/wrist, but a right click takes a finger which means little tiny tendons exerting pressure in an unnatural way. Thanks, but no thanks - I checked my carpal tunnel syndrome at the door (been there, done that).
  
  "But no, Apple should be forced to use two, three, or four buttons so software developers don't have to think about their interface design too hard".
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
51. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by mcrbids · 2006-12-04 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  I wish I would have known this before I spent a ton on a new Dell Inspiron. (which still works well, BTW)
  
  --
  I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
52. Re:Parallels Vs. VMWare by inAbsurdum · 2006-12-04 20:13 · Score: 1
  
  my eyes! my beautiful eeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyes!!!!!!!!! seriously, why would anyone want to do that? it's not like i'd trust this hack for webcode-testing anyway...
  
  --
  -- I am the Monkey Guru.
Parallels Desktop simply kicks ass by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-03 04:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

The constant improvement that this product has seen in its short existence is astounding. When you consider that it costs only $80 and has no competition at this time, it almost seems like they're working too hard on it.

If Parallels was publicly traded, I'd be buying up a lot of their stock. These features are too damned useful for Apple to not add to OS X at some point, and the best way would be for them to just whip out the checkbook and buy the company.
1. Re:Parallels Desktop simply kicks ass by Swift2001 · 2006-12-03 08:46 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  They're rushing like crazy, on the Mac at least -- they also make it for Windows -- to become the de facto standard before VM Ware for the Mac comes out.
I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-03 04:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

For charity?
Out of good will?
Because of indignant responses from hardcore Mac fans?

Maintaining a separate Cocoa code base for a product, buy and support expensive Mac hardware, maintain Mac software engineers

or let Mac users run our app from Parallels...
1. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-03 04:39 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  And how many of your "customers" will respond to your lack of a Mac version by pirating the Windows version instead, since you "obviously don't want their business"?
2. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by TheRaven64 · 2006-12-03 04:42 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  or let Mac users run our app from Parallels... Good luck with that. As a Mac user, there is no way I would buy an app that didn't integrate properly with the rest of my desktop, much less one that required parallels. Unless you wanted to bundle the $80 Parallels license and the $100 Windows license with your app, of course...
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
3. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-03 04:52 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Mod parent up.
  
  I have this very dilemma with Quicken. I just bought a MacBook and let me tell you: Quicken '07 Mac sucks ass. Way short on just about every feature that the Windows version offers.
  
  So I have to ask them: how could they possibly have such disparate code bases? What are they thinking? The Mac version doesn't even read PC files. That's something even Microsoft was able to fix with their Office products 10+ years ago.
  
  So if I want them to get the hint at all, my only option is to pirate the Window version. Paying for the Windows version only gives them more reason to maintain the shoddy product that is their Mac version. Or discontinue it.
4. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-03 04:52 · Score: 0
  
  Cost to develop Windows version == Base Cost
  
  Cost to develop Mac version == Mac engineers + Mac hardware + Mac specific internal support + Mac version external support staff/training
  
  Parallels/BootCamp eliminates all those Mac related costs and only risks losing sales to Mac diehards. Dumping the Mac version of your product is just basic business sense.
  
  Return from small number of people who refuse to run app under Parallels Mac development overhead
5. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by gsnedders · 2006-12-03 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  Give a user a choice between a native OS X app, or one that relies on virtualisation. Almost all users will choose the native app.
  
  If you're competitor offers one and you don't, you ain't gonna sell well.
6. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by divisionbyzero · 2006-12-03 04:57 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Uh, because you think it is the best environment in which to develop? Other than the market share of the platform that's the only other relevant consideration. It may actually make Apple work harder to make Cocoa more appealing.
  
  P.S. You also lose points for having zero originality. This argument is ancient and all of the trade-offs are well known.
7. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by idiot900 · 2006-12-03 04:57 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  or let Mac users run our app from Parallels... Not this Mac user. I bought a Mac because I like the way a Mac works. To use your app, I'd have buy a copy of Windows and a copy of Parallels, and then run them - and some people think the Java VM is bloated! And I'd have to deal with the Windows app not being well integrated with the rest of the system. The only way this will work is if there is no serious competition in your market segment.
8. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by jeffbax · 2006-12-03 05:03 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Well, the fact that as a Mac user there is no way in hell I would ever buy software for the sole purpose in running it in Virtualization - maybe that might be a reason.
  
  I bang my head when this argument (or those like it) come up. Ohh Macs can boot Windows now, who's going to write Mac software! Sorry, but except for games, there is *nothing* that will get me to leave OS X.
  
  I challenge you to build such an amazing piece of software that I would be compelled to buy it for an OS I hate booting, because to me Virtualization is solely a means to test my websites in IE.
9. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-03 05:12 · Score: 0
  
  You would write Mac software because that is the only software that most Mac users will actually consider buying. Parallels is mostly useful for running Windows software they already own, to smooth the transition to Mac OS X. If you write Windows software only then the vast majority of Mac users won't even consider your software when contemplating the purchase of new software -- they'll seek out the Mac OS-based alternatives.
10. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-03 05:16 · Score: 0
  
  Sure...that's why BootCamp/Parallels to run Windows apps is the hottest Mac news item ever since IBM dumped Apple and forced them to turn to Intel for x86 chips...
  
  because Mac users refuse to run Windows apps...
11. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-03 05:22 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  I would agree with everyone here that says users prefer native apps whole heartedly. Quicken is the so-called "killer app" for me. I just blindly took the plunge and bought a MacBook Pro and quickly found out that a financial institution has to explicitly support Quicken Mac since that statement formats are apparently different for the Mac and Windows versions. Since not all of my financial institutions support Quicken Mac, I have to use Quicken Windows...under Parallels. Trust me, I absolutely hate it. And I am going to actually move my money to financial institutions that support Quicken Mac just so that I do not have to use Quicken Windows. I am far more loyal to my MBP than I ever will be to any investment house.
12. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by mackyrae · 2006-12-03 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  Maintaining a separate Cocoa code base for a product, buy and support expensive Mac hardware, maintain Mac software engineers
  
  because then Linux can use it too if you're using Objective C because GNUStep uses Cocoa too.
  
  --
  look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
13. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by aztracker1 · 2006-12-03 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  Well, the file system cost of windows and parallels is pretty negligable on an 80+ GB hard drive... The app would have its' own footprint in any case. As for integration to the desktop, this is a big one for a lot of people. However, I know far more mac users that have virtual pc (ppc mac) or parallels (intel mac) than those without it... so there must be some room for people running their windows programs on mac.
  
  As for any performance overhead, xp on parallels works very well, the key is to have enough memory to give the parallels instance at or above 512mb. (I do 768 on my ubuntu desktop with vmware, and it works out fine)... Some of us need the windows apps that will never be available natively. Parallels makes that possible.
  
  Honestly, if a company isn't that big, and is developing software, it may be excessively costly to maintain a mac version. Though with mono (.Net) and cocoa#, it's not too hard, and with the Java bindings for cocoa in mac, it's even easier. I am uncertain about python. So for apps that will fit well into a virtualized/managed environment like .net or java, it is easy enough... Unfortunately most applications have their roots elsewhere, which makes it more difficult.
  
  --
  Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
14. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by Deadguy2322 · 2006-12-03 05:37 · Score: 0
  
  And we all know how linux users LOVE to pay for saoftware....
  
  --
  Check out my foes list to see who is so retarded that they can't use the signature line!!!
15. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by topham · 2006-12-03 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  Only if your application has limited functionality.
  
  The fact is that Apple has been adding more and more frameworks, and the last time I looked to see what the compatibility was outside of "OS X" it was dismal.
  
  I doubt it has improved.
16. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by Simon80 · 2006-12-03 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  I don't use Windows or Mac OS X, but you're lying to yourself if you think someone's going to spend an extra 200 bucks just so they can run your poorly integrated software inside a VM. The best you can hope for is to test your app in WINE, and make sure that works, but either way, you're cutting off the indignant Mac fanboy market plus the average user who doesn't want to jump through hoops market.
17. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by Epicyon · 2006-12-03 05:48 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  This is the reason I would offer: As soon as a competitor's product to the one you're offering is available natively on the Mac, you'll lose customers. While I agree virtualization is now offering acceptable performance for many Windows-only applications, this virtualization does not integrate well with a Mac user's workflow. Once a native version is available, users will switch. And as Macs gain mind-share and market-share, if this competitive product has cross-platform support, the prospects grow slimmer for single-platform applications. Now I realize the difficulties in coding for multiple platforms, however there are cross platform frameworks available today to assist with just such endeavors. And while it's likely significant effort, depending on the vendor, it may be a strategic decision to rewrite an app so it's cross platform. As a point of reference, I'm currently involved in a project which has two major suppliers of a particular function. One has slightly more bells and whistles, the other is cross platform with support for Windows, Linux, and OS X. Both have similar market share, but the client selected the platform with cross platform support over the platform with a bit more functionality. Just something to think about.
18. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-03 06:10 · Score: 0
  
  For the same reason that people upgraded their "Classic" apps to OSX ...
  For the same reason that people upgraded their "Rosetta" apps to Universal Binaries ...
  It's the speed, stupid!
19. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by cyber-vandal · 2006-12-03 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  Yeh I'm surprised he didn't mention how Win16 compatibility killed OS/2.
20. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-03 07:00 · Score: 0
  
  For charity?
  Out of good will?
  Because of indignant responses from hardcore Mac fans?
  
  Awesome work ethic you got goin' there dude.
  Your parents must be so proud...
  
  Maintaining a separate Cocoa code base for a product, buy and support expensive Mac hardware, maintain Mac software engineers
  
  Real programmers enjoy a challenge and love their work.
  Probably you should be doing something else.
21. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by Monsuco · 2006-12-03 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  or let Mac users run our app from Parallels...
  Actually, I would just test your app to ensure it runs on DarWine or use Wine's libraries to port it. It won't look like a native app, but you can use skins for your app to do that. Plus this will allow for you to easily port to linux using identical methods with Wine.
  
  --
  The Gospel according to lolcat
22. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by iphayd · 2006-12-03 08:20 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Your non-native app is going to show the native market that there is interest for Mac users for your product. A slew of new, native, products will come out that will start eroding your market share, as their products will advertise how much better it is to be a real Mac app.
  
  Finally, you will realize too late that your lack of actions allowed competitors to grow where they wouldn't had otherwise and jeopardize your business.
23. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by wootest · 2006-12-03 08:31 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The Objective-C-to-Java bridge is being abandoned because it really didn't make things easier for Java developers and because it was a pain in the ass to write code with for everyone and to maintain for Apple. (However, RubyCocoa will ship with the next version of Mac OS X because it's a lesser pain in the ass on all accounts.)
  
  You may know more people who have VPC or Parallels than not (I do too), but how sure are you that those people will be representative to the entire Mac market? To the market you want to aim your product at? (Unless it's "technologically competent user who has ever heard of Slashdot", fat chance.)
  
  There's also psychology in it. At its core, the people that are now switching to Macs are not switching *because you can run Windows on it*. They are switching *because you can run Mac OS X on it*; the ability to run Windows on it just pushed them over the edge because Mac OS X doesn't have a 90%+ market share. If they were indifferent to what software they preferred, they'd be using a different brand of computers, and run Windows, not Mac OS X.
  
  Most Mac users, even the ones propped up with VPC or Parallels (I plead guilty), ultimately want to run Mac-native software rather than Windows software. Parallels is life-support for existing software that people need to run, and even if it was free and shipped with all Macs and took up half the memory and disk space that it does today, it doesn't make Windows software into Mac software.
  
  You don't need to think that Mac software is superior to Windows software to concede that Mac software has an advantage over Windows software running in a Mac simply because it gets access to all system APIs to things like address books and keychains and hardware support and preferences, and because it looks like everything else you run. Windows software just think it's running on an isolated box and won't become aware of the Mac OS X side of your computer unless you as a user go to some length and the software itself supports it, at which point the developer will already need to make way in their timeplan and budget for Mac-specific testing.
  
  Still not convinced?
  
  1. Mac market share is currently surging. More people, not fewer, will arrive at the Mac platform in the next few years, and building a dedicated version (and almost no well-designed application will need to be rewritten entirely from scratch) is becoming more and more economically feasible.
  
  2. Would you want to bet your entire Mac user base on a competitor not releasing a native Mac version? Unless it's a turd, people will switch to that in a heartbeat. You will lose out months of sales as you rush a native product to market, or need to pull out of a market completely.
24. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by Anarchitect_in_oz · 2006-12-03 09:31 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  You know you could just write the app in one of the cross platform libraries or languages.
  I've heard good things about QT as an alternative for VB styles apps.
  I understand software like Sketchup is written in Ruby (maybe on rails) and the same code base is used for both Windows and Mac, just the GUI wrapper and compilling differ. Then again cocoa/ xcode can use a number languages, sure Obj-C is main one but that doesn't stop you using the majority of your existing C++ code base for the Mac version.
  
  Hey once you have the Mac app nailed then Linux isn't far off either. or go the other way Linux then Mac.
  
  To answer why write Mac native software have a look at software industry sales numbers.
  Mac users by good software and in numbers that suggest an installed base much higher than expected.
  Windows users buy Games, Office and highly specialised custom business databases.
  
  --
  "Call us when the New age is old enough to drink" Beck
25. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by oliderid · 2006-12-03 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  Well I've got a product under development and I face your dilemma.
  
  But I have some hope that I can use our 100% c# .net framework 1.1 code with Mono and their relatively new System.Window.Form. It isn't on the development roadmap but I keep an eye on Mono.
  I've already tried to pass some of our codes on it, and it works quite well, even with DateTimePicker and other things like that.
26. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by falconwolf · 2006-12-03 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  As for any performance overhead, xp on parallels works very well, the key is to have enough memory to give the parallels instance at or above 512mb. (I do 768 on my ubuntu desktop with vmware, and it works out fine)... Some of us need the windows apps that will never be available natively. Parallels makes that possible.
  
  I plan on getting a MacBook Pro in the next couple of weeks, switching from Windows. And while there are Windows apps I want to run in it I will be getting CrossOver Mac to run them in. If I were to get Parallels to run Windows in on the Mac not only would I have to pay for Windows also but I would have to deal with the reason I'm switching to begin with. I don't want to deal with either Activation or WGA.
  Falcon
  
  --
  Should there be a Law?
27. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-03 11:36 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe you should have considered this issue when you were deciding on a development framework. Pick something that is Windows-centric and, well, that's the app you'll end up with. FWIW, Mac users *LOATHE* lousy, non-standard, poorly-integrated ports from Windows. Menus, palettes, toolbars and dialog boxes are poorly organized and don't follow Mac conventions, Mac-native technologies are ignored (QuickTime, OpenGL, Core Data/Text/Animation/et al, Apple Events/AppleScript, Dashboard, Services, scrollwheel support, multi-threading/multiple processors, native widgets, ATSUI, etc etc etc), programs are slow, and all the rest. Realistically, if you intend to sell into the Mac market, you MUST develop natively for the Mac. End of story.
  
  The old adage is that crap doesn't sell on the Mac.
28. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by aztracker1 · 2006-12-03 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  You're honestly preaching to the choir here... however, the *fact* is that creating software for the mac, in addition to software already targeting windows, has costs involved, and much of the time, especially smaller niche apps (which are the majority of apps out there) this is too costly to make the consideration viable.
  
  For new applications, sure, it's a great idea... and especially for applications that will be widely available and target the general public. I was mainly pointing out that this isn't always viable, especially in a smaller/niche market, were there is already a significant investment into development, which is even more difficult, the more the application relies on the win32 api.
  
  Frameworks with abstraction (ruby+cocoa, mono/.net+cocoa#, etc) make this a more viable option, but not for every instance.
  
  --
  Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
29. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by aztracker1 · 2006-12-03 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  CrossOver doesn't support every application. In fact there is more that it doesn't support than what it does... I would suggest testing what you need to have running... Also, if you already have a windows license (that is transferable) you can use QEMU, which has made progress. I hate activation, and honestly, the increased issues and invasiveness is what is going to keep me away from vista in my home. I have a MSDN license, so my desktop is covered even, still won't be using it... ubuntu + vmware + winxp will probably be my setup for some time to come. I will probably get a MacBook Pro sometime next year myself, so vmware will be replaced with parallels, but will be keeping xp.
  
  --
  Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
30. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by wootest · 2006-12-03 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not saying that it is dirt cheap. However, I am saying that marketing the Windows version under Parallels or Boot Camp as a Mac version would be marketing suicide, and that tweaking the Windows version to cater to the Mac users would also be ill-advised. You and I know how ridiculous this is, but some people here seem to think that it's really a viable option. (I encourage them to try it, though, and let us see if the whole survival of the fittest thing still holds up.)
  
  I agree with the general thrust of your argument though.
31. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by Divebus · 2006-12-03 15:32 · Score: 1
  
  You don't have to worry about me buying an app that only runs under virtualization. I'll just wait until one of your competitors comes out with a native Mac version. It will work better, look better, integrate better and probably kick your ass for features.
  
  --
  
  Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
32. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by Divebus · 2006-12-03 16:09 · Score: 1
  
  "Awesome work ethic you got goin' there dude."
  
  I agree.
  
  Why would I buy anything from a bad attitude software supplier?
  For charity?
  Out of good will?
  
  Beware of indignant responses from your former user base.
  
  --
  
  Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
33. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by Durandal64 · 2006-12-03 16:26 · Score: 1
  
  Then as soon as one of your competitors makes a native Mac OS X app, you'll lose all your Mac customers, even if it's short on certain features. Know why? Because making people boot a virtual machine just to run your application is stupid, and it shows that you don't give a fuck about what your customers want. So yeah, go ahead and be stupid about it. It'll just leave your Mac customers as low-hanging fruit for any intermediate Cocoa engineer to pick off.
34. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by toddestan · 2006-12-03 17:19 · Score: 1
  
  You don't have to worry about me buying an app that only runs under virtualization. I'll just wait until one of your competitors comes out with a native Mac version. It will work better, look better, integrate better and probably kick your ass for features.
  
  You're assuming, of course, that anyone is going to bother to do so.
35. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by Divebus · 2006-12-03 18:32 · Score: 1
  
  Code writers bother, alright. So far, every function I've wanted to do on a Mac has bunches of software available. Some commercial, some open source, some shareware and some just plain free. Now, there aren't 2,000 different pieces of software that do that same thing like in the Windows world but there's certainly no shortage of native Mac apps and all it takes is a few good choices. No worries there. If it's a worthy function, someone is going to make it Mac native.
  
  --
  
  Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
36. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by mrchaotica · 2006-12-03 19:13 · Score: 1
  
  the *fact* is that creating software for the mac, in addition to software already targeting windows, has costs involved
  
  Of course, it's really the Windows compatibility that's the problem -- writing software to be cross-platform between Mac and Linux is comparatively easy : )
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
37. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by Steve+Cowan · 2006-12-04 10:16 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Obviously you don't use the Mac. The Mac has different ways of doing things. Sure you can write a Mac app that does things the Windows way, but Mac users just won't buy it.
  
  As a Mac user, I would not accept an app that had different keyboard shortcuts just because it is running under Windows virtualization. Any deviation from the consistent shortcuts across Mac apps is unacceptable. I don't like Windows-style toolbars. I don't like having to run a 'wizard' just to uninstall an app (and then trust it when it says it was removed). I don't like launching apps from the start menu or from desktop shortcuts. Believe it or not, I don't like apps that assume I have a 2-button mouse (even though I do, but I prefer to think of the right button as a quick way to get to frequently-used commands, but I don't like having options in that contextual menu that aren't available anywhere else). I don't like the look of the Windows GUI. I don't like Windows 'Save' dialog boxes that only let me save in tree view. I don't like browsing dialogs of any sort that default to 'list mode' (the one that has you scroll sideways).
  
  If your app has any of the above Win-nonsense I won't use it. And if it has some capability that my Mac software doesn't have, I may hold on to it, but only to do that one task. And even then I certainly won't pay for it. (I pirate much less than most people, but I don't pay for crappy apps or Win apps).
  
  That's why.
38. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by wootest · 2006-12-04 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  That depends on exactly what kind of software. Writing good cross-platform GUI software for any two platforms is a pain in the ass, because no two GUIs are alike and you're going to end up compromising or alienating part of your base. Firefox is notably struggling here despite big efforts in connecting the dots to deep native technology on all fronts. Command line tools solely based on POSIX are way easy to compile for both Mac and Linux (and *BSD and other Unices) though.
39. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by toddestan · 2006-12-04 17:00 · Score: 1
  
  I find this a bit confusing - if everything was available on the Mac, then why do so many people run Windows on their Intel Macs? The simple fact that virtualization is so popular seems to suggest that there is a void that isn't being filled on the OSX side.
40. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by Divebus · 2006-12-04 21:49 · Score: 1
  
  For the same reason that so many people use Macs instead of Windows. If everything was so complete and wonderful on the Windows side, Macs and Linux (and Irix and Solaris etc) wouldn't be necessary at all. So, yes, there is a void to be filled on any platform. This particular void comes from the specific Windows-only applications which Mac owners wish to run. With virtualization, the end result quite often (for those who try it) is Windows users choose to own a Mac and run whatever the hell they want on a single machine. I've seen that repeated many times where I work. New people come in puzzled over our mixed platform environment, ask out loud why we have Macs at all and wind up buying one themselves before the year is out. Eventually, Windows itself could become irrelevant as long as the apps keep running. That's called very subtle but brilliant marketing, a fact that isn't lost on Microsoft who is very busily sealing off those avenues of attrition.
  
  Example: my father in law is a contractor and had a four year old XP machine. My mother in law is a Mac OS X user. In the last year, my father in law started noticing the contrast between the Mac and Windows experience. Two months ago, he drop kicked his XP machine and bought an Intel Core2 Duo iMac. Now, he uses Crossover to load all the bullshit CD-ROMs he picks up at Home Depot. He's got all his Windows based framing calculators and load calculators running on his iMac under virtualization - no Windows required. Sure, all that stuff can be had as Mac native apps or even Java apps online, but that's not what's on those CD-ROMs. Not everything works under Crossover, so I find an app that works natively and load that. Point being it isn't a handicap that he doesn't use Windows and he's much happier with his Mac.
  
  --
  
  Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
41. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by IntergalacticWalrus · 2006-12-05 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  You still need a Windows license to run Windows under Parallels you know.
42. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by aztracker1 · 2006-12-05 17:23 · Score: 1
  
  For that matter, it usually isn't too bad to have them in windows either.
  
  --
  Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
43. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by easter1916 · 2006-12-06 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  I can't speak for everyone, but I would imagine my experience on this is somewhat typical for the Slashdot crowd. I installed Parallels and WinXP on my MBP so that I could run IBM Rational Application Developer, WebSphere App and Portal Servers. There are a lot of Enterprise-level apps that are available on Windows, Linux, Solaris, etc., but not on OS X.
44. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by zonker · 2006-12-06 15:55 · Score: 0
  
  i would bet that they haven't rewritten the software since the old os9/classic days and more than likely they have no interest in starting from scratch any time soon. i can't remember what that library is called (carbon maybe?) but lots of programs continue to use it since they are too lazy to update using the newer libraries.
  
  that of course has nothing to do with lack of features, just something i've noticed of lazy companies that don't bother to write decent mac software. my sentiments in this regard are also shared with eudora for mac.
  
  --
  Large print giveth, and the small print taketh away
45. Re:I Should Write Native Mac Apps...Why? by SnowDog74 · 2006-12-07 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  You may want to view this presentation given by Wil Shipley at the 2005 WWDC. In fact, anyone who doesn't get why Apple development is a profitable business decision should view this presentation.
It's *BETA* for a Reason by waldoj · 2006-12-03 04:30 · Score: 4, Informative

I installed this as soon as it came out, as did many other Mac users. My Mac (mini DP Intel 1.67GHz, 2GB RAM) slowed to a crawl as soon as I launched it. I had to yank the power cable. I uninstalled it and all was well. This is a common experience. If you're just going to try out a new version, cool, go for it, maybe it'll go well. But please understand that it's a beta -- don't plan on getting any work done with this.
1. Re:It's *BETA* for a Reason by PetieG · 2006-12-03 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  just installed on MBP and it runs like the parallels of old. I literally had to laugh at what an ingenious idea this 'coherence' is... F* it... i'm going to run both all of the time now just to see how it is. after all, with this level of "integration" it pretty much makes it a seamless experience to some degree. I had originally installed BootCamp way back after it was first released then realized i didn't really need Windoze that bad... but now, if i can share a BootCamp XP partition with a Parallels instance -- why not? Looks like some users are having problems with the bootcamp instance and parallels (esp. corporate versions) so i may just wait a little bit longer to try that out. Kudos to parallels!!
2. Re:It's *BETA* for a Reason by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-03 08:33 · Score: 0
  
  ... I had to yank the power cable ... don't plan on getting any work done with this.
  
  You might get more work done if you stop pulling the power cable.
Re:not new by MDaniszewski · 2006-12-03 04:38 · Score: 0

I don't think you fully grasp what Parallels does....
It's not a mechanism to replace the "look" of the OS.
GPU access by shmlco · 2006-12-03 04:41 · Score: 1

You'd think that in, say, full-screen mode that there's be some way for Apple to open a hole so that Parallels/Windows could get direct access to the video card.

--
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
1. Re:GPU access by Poltras · 2006-12-03 05:00 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  This is under development by major virtualization companies. VMWare supports it for windows as guest (in beta), and Parallels has said that it was under development for a future release. This is harder than it looks though, since you have to develop a full blown 3d driver for windows and Linux (used inside your virtualized environment) that will send the calls to the host operating systems, in the case of windows transferring DirectX calls to the OpenGL API. If you want to stay generic (to work on both hardware nvidia and ati), you have to limits the possibilities of the card, or else you'll have to make a driver for each type of card you want to support. That's the theory.
  
  --
  Of Code And Men
2. Re:GPU access by shmlco · 2006-12-03 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but like I said, there ought to be some way to open a hole in the OS so that a virtualized Windows could access the graphics card directly when in full-screen mode. And which would eliminate the need for fancy conversion drivers, since Windows should already "know" about an ATI x1600.
  
  --
  Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
3. Re:GPU access by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-03 11:06 · Score: 0
  
  You'd need an IOMMU (or a way to force the video driver to only use AGP GART regions) because a VM's physical memory pages are scattered throughout real memory, but appear linear to the VM's kernel.
  
  Also, you'd need code to quiesce the card and context switch all of it's state (for going into and coming out of fullscreen mode). Even if you can get documentation for your video card's registers and state (you usually can't), there is often undocumented state as well. It is technically possible in theory, but the information needed is not accessible to a small vendor like Parallels, and might not even be accessible to Apple.
  
  If you solve the IOMMU problem (which is coming reasonably soon, at least on server chipsets), an option would be to put two graphics cards in your machine and dedicate one to the VM and the other to the main OS.
4. Re:GPU access by shmlco · 2006-12-03 14:21 · Score: 1
  
  "Also, you'd need code to quiesce the card and context switch all of it's state (for going into and coming out of fullscreen mode)."
  
  When you switch video modes doesn't the card basically have to drop it's contents and start over anyway? Seems like you could fake a switch and/or monitor change and be golden.
  
  And since we really want GPU access for games anyway, they're used to grabbing the card and loading all of their own junk into it, which the OS then has to dump when the game quits.
  
  --
  Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Windows is the new Classic by GreatDrok · 2006-12-03 04:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

I've installed it and it is very similar to Classic on PPC macs under OS X. As with OS 9 apps on OS X, a full copy of the operating system is running, but the windows are drawn directly to the desktop (or at least appear to, with some glitching at the moment). I have the Windows task bar running down the left hand side of my screen so it doesn't get in the way of my dock (at the bottom) and desktop icons (to the right). Running Windows with the classic theme looks better as the shaped edges of Windows apps leave a little triangle of the Windows desktop which looks a bit poor. Lighten up the theme and it works quite nicely on the OS X desktop.

Apple really needs to buy Parallels or do something similar. It would make a huge difference to people moving from Windows to the Mac and eventually, Windows could go the same way as Classic MacOS has under OS X and just fade away. I don't think MS would be very pleased with this development though :-)

--
"I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
1. Re:Windows is the new Classic by MicrosoftRepresentit · 2006-12-03 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  Does auto-hide still work on the Windows task bar?
2. Re:Windows is the new Classic by flooey · 2006-12-03 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  Apple really needs to buy Parallels or do something similar. It would make a huge difference to people moving from Windows to the Mac and eventually, Windows could go the same way as Classic MacOS has under OS X and just fade away. I don't think MS would be very pleased with this development though :-)
  
  You never know. As long as running Windows in Parallels requires a copy of Windows that's purchased from Microsoft, they're still getting their money. Parallels is an interesting situation for Microsoft, as it means that some portion of the folks buying Macs are paying them for Windows anyway (and at retail prices at that, which is much more profitable for Microsoft than OEM).
3. Re:Windows is the new Classic by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-03 05:27 · Score: 0
  
  Does auto-hide still work on the Windows task bar?
  Yes.
4. Re:Windows is the new Classic by aztracker1 · 2006-12-03 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  I was wondering the same thing... as for MS being upset, I don't know.. they're still getting license fees from the copies being installed on parallels... actually was standing next to a guy at Fry's Electronics on friday that was buying a copy of windows for use with parallels and boot camp...
  
  --
  Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
5. Re:Windows is the new Classic by GreatDrok · 2006-12-03 06:00 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  "You never know. As long as running Windows in Parallels requires a copy of Windows that's purchased from Microsoft, they're still getting their money. Parallels is an interesting situation for Microsoft, as it means that some portion of the folks buying Macs are paying them for Windows anyway (and at retail prices at that, which is much more profitable for Microsoft than OEM)."
  
  That isn't the problem for MS. Lets put it this way. I own four Macs and recently got rid of my only PC because I could now do everything I needed to using the Macs. If absolutely necessary, I can boot Windows in Parallels to run a specific piece of software just like I used to with OS9 apps but, just as I stopped buying OS9 apps, I also won't be buying Windows software even though I can run it. My preference is for OSX apps and I'm sure I'm not alone. What this does is it makes Windows a legacy system and legacy systems fade away eventually. MS might well be making good money off Windows sales to Mac users for the moment but what if more and more people buy Macs and prefer to buy OSX software? Well, software companies will fill the need and eventually these people will find that they don't need Windows any more so they will stop installing it. If that happens, the MS monopoly will be broken. MS really should be scared (I bet they are too). Windows isn't popular because it is good (it isn't) but because it has many many apps. Those apps can now run nicely on a Mac so people can buy a Mac without missing out on the apps but native ones are much nicer so once the move to Mac is made, the desire to purchase Windows software will decline and the market will notice.
  
  --
  "I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
6. Re:Windows is the new Classic by ronanbear · 2006-12-03 06:05 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Microsoft have prevented all but the most expensive versions of Vista (Ultimate) from running within a virtual machine.
  
  They seem quite concerned about virtualisation but are going for the high taxation approach to keeping it from becoming significant.
  
  That could be Parallels biggest problem over the next few years. A $399 Windows license + $80 + extra RAM (recommended) for Parallels is a lot for someone who doesn't absolutely need it. Might be cheaper to buy a separate Windows desktop/laptop if you need Windows that badly.
  
  It's still a great product but it will be a much smaller niche at those prices. Using Bootcamp you just buy the cheapest Vista license if you can get away with it.
  
  --
  the more they over-think the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the pipe
7. Re:Windows is the new Classic by Nothinman · 2006-12-03 08:15 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  IIRC the only version with the "don't run this in a VM" clause was Home Basic, all of the higher versions can run in a VM perfectly legally. And it's purely a licensing restriction, Vista Home Basic will still install in the VM just as well as the other versions.
8. Re:Windows is the new Classic by 0racle · 2006-12-03 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  Only the Home versions have a clause to prevent running it in a VM, Ultimate and Business both allow it to run in a VM.
  
  --
  "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
9. Re:Windows is the new Classic by fermion · 2006-12-03 12:18 · Score: 1
  
  Which means that no one will use Vista, and everyone will continue to use XP. The fact that MS is not allowing Vista to be virtualized is good news, as it means that users will even has less reason to switch to Vista. As the only ones that will be forced to moved to vista will be those that buy new PCs, parallel users will be buy XP. Remember that 2000 is still widely available.
  At the end of the day, this is just another reason why Vista is mostly going to the OS for cheap business machine and those that want to play games. Everyone else will move to the various OS that allows the flexibility we need to run efficient firms and lives.
  
  --
  "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
10. Re:Windows is the new Classic by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-04 01:43 · Score: 0
  
  That could be Parallels biggest problem over the next few years. A $399 Windows license + $80 + extra RAM (recommended) for Parallels is a lot for someone who doesn't absolutely need it. Might be cheaper to buy a separate Windows desktop/laptop if you need Windows that badly
  
  After buying my Macintel laptop, my local computer store (won't name it, or me) sold me one of the XP disks that go with build-yor-own systems. It was a full version of XP in a paper bag for $150.00. Y'all might be try to ask about that and get the same deal.
11. Re:Windows is the new Classic by WheresMyDingo · 2006-12-04 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  Windows could [...] just fade away. I don't think MS would be very pleased with this development though
  I don't know, I always wonder if Windows is more of a cost than a benefit for MS these days. Are they really going to get back what they put in in terms of money into Vista? Imagine the headache of dealing with all the security issues, lawsuits, etc. Why not stick with Office and visual studio and the other new directions they are going in, rather than carry the albatross of Windows around? I'd say leave the OS work to Apple and concentrate on other things.
Takes one to know one by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-03 04:58 · Score: 0

Pot, meet kettle.
1. Re:Takes one to know one by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-03 05:10 · Score: 0
  
  Me, a fanboy? Hardly. Reserve such pretentious comments like this for those deserving.
  
  My wife talked me into getting a Mac because of iMovie. I gave in and am in many ways regretting it.
  
  Any more pot shots?
2. Re:Takes one to know one by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-03 18:18 · Score: 0
  
  "Any more pot shots?"
  
  Sure! I'll bite.
  
  pretentious
  
  adjective attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed.
  
  -- DERIVATIVES pretentiously adverb pretentiousness noun.
VMWare Fusion - Coherency? by Nutsquasher · 2006-12-03 05:01 · Score: 1

Does anyone know if VMWare Fusion (for Mac) is going to have something like the "Coherency" feature? Also, is the Parallels Coherency feature for Windows-only, or can it be used with Linux in, say, an X/KDE or X/GNOME configuration?
1. Re:VMWare Fusion - Coherency? by Brome · 2006-12-03 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  I've tested the Coherency feature with Ubuntu, but it doesn't work. I guess this feature works only if you install the Parallels Tools in the virtualized OS. These tools also allow features like drag and drop of files from an OS to another, or the smooth transition of the mouse pointer between the OSes. And AFAIK, this installation of Parallels Tools is possible on Windows only.
  
  Hopefully we will see the Parallels Tools available for popular Linux distributions.
2. Re:VMWare Fusion - Coherency? by ageitgey · 2006-12-03 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Parallels doesn't really need to add support for a Linux client coherency feature in OSX. You can do pretty much the same thing right now.
  
  Start up X11 on your Mac and start up a Linux image in Parallels. Configure an account in Linux to use the ip address of your Mac as it's X Server and there you go. All the programs you run in Linux will show up as their own windows in OSX. This is actually better than what Parallels does with MS Windows because the UI drawing is handled by OSX and thus it should be more responsive.
  
  It would be nice if they added some sort of tool to automate this process. But given the variety of Linux distros, it's probably easier to just tell people how to do it than try to support an executable tool that would run reliably across all the distros.
  
  --
  Uninnovate - Only the finest in engineering.
3. Re:VMWare Fusion - Coherency? by Nutsquasher · 2006-12-03 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, clever! I never thought of that. It's something I'll have to try, assuming I buy Parallels. It becomes more and more tempting every day...
4. Re:VMWare Fusion - Coherency? by mrchaotica · 2006-12-03 19:24 · Score: 1
  
  Start up X11 on your Mac and start up a Linux image in Parallels. Configure an account in Linux to use the ip address of your Mac as it's X Server and there you go.
  
  Why would you even bother with that? What Linux program could you possibly have that you can't just recompile and run straight from OSX?
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
5. Re:VMWare Fusion - Coherency? by ZedmanAuk · 2006-12-03 20:43 · Score: 1
  
  Digikam. iPhoto sucks for large collections residing on a (sometimes) connected network server. No Picasa for Mac either.
  
  --
  -ZA
6. Re:VMWare Fusion - Coherency? by mrchaotica · 2006-12-04 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  Okay... so what's stopping you from running Digikam in Mac OS directly? You can install most "Linux apps" via (for example) Fink just fine, you know; you don't need a whole virtualized distro (which was my point to begin with)!
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
7. Re:VMWare Fusion - Coherency? by ZedmanAuk · 2006-12-04 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  Digikam is not available via Fink nor via Darwinports. The Digikam authors promise a Mac OS X port sometime soon, but that's been rumored for a year now, and until then, Parallels running Linux is the only way to go.
  
  I've not had great luck with Fink anyway. Trying to use it to install amarok failed (to be fair, Amarok is in the unstable repository).
  
  --
  -ZA
updates by TheSHAD0W · 2006-12-03 05:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm not that happy with their charging for program updates after a year's passed since you purchase it. I understand it costs the company to generate updates, but I'm certain that Microsoft and/or Apple will produce their own updates that will break Parallels. Updates will be a necessity, and I'm hesitant to buy a product that will generate a long-term expense on my part in order to keep using it.
1. Re:updates by John+Betonschaar · 2006-12-03 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not that happy with their charging for program updates after a year's passed since you purchase it. I understand it costs the company to generate updates, but I'm certain that Microsoft and/or Apple will produce their own updates that will break Parallels. Updates will be a necessity, and I'm hesitant to buy a product that will generate a long-term expense on my part in order to keep using it.
  
  I have been using parallels from the first RC, bought it the moment it was released and got all updates except this one for free. Also, I got Parallels Compressor ($79) along with Parallels workstation, again without having to pay for it. So I think it's safe to say Parallels is actually very considerate with point-updates.
  
  Also I'd like to repeat what other Parallels users have said in this topic: Parallels workstation just absolutely rocks! I was a long-time VMWare fan (their software is also really good), but Parallels is even better. Every time I start my XP VM I'm hugely impressed by the performance and stability of this product. For example: XP pro boots in less then 6 seconds and runs without any noticeable performance hit for either the guest or the host OS (this is on a Dual Core iMac BTW). Just make sure you have at least 1GB of RAM, preferably more. I would even go as far as saying that Parallels workstation is one of, if not *the* best application I've ever used on any platform.
2. Re:updates by wavedeform · 2006-12-03 06:08 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Well, that can be said about pretty much any software. New OS releases (and new hardware releases) have a fairly good chance of breaking some piece of software you might have. Apple is one of the worst offenders, actually. Moving from a PowerBook to a MacBook Pro caused me to need two paid upgrades to Apple software, one if which I bought (Logic Pro @ $50), and one of which I didn't (Apple Remote Desktop @ $300).
3. Re:updates by ipjohnson · 2006-12-04 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  You've got that right. Even on my little macbook core duo (not even the 2) it runs almost as well as my XP desktop (P4 POS) at work. Even for doing things like developing with visual studio.
  
  The one thing I do have to say is make sure you have lots of ram, XP works best with atleast 768. Although today you can get a mac mini with 2 GB for $850 so its still reasonable.
Windows activation? by mccalli · 2006-12-03 05:09 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'm running this beta build right now - have been doing all day as I do the exciting task of catching up with my accounts (Quicken UK, Windows only). There's some graphical improvements to the interface - I like the better laid-out screen for picking the VM. There's still some interface no-nos (ok button on the left? Nope, shouldn't be the case on OS X) and I think the dock icon is trying just that bit too hard when it turns into a dancing egg timer as you save a machine's state, but overall things are better and things are fine.

I upgraded from a previous install, which means I had a disk image of Windows installed rather than a real partition. What I'm wondering is how Windows would cope with being booted for real on MacBook Pro hardware one moment, then booted again in Parallels another moment. Surely that would kick Windows activation into life?

Cheers,
Ian
1. Re:Windows activation? by aztracker1 · 2006-12-03 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently a few people are experiencing just that...
  
  --
  Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
2. Re:Windows activation? by shorshe · 2006-12-03 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  they say:
  NOTE! Running Boot Camp in Virtual Machine will need to reactivate your Windows XP installation. ... they don't say what happens if you boot in BootCamp again
3. Re:Windows activation? by Epicyon · 2006-12-03 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  I've been holding onto the hope that VMWare's offering will be released soon as the thought of completely rebuilding my current images from VMWare's format to Parallels isn't terribly pleasant. However, bundled with this beta is the beta for Parallels transporter, which allows you to "migrate" data from a running machine, including a running VMWare machine to a parallels format. I'm testing this out now. It doesn't appear terribly speedy at the moment. Migrating a 60GB image (with 20GB of data) it's been running about 15 minutes and still at the (visually) 3% mark. However, once this migration is complete I'll be trying the native boot to bootcamp. If both of these functions work in beta, definitely altering my plans on waiting for VMWare, otherwise I'll wait for the final release of this parallels beta version to make that change. ;)
4. Re:Windows activation? by Epicyon · 2006-12-03 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  The beta announcement mentions you'll need to reactivate:
  * Boot from BootCamp partition. Another long awaited feature that lets you boot your 32-bit Windows XP residing on Boot Camp partition directly in Parallels Desktop for Mac.
  IMPRORTANT! You need to boot in your Windows XP natively through Boot Camp and install Parallels Tools for Boot Camp package in it before your first boot in Parallels Desktop for Mac.
  NOTE! It is not possible to suspend Virtual Machine connected to Boot Camp for integrity reasons.
  NOTE! Running Boot Camp in Virtual Machine will need to reactivate your Windows XP installation.
Really good for Parallels by ronanbear · 2006-12-03 05:40 · Score: 4, Interesting

This is really good for Parallels and will be important for the company in several ways.

Obviously it is a big feature for users who might be interested in Boot Camp and Parallels. One license, keeping the same settings etc.

The thing that will bring the real benefits to Parallels though are related to development. Working with Boot Camp means that Parallels can access the Boot Camp drivers for Windows that Apple writes. Every time Apple updates their hardware they'll update Boot Camp with new drivers. This will make it much easier for Parallels to keep up with new hardware.

Boot Camp adds a driver for the touchpad that includes Apple's right click implementation. Suddenly it's in Parallels automagically. Apple ads a driver to operate the inbuilt iSight. Parallels can start using it too.

Shared documents are potentially great. Apple should work with Parallels to ensure things like the iTunes library (and iTS purchased music) is available in the Windows partition.

Apple have already said that they are not going to include virtualisation in Leopard because they are so happy with the performance of Parallels.

If necessary they'd buy Parallels to ensure that development keeps going on. They might do it anyway to reduce the costs.

--
the more they over-think the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the pipe
1. Re:Really good for Parallels by cnettel · 2006-12-03 06:05 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Native hardware drivers available doesn't mean it's a piece of cake to get it working in virtualization. It might be if you, say, was ready to give up the iSight completely in OS X, and only expose it to Parallels (then you could "simply" forward the specific hardware access, instead of providing virtualized hardware), but to get it working properly, where any app, no matter what OS it's running on, can access any piece of hardware, you need much more tinkering with the hardware on the guest and/or host side than just proper native drivers for that piece of hardware in the two environments.
Control, not command by SuperKendall · 2006-12-03 06:00 · Score: 2, Informative

It's the control key, not the Apple key, that defines a click as a righ mouse button.

And once you get use to it, you realize that chording is far better than hacking a second button onto a laptop - your hand is always resting by the key anyway, and it makes for a much larger mouse button target to hit with no confusion.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Because Mac owners buy software by SuperKendall · 2006-12-03 06:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

Writing software that requires Parallels is still cutting out a large part of the market as you have to pay for Parallels AND Windows, and the extra resources a whole XP installation running requires puts more strain on a laptop which is already constrained for resources.

I use parallels to run the things that Mac that I simply cannot any other way. When looking for software I look mac specific because it interacts better with other programs, and also makes use of many key underlying operating system features (like spell checking in text boxes)

It's this last argument that is really important - going forward more and more really nice system resources are availiable to the user of any Cocoa program (or even plain Mac app). If you distribute a Windows app to sell to Mac users under Leopard they are not geing to be able to take advanatge of Time Machine. You could get some of these features with Vista but now you are talking about hundreds of doallrs extra to run your app on a Mac - and that leaves the market wide open for competition.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Re:Thank goodness for 3rd parties by cultrhetor · 2006-12-03 06:16 · Score: 1

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion; you're also entitled to be wrong.

--
"Tu fui, ego eris" - Virgil
I don't get it... by Loco+Moped · 2006-12-03 06:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

Shows Windows applications as if they were Mac ones. Try it and enjoy best of both worlds truly at the same time.

Let me get this straight: First, I have to buy a copy of Windows, so that I can run Windows programs on my Mac?

Isn't this like paying Rosie O'Donell for sex when you're already dating Halle Berry?
1. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-03 07:34 · Score: 0
  
  Technically that is exactly what Microsoft wants you to do.
  For, however, that is exactly what I refuse to do -- and is the reason I use the Mac today.
  
  My original Mac was the Cube on a 20G drive running the [paid for] beta version. Yeah, I was little miffed and/or worried on making such a transition when I had to pay for the BETA [Cheetah 10.0]
  
  That same install has followed me by imaging the drive to a Powermac laptop, then to larger IDE 60G, then a IDE 120G inside Powermac, and now sits working on a dual processor Powermac 80G SCSI Ultra-320 system. Also in the process it was upgraded (OS) as well through Puma [10.1], Jaguar [10.2], Panther [10.3], and today with Tiger [10.4]. I am looking forward to Leopard [10.5] and don't see any issues with that upgrade and the next transfer to the Intel line. YES, there are issues with taking a booting OS from PPC to Intel, but I know what they are how to fix them ahead of time -- in this case your average use would just use the default install and go with it.
  
  Most of these things have been possible with Windows and is probably the reason you are using a Mac as well. I know I could never boot Windows from my iPod (why would I anyway? :). Yes, that is something I did during a hard drive crash to temporarily be back on "my desktop and system".
  
  I have a need for one (1) Windows application anymore and this is our accounting system. Ironically it was done in Microsoft Foxpro and even more ironic suggested by myself (a "ABM" admin). I am going to do with my desktop what Microsoft does not us to do [ever]. A Intel Mac, Parallels, and it will all be running only what is needed (Windows 2000 "Professional"). It will cost me happily a Parallels license and Microsoft will continue to get $-0- as they have for years now (from us).
  
  Posting anonymously as a coward as I don't frankly want to be on Microsoft's radar for any reason anywhere. I've read their EULA's and simply have personally agreed with myself to break the law and tell them to fuck off.
  
  Microsoft: FUCK OFF
2. Re:I don't get it... by Odineye · 2006-12-03 08:13 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Well, yes it is! But imagine if Rosie were the only one who knew how to do the twirl at the end just right - then you'd need her every once in a while just to get... specific results. Y'know - so you keep dating Hallie, but keep Rosie in the closet for those special occasions. Okay, I believe I just disgusted myself...
3. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-03 08:46 · Score: 0
  
  Posting anonymously as a coward as I don't frankly want to be on Microsoft's radar for any reason anywhere.
  I'd be more afraid of someone discovering who I really am if I had the half-coherent grammar that you do.
In some countries only 'stupid'people buy software by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-03 09:24 · Score: 0

In some circles in the Czech Republic your friends call you 'stupid' if they heard you purchased software. Money is much better spent on hardware, only retards waste it on software.

Under these circumstances switching to a given platform depends on the availability of pirated software. Mac pirated software is harder to find than windows software; pirating parallels solves this problem, you can use windows pirated software which can be obtained for nothing.

As the number of Mac users grows I expect that native Masc software would be easier to pirate.

An dont give me the lesson about Linux, in 'one-disk' countries the success of linux desktop is also due to pirated software such as Mathematica or Matlab for Linux.
Truly Amazing New Features by LKM · 2006-12-03 09:27 · Score: 2, Interesting
There are four features I just love about this release (well, there are more, but these are my main favourites):
1. You can use your BootCamp partition within Parallels (haven't tried it, dunno about any Activation issues).
2. You can "liberate" the Windows windows and make it look like you were running Windows and Mac OS at the same time, on the same screen - which looks extremely weird (here's a screenshot). I guess you could even runn more than one instance of Windows (although I have not tried that!) and mix, say, IE7 and IE6 windows. One note: All windows from a given Windows instance are in one single layer, so bringing one to the foreground brings all of them to the foreground.
3. You can use Mac OS keyboard commands in Windows (Cmd-C instead of Ctrl-C to copy, for example) - something which constantly bit me in the ass, as the Cmd-key used to call on the Windows key and open the Start menu. Cmd-L used to log you out (or something) when you want to focus the URL text field.
4. Drag-And-Drop between Windows and Mac OS. You can drag Files from a Finder window into a Windows Explorer window. Works well with the "Coherency" feature - having Windows explorers and Finder windows side-by-side and copying between them is just incredible.
All in all an utterly amazing update. I found this screencast showing some of the features.
Apple XServe? by gaspar+ilom · 2006-12-03 10:21 · Score: 1

Question:

Can Bootcamp or Parallels be used to run a IIS + win2K server on this? (Apple XServe)

Thanks.
1. Re:Apple XServe? by Sam+Ritchie · 2006-12-03 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  As I understand it, Boot Camp only supports XP Pro, not 2000 (or 2003) Server. However, you should be able to run IIS on XP. Under this solution you could not run OS X simultaneously, and there's not much advantage to having the Apple hardware over anything else.
  
  Parallels will let you run 2000 server if you want - see here for supported guest OSs. I'm not sure how you would configure network access to the virtual host, but I'm sure it can be done. I guess this could be an option if you desperately need to run IIS plus OS X services and only have a budget for one server, though personally I wouldn't recommend it.
  
  --
  This sig is false.
2. Re:Apple XServe? by drsmithy · 2006-12-03 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  Can Bootcamp or Parallels be used to run a IIS + win2K server on this? (Apple XServe)
  Yes.
3. Re:Apple XServe? by rm69990 · 2006-12-03 13:21 · Score: 1
  
  Nope. Parallels yes, boot camp no. Boot Camp only supports Windows XP.
4. Re:Apple XServe? by drsmithy · 2006-12-03 15:29 · Score: 1
  
  Nope. Parallels yes, boot camp no. Boot Camp only supports Windows XP.
  I can assure you that Boot Camp works with both Windows 2003 and Vista.
5. Re:Apple XServe? by Durandal64 · 2006-12-03 15:56 · Score: 1
  
  You can install any x86 OS you want on an x86 Mac. What BootCamp provides is a set of Mac hardware drivers for Windows XP. You don't even technically need BootCamp as long as you've got the EFI firmware patch applied. That's the real magic that lets EFI emulate BIOS and thus boot from a Windows XP CD.
6. Re:Apple XServe? by rm69990 · 2006-12-03 16:19 · Score: 1
  
  Well, as great as that is and all, if you would kindly take the time to re-read the post you originally responded to, you would most likely notice this time around that he specifically asked about Windows 2000 Server. 2000 != 2003 or Vista. :-) (I meant to put XP+ btw, not XP, but my point still stands)
7. Re:Apple XServe? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-04 08:29 · Score: 0
  
  Windows 2000 has successfully been installed with Bool Camp.
8. Re:Apple XServe? by Brandybuck · 2006-12-04 15:03 · Score: 1
  
  Can Bootcamp or Parallels be used to run a IIS + win2K server on this?
  
  Let me ask a stupid question: why would you want to?
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Coherency is cool by Eil · 2006-12-03 10:31 · Score: 1

But I'm afraid it doesn't do much for me until it supports Linux in liu of Windows. It's just virtualization, so Linux *can* be supported, right? And should such support be easier since we have all the source code already?
1. Re:Coherency is cool by mrchaotica · 2006-12-03 19:32 · Score: 1
  
  OSX's Linux compatibility layer is called "X11.app" Just run the apps directly, silly!
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
2. Re:Coherency is cool by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-07 03:28 · Score: 0
  
  It does. I am running Windows XP and Red hat 7.3 for testing an old environment in parallels right now.
Wine, CrossOver, and VMs by falconwolf · 2006-12-03 10:36 · Score: 1

Wine is not the same thing as parallels - parallels is a virtualization environment that runs the full windows xp operating system concurrently with mac os x. Wine is a from-scratch implementation of the windows API. There is a wine-derivative package for mac (crossover from codeweavers), so people can pick-and-choose the best solution for them.

I'm switching from WinTels to MacTels rsn, I plan on getting a MacBook Pro in the next couple of weeks. At first I was planning on getting Parallels to run Windows in but instead I decided to get CrossOver Mac. I don't see the need to run Windows, which I'd have to go and buy anyway but doing so would mean I'd still have to deal with both Activation and WGA. And they are why I'm switching. There's only a few Windows programs I will want to use at most, XMLSpy (if I can't find an equivilent Mac app) and various browser versions, and I can just run them in CrossOver.
Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?
1. Re:Wine, CrossOver, and VMs by JWW · 2006-12-03 11:38 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Check out Oxygen, its a cross platform XML editor.
  
  http://www.oxygenxml.com/
Linspire by falconwolf · 2006-12-03 10:44 · Score: 1

I've been wondering why a Linux distro doesn't do this automagically with WINE

Isn't that pretty much what Lindows/Linspire tried to do? As I recall, they had technical difficulties and eventually stopped promoting that feature.

Linspire now has CrossOver that can be used instead of WINE.
Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?
A Better Windows Than Windows? by gidds · 2006-12-03 10:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

This worries me severely. It's one thing to allow people to run Windows apps with some hassle (e.g. dual booting, or within a 'Windows' OS X window). But it's quite another thing to run Windows apps as first-class citizens.
After all, we know what happened to the last OS which did this: by billing itself as "a better Windows than Windows", it signed its own death warrant. After all, who'd develop a native app when it runs Windows apps so well?

--
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
1. Re:A Better Windows Than Windows? by BenjyD · 2006-12-03 21:28 · Score: 1
  
  If I understand it correctly, this is hardly running Windows apps natively, it's still got all the overhead of a virtual machine. In my experience, that means no 3D support, slower performance and large memory overheads. On my 1Gb RAM iMac, I get a lot of swapping if I use both Parallels and large Mac OS X apps at the same time.
2. Re:A Better Windows Than Windows? by IntergalacticWalrus · 2006-12-05 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  You've got it wrong, this is just a visual hack to "merge" the virtual Windows desktop into the real OS X desktop. It's still full-blown virtualization, with the entire Windows OS loaded, shitty graphical capabilities, and the usual virtualization overhead.
  
  If you want something to worry on, Codeweavers are porting the commercial Wine distribution, Crossover Office, to OS X. Wine is nowhere near perfect, but apps really run natively, unlike virtualization.
MOD PARENT TROLL OR FUNNY? by gaspar+ilom · 2006-12-03 11:32 · Score: 1

I can't believe you all fell for this!! C'mon: Gluing a 2-button-USB-mouse circuit board to your Macbook??? How 'bout using the built-in "CTRL-Click?" (Doesn't even need to be configured via the control panel -- like the two-finger-trackpad gesture.)
1. Re:MOD PARENT TROLL OR FUNNY? by oakgrove · 2006-12-03 17:10 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you, we all know about Ctrl-Click. Some people don't like having to press 2 buttons at the same time when there is a simple alternative. If you do fine, but calling people Trolls is uncalled for.
  
  --
  The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
2. Re:MOD PARENT TROLL OR FUNNY? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-03 17:15 · Score: 0
  
  OP was probably talking about when he boots into XP with bootcamp, dumbass. Control click doesn't work in XP; get a clue.
3. Re:MOD PARENT TROLL OR FUNNY? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-06 08:39 · Score: 0
  
  Get a clue? XP most certainly allows ctrl-click. With Bootcamp you must use a free util called applemouse.exe which will allow ctrl-click with a macbook keyboard.
Check out Oxygen, its a cross platform XML editor. by falconwolf · 2006-12-03 12:04 · Score: 1

Thank's for the link. I was looking for something like XMLSpy for Macs, something that checked for wellformedness and would validate without being connected to the net. Now, er when I get me MBP, I'll try out Oxygen.
Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?
fast enough for things like CAD though? by 2ms · 2006-12-03 12:05 · Score: 2, Informative

What I want to know is whether or not this thing is slick enough to permit, for example, an entire engineering shop to switch to a PC only CAD software without ditching all their Macs. I know an engineering company that is all Mac right now but the development of Mac CAD software lags and the emerged industry standards (Autocad, Pro/E, etc) are all PC only. It would be incredibly useful for many small companies, I imagine, to be able to stick with the safe, secure, Apple OS and other Apple applications that they have standardized upon,despite also needing to run PC-only industry software in order to be compatible with the outside world. This would be a matter of how much performance is available to the PC software while working in Parallels.
1. Re:fast enough for things like CAD though? by MacDaffy · 2006-12-03 12:37 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The last version of Parallels I tried had a limitation on the amount of memory you could devote to an application. This meant that the dictation software a customer of mine bought had to be installed in Boot Camp so that the application had all the resources it needed to run effectively. My recommendation is to get the most powerful processor, most memory, and largest drive you can afford (a PowerMac with dual drive would be ideal).
2. Re:fast enough for things like CAD though? by potuncle · 2006-12-03 12:53 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I wouldn't use Parallels for any professional-level CAD. Most CAD software uses the video card to render the display. Parallels does not provide accelerated graphics drivers that allow needed access to the video card, so any some-what complex designs will display very slowly. Booting into Boot Camp DOES provide native accelerated graphics card drivers.
3. Re:fast enough for things like CAD though? by 2ms · 2006-12-03 14:25 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't know this -- that the 3D hardware doesn't get utilized well in Parallels. Are you certain this is the case and is there any potential for future versions of Parellel not being handicapped in this way (ie is it intrinsically unavoidable)?
4. Re:fast enough for things like CAD though? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-03 15:05 · Score: 0
  
  They've said they're working on it, but AFAIK nobody else has done this regardless of the host OS.
5. Re:fast enough for things like CAD though? by mrchaotica · 2006-12-03 19:36 · Score: 1
  
  I know an engineering company that is all Mac right now but the development of Mac CAD software lags and the emerged industry standards (Autocad, Pro/E, etc) are all PC only.
  
  Better to stick with Mac apps and encourage everyone else to do the same; maybe the dumbasses making Windows-only apps will begin to notice and finally port their damn software!
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
trackballs by falconwolf · 2006-12-03 12:18 · Score: 1

I have memories of this odd input device. It looked very similar to a regular computer mouse, but the ball was ON TOP. I think they called it a "trackball". Oddly enough, by simply manipulating the ball with one's thumb, you get the same effect as moving the mouse across the desk, but the trackball remained stationary! I do wonder if that might be useful to you, as it could, theoretically, be placed on any surface and work just fine.

I used to like trackballs but after a while of using one I realized must of the tyme a mouse was easier for me to use. Now what I'd like is a tablet, for graphics and writing.
Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?
running Windows apps on Macs by falconwolf · 2006-12-03 12:42 · Score: 1

CrossOver doesn't support every application. In fact there is more that it doesn't support than what it does... I would suggest testing what you need to have running... Also, if you already have a windows license (that is transferable) you can use QEMU, which has made progress. I hate activation, and honestly, the increased issues and invasiveness is what is going to keep me away from vista in my home. I have a MSDN license, so my desktop is covered even, still won't be using it... ubuntu + vmware + winxp will probably be my setup for some time to come. I will probably get a MacBook Pro sometime next year myself, so vmware will be replaced with parallels, but will be keeping xp.

The only Windows app I believed I wanted to run on a Mac was XMLSpy however someone replying to a previous post of mine provided a link to the Oxygen XML editor which I'll try. So the only Windows software I know I'll want to run is IE and IE 5, 5.5, and 6 have been tested to run in CrossOver Mac. IE 7 hasn't been cleared yet but it's just coming out. For every other Windows app I use, there's a Mac equivalent.
Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?
That's all well and good, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-03 13:06 · Score: 0

MacBooks and MacBookPro's do support right mouse buttons. Tap one finger on the touch pad for left click, tap two fingers for right click

For middle click, can I tap it with my middle finger?

\me walks away grumbling about one and two button laptops.
Re:Thank goodness for 3rd parties by Strolls · 2006-12-03 14:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's always nice to see 3rd parties fix the deficiencies inherent in OS X. Namely, that it isn't Windows.
This might be posted by an AC & appear like flamebait, but it might be argued that OS X's only deficiency is that it isn't Windows.
I find OS X to be the most perfect desktop o/s I've used, so for me its only failing is that it won't run Windows programs. I have customers that would love to run Macs - they'd have less hassles & spend less time & money on technical support issues. But they're bound inexorably to one or two bespoke or proprietary apps, only available on Windows. That's the facts of the matter for me - the deficiencies inherent in OS X are that it isn't Windows.
Personally, I find this to be a pretty minor deficiency, but that's me - in particular I have a spare Windows PC around the place if I absolutely need to do something in Windows.
The parent might be a troll (or he might not be), but he has given me food for thought.
Stroller.
Re:Thank goodness for 3rd parties by Divebus · 2006-12-03 14:56 · Score: 1

Very few people I know want to run Windows. They just want to run Windows apps. Two different things.

--

Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
Win-OS/2 nostalgia by Mouth+of+Sauron · 2006-12-03 16:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

Everything old is new again. This reminds me a great deal of IBM's OS/2 Windows 3.1 emulation layer. You could run Windows applications in full screen, or in "windowed" mode. Also, you could specify that a Windows application ran in its own address space, or Windows applications could cooperatively multitask in a shared process space.

I don't want to /. anyone else's pages with a deep link, so instead here is a hyperlink to a google image search on win-os/2 to illustrate what I am talking about.

Compare some of those images to the Parallels desktop, and you'll get my drift. Welcome to the early 90s!

The comparison to OS/2 brings up another interesting question for the future of OS X. Ignoring the eerily similar name (OS 2, OS X, ha ha) how much incentive will there be for software publishers to write native OS X applications when emulation such as this exists? Back then you could get a copy of Lotus 123 for OS/2, but running Lotus 123 for Windows under win-OS/2 ran almost as well, with copy and paste support and object embedding, and etc. How many copys of 123 did Lotus sell for the OS/2 platform?

Apple has a long history of supporting compatibility products. Users have had choices ranging from Orange PC cards to SoftWindows. However, these came with somewhat of a price or performance cost. If Windows emulation on OS X becomes ubiquitous, where does that leave OS X as an application platform?

I like OS X a lot. There is an appeal for me to be able to run unix apps along side X11 apps along side OS X apps along side Windows apps. Does OS X not run the risk, however, of following OS/2, NextStep, and Be into obscurity by emulating itself out of existence? True, Apple is a hardware vendor, and they provide a vertical solution of hardware and software. Maybe OS X will survive where OS/2 did not.

Full disclosure, I am writing this from Gentoo on a Macbook Pro.
1. Re:Win-OS/2 nostalgia by mrchaotica · 2006-12-03 19:40 · Score: 1
  
  how much incentive will there be for software publishers to write native OS X applications when emulation such as this exists?
  
  Here's a better question: How badly did Windows' interface and functionality suck compared to OS/2's? Not much, I'll bet. Now, how badly does Windows' interface and functionality suck compared to OSX's? A Hell of a lot! And that's why the two situations are entirely different.
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:Check out Oxygen, its a cross platform XML edit by jrockway · 2006-12-03 17:58 · Score: 2, Informative

Even better than Oxygen is nxml-mode for emacs, written by James Clark (of expat fame).

http://www.thaiopensource.com/nxml-mode/

--
My other car is first.
Ask IBM... by xtal · 2006-12-04 00:09 · Score: 1

How seamless windows compatibility worked out for OS2.

--
..don't panic
1. Re:Ask IBM... by GreatDrok · 2006-12-04 00:31 · Score: 1
  
  "How seamless windows compatibility worked out for OS2."
  
  It's not a bad point but in this case it is not quite the same idea. Windows software isn't runable by default on a Mac, you have to make the decision and buy software to do it, and more to the point, even when it does run it isn't seamless like it was on OS2. It is definitely jarring but less than having the Windows desktop take up your whole screen. It doesn't encourage you to continue to buy Windows software, it just lets you run it in a reasonable way with better compatibility than wine but with less integration than wine does. OS X software is still way better to use than Windows software even through Parallels so the market will still prefer OS X native code.
  
  --
  "I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
Re: interface no-nos by frankie · 2006-12-04 02:55 · Score: 1

ok button on the left?

Umm... there shouldn't be an OK button AT ALL in any Mac app (according to the HIG). Dialog buttons are supposed to be VERBS. And yes, I know that several versions of iTunes violate this rule. Lord Steve is above the law.
The last operating system to do this by brokeninside · 2006-12-04 07:32 · Score: 1

The Windows 9x codebase used this very strategy.
Another difference by brokeninside · 2006-12-04 08:06 · Score: 2, Informative

OS/2 v3 came in two flavors. The full pack had a blue spine and contained the Win-OS2 runtime than ran 16 bit Windows applications somewhat seemlessly. The version with a red spine called ``OS/2 For Windows'' (truly a most horrible name) came without the 16 bin Win-OS2 runtime and could not run Windows applications unless installed on a computer that already had Windows 3.1 or 3.1.1 installed. The salient point, however, was that because IBM was either shipping the runtime with OS/2 or marketing the runtime-less version as an add on to Windows, all development shops could depend on OS2 being able to run 16 bit Windows apps.
This strategy was given up in later versions. Warp Connect and OS/2 v4 both shipped only in the full pack flavor. But by this time, Windows 95 was also out and most people were only interested in 32 bit Windows applications which wouldn't run on any flavor of OS/2.
In either case, the problem with attracting developers was most likely much larger a function of the lack of click and drool development tools. IBM's Visual Age ran like a cow compared to Microsoft's Visual Studio and I don't think any other vendor was really in the visual space at the time. (This was the bad old days of Borland's 5.x compiler that sucked canal water for building GUI apps.) Then the nail in the coffin (developer-wise) were the changes to the OS/2 v4 APIs where some API calls that were somewhat common in v2 and v3 would either trigger kill the synchronos input queue (no more keyboard or mouse) or even trigger a seg fault in the kernel. IMO, IBM ought to have shipped the EMX version of GCC with every version of OS/2. If they had done that and supported XFree86 for OS/2, they might have had a chance. On the other hand, though, disk space wasn't nearly as cheap back then. But if they had done that, OS/2 would have gotten the attention of quite a few *nix programmers.
Implementation shows through on Windows 2000... by argent · 2006-12-04 09:17 · Score: 1

With Windows 2000 the taskbar and windows are scaled up with no antialiasing, and downright ugly. It seems like this is implemented by making the Windows desktop transparent and maximizing the virtual screen... and they don't have the support for a resizable virtual screen in Windows 2000. I suppose it will work without distortion if I set the VM screen size to match my macbook screen from the start.

(why Windows 2000? Because I already own a copy of Windows 2000, and see no reason to spend an extra couple of hundred dollars when I'm only using Windows as a hosted OS to run a specific application)
All "Windows" windows stack together... by argent · 2006-12-04 09:35 · Score: 1

Continuing on with the experiment, setting the screen size to 1680x1050 on my second screen (the laptop panel) lets "coherence" work without rescaling. It's nice, but not as useful as it seems because all the "Windows" windows are still rendered into a single layer... so selecting any of them brings them all up above all the OSX windows.

I was hoping for better. An early competitor to the Citrix technology in Windows Terminal Server, NTerprise, did real window level virtualization. It operated at the GDI level rather than screen-scraping, and you could share local and remote UNIX and Windows windows on the same desktop without any clue other then rendering speed which was which.

On the other hand having the command-X/V/C copy and paste commands work consistently is a BIG boon. Now if only they'd have an option to present a 101-key layout to the virtual machine and keep the rest of the Apple command keys in the Apple world.
Potentially, with OpenGL based apps... by argent · 2006-12-04 09:40 · Score: 1

Applications that use OpenGL for 3d should be able to run, OpenGL is well enough understood and there are enough readily re-usable (open source or cheaply licensed) OpenGL implementations that a thin OpenGL layer that just passed OpenGL calls to OS X should be relatively easy to do... probably easier than emulating a 2d video card. DirectX, though, would mean running the red Queen's Race against Microsoft.
Re:Check out Oxygen, its a cross platform XML edit by falconwolf · 2006-12-04 10:10 · Score: 1

Even better than Oxygen is nxml-mode for emacs, written by James Clark (of expat fame).

Thanks, I'll check it out. I'd thought of Eclipse but I don't know if there's an xml module or extension for it.
Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?
Re:Check out Oxygen, its a cross platform XML edit by jrockway · 2006-12-04 11:34 · Score: 1

I think Oxygen is written on top of Eclipse, but it's not OSS.

--
My other car is first.
Needs an Aqua Theme for Windows XP. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-04 15:14 · Score: 0

Get rid of the ugly blue candy bar look of Windows XP, and the gray box look too ...

It needs an Aqua Theme so XP windows look more like Apple Apps...
Re:Thank goodness for 3rd parties by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-05 00:25 · Score: 0

Once you leave your cozy tax-payer-paid "academic" job, you'll see that Windows is the way to go.
Re:Check out Oxygen, its a cross platform XML edit by kabloom · 2006-12-16 17:54 · Score: 1

I'd be pretty surprised if you couldn't find a Mac app to check for wellformedness without being connected to the net. After all, xmlstarlet can do it on UNIX systems from the commandline.