 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / General / Portable Macs / September 2008Macbook Pro and Windows Questions
Hi Everyone ... I'm considering upgrading from a Powerbook G4 to a Macbook Pro. It's my understanding "Bootcamp" comes pre-installed but we have to buy Windows and then install ourselves? If this is correct, what is the best version of Windows to install? I'm a student and keep getting class-related CDs to study with and of course they're all PC only so this is one reason I'd like to upgrade. Any advice or suggetions will be greatly appreciated. Thanks much! > Hi Everyone ... > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Any advice or suggetions will be greatly appreciated. Thanks much! When you say the CDs you are given to study are "PC only" could you elaborate on this? Do these CDs contain things that normally open in such as Microsoft Office? If so they would open in the Macintosh version of Microsoft Office. A possible option is to install CrossOver which will run a great many PC apps directly on the Mac without the need for any version of Windows.  SignatureJames Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@mac.com > > Hi Everyone ... > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > possible option is to install CrossOver which will run a great many PC apps > directly on the Mac without the need for any version of Windows. No, these are specialty CDs that operate on their own. I've wanted to upgrade to a new Macbook Pro for awhile anyway. The CDs was not the only reason I was considering upgrading, but it did factor in. > > > Hi Everyone ... > > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > No, these are specialty CDs that operate on their own. As in? Actual examples would help. SignatureSend responses to the relevant news group rather than to me, as E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR > As in? Actual examples would help. Pharmacy Technician study CDs ... does that help? > Hi Everyone ... > > I'm considering upgrading from a Powerbook G4 to a Macbook Pro. > > It's my understanding "Bootcamp" comes pre-installed but we have to buy > Windows and then install ourselves? Yes. > If this is correct, what is the best version of Windows to install? The best version of Windows to install depends on your needs. Check the system requirements for your Windows software and you will have your answer. > I'm a student and keep getting class-related CDs to study with and of > course they're all PC only so this is one reason I'd like to upgrade. > > Any advice or suggetions will be greatly appreciated. Thanks much! Ask your teachers or your school's computer lab people what they recommend. > > Hi Everyone ... > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Yes. Comes in the package. Not preinstalled, because that's really not meaningful without actually having the copy of Windows in-hand. G Signature"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?" - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix > > > Hi Everyone ... > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > G YES, I understand this ... that is why I'm asking for suggestions as to which version of Windows to install. So far the people I know with PCs seem to say "XP" instead of "Vista" but I see various versions of XP listed when I search. Sure glad I'm a Mac user because it seems so much less confusing OS-wise. Well, that is up until upgrading to an Intel Mac! LOL > > > > Hi Everyone ... > > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > YES, I understand this ... Didn't realize that, since you said you were under the impression that '"Bootcamp" comes pre-installed' and then Shawn answered with a blanket 'Yes.' I just wanted to be sure you knew that you did have to actually do some prep-work before you're even ready to put Windows on. > that is why I'm asking for suggestions as to > which version of Windows to install. > > So far the people I know with PCs seem to say "XP" instead of "Vista" > but I see various versions of XP listed when I search. If there's specific software you intend to use on Windows, and you have no *real* expectation of adding to that list in the future, I'd suggest you look at the system requirements of that software and pick the lightest-weight version of Windows that will actually run the programs. For day-to-day use, you'd definitely want XP Pro, but if you've got a fixed list of software that you'll be using and they'll all work with XP Home that's cheaper and will consume fewer resources on your system, leaving more for Mac software. G Signature"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?" - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix > If there's specific software you intend to use on Windows, and you have > no *real* expectation of adding to that list in the future, I'd suggest [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Home that's cheaper and will consume fewer resources on your system, > leaving more for Mac software. Right now I have no specific Windows software in mind. At this time I mostly want to use school-related study CDs that have been issued to us. They do not have any packaging so I have no system requirements info to refer to. I know if I ask instructor he won't really know the answer as he's not all that computer-savvy. Are there major differences between XP Pro and XP Home? I mean, besides price? ;-) > Are there major differences between XP Pro and XP Home? I mean, besides > price? ;-) I'll just throw in here that very often, you can purchase "media only" copies of Windows XP meant for installers or people building their own custom PC systems. Those are often much cheaper than the retail boxed copies of Windows XP, and they also happen to work just fine in virtualization applications such as vmWare Fusion. Here are some examples: <http://preview.tinyurl.com/3bleh2> I've purchased Windows XP Pro like this from NewEgg in the past, and am running it in vmWare Fusion fully activated. "OEM" versions from other sources are a little suspect, IMO. Be caution of what you buy. Make sure it comes with a Windows Genuine sticker and is not used (previously activated) for best results. SignatureSend responses to the relevant news group rather than to me, as E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR >So far the people I know with PCs seem to say "XP" instead of "Vista" >but I see various versions of XP listed when I search. I know this is an old post, but just wanted to add, I found Windows Vista Ultimate very nice. Since only running a few programs, hoping it will continue to run smoothly. mailto: awilliamson3771@charter.net > I'm considering upgrading from a Powerbook G4 to a Macbook Pro. You'll enjoy the upgrade immensly, I think. : ) > It's my understanding "Bootcamp" comes pre-installed but we have to buy > Windows and then install ourselves? Boot Camp is simply a drive formatting utility that lets you create Windows (FAT32, NTFS) file systems on hard drives inside (or connected to) your Mac. The support needed to boot Windows is built into every currently-shipping Intel Mac. To use it, you'll need to create a Windows If you wish to use Boot Camp, you should know that it will require that you restart your Mac to boot into Windows, and restart again to boot back into Mac OS X. With Boot Camp, Windows applications cannot run along side Mac OS X applications. There are alternative solutions to Boot Camp that allow you to run Windows applications right along side Mac OS X applications *without* having to reboot! Another benefit is that they allow you to create virtual hard disk files on which to install Windows, which means you don't have bother with partitioning your Mac hard drive or buying an eternal hard drive. The virtual hard disk files are similar to disk images you already use on your Mac. They are simple files in the file system. Many Mac users find these alternative solutions preferable to dual-booting with Boot Camp. These solutions are called "virtualization" solutions. Virtualization solutions have one major caveat: While they run most Windows applications at full speed just as if you were booted into Windows (and sometimes even faster!), neither offers much support in the way of hardware-accelerated 3D video. This means that Windows applications that use hardware acceleration will not perform as well as they would if you booted directly into Windows with Boot Camp. The good news is the two classes of Windows applications that require 3D video acceleration are Windows games and CAD/3D modeling applications. If you don't plan on running such applications, I highly recommend you consider using a virtualization solution to run Windows for the obvious benefits - mainly not having to reboot or partition hard drives. Parallels Desktop: <http://www.parallels.com/en/desktop/> vmWare Fusion: <http://www.vmware.com/products/fusion/> Feature-wise, the two are very similar. In general, I've found that vmWare Fusion is more no-frills and is compatible with more USB devices, while Parallels offers more eye candy, such as the spinning cube animation similar to what you see when you use fast user switching in Mac OS X. > If this is correct, what is the best version of Windows to install? You'll find most will tell you Windows XP - hands down - because it performs better and does not utilize as much of the hardware to do the same work. But you should also consider the system requirements of whatever Windows applications you plan to run. If one or more require Vista, you may be stuck with running Vista. > I'm a student and keep getting class-related CDs to study with and of > course they're all PC only so this is one reason I'd like to upgrade. It may be that some of these supposed Windows-only CDs are not actually Windows-only. If you give us a list, we can tell you more. SignatureSend responses to the relevant news group rather than to me, as E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR Dear friends: >> I'm considering upgrading from a Powerbook G4 to a Macbook Pro. > [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] >It may be that some of these supposed Windows-only CDs are not actually >Windows-only. If you give us a list, we can tell you more. There is another alternative, "CrossOver for Mac", that it has some advantages and some disadvantages. The advantages are that you don't need a MsWindows License to run Windows programs, it is faster than VMWare running Windows programs, it uses the same file system as the Mac, so there is no need to copy files from the Mac side to the Windows side, it uses the same look and feel as a Mac, and its files are automatically backuped by Apple's Time Machine. The disadvantage is that not all the Windows Programs run under CrossOver, but *most of them* (90%?) do, including MsOffice 2003 for Windows and many others. As a matter of fact, I am posting this message using Forte Agent for Windows under CrossOver for Mac. Because you can test CrossOver for a month without buying the program, I would suggest you to test it, and to check if your Windows Programs appear in their list of checked programs. Most probably, they will do it. Thanks Juan I. Cahis Santiago de Chile (South America) Note: Please forgive me for my bad English, I am trying to improve it! > There is another alternative, "CrossOver for Mac", that it has some > advantages and some disadvantages. The advantages are that you don't [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > appear in their list of checked programs. Most probably, they will do > it. Thanks much for the info on CrossOver for Mac. I was unaware of this program. I will take a look at it as well. > You'll enjoy the upgrade immensly, I think. : ) I did buy a Macbook Pro and I'm sure once I get it set up I will be extremely pleased. Especially with more processor speed and increased RAM. I've upgraded to 4gig RAM. > If you wish to use Boot Camp, you should know that it will require that > you restart your Mac to boot into Windows, and restart again to boot > back into Mac OS X. With Boot Camp, Windows applications cannot run > along side Mac OS X applications. > > There are alternative solutions to Boot Camp <snip> I did read up that I need to use Boot Camp in order to set up. I also read about Paraells and VMFusion. I purchased a copy of VMWare Fusion. How much HD space should be used to partition for Windows? > Virtualization solutions have one major caveat: While they run most > Windows applications at full speed just as if you were booted into [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > using a virtualization solution to run Windows for the obvious benefits > - mainly not having to reboot or partition hard drives. I have no plans on playing gams or using CAD/3D software. I've never been much of a gamer, even on the Mac. So it sounds like VMWare Fusion will work well. Thanks though for the additional information. If I should decide to run any game programs in the future, I'll remember to boot directly into Windows from Boot Camp. > Feature-wise, the two are very similar. In general, I've found that > vmWare Fusion is more no-frills and is compatible with more USB devices, > while Parallels offers more eye candy, such as the spinning cube > animation similar to what you see when you use fast user switching in > Mac OS X. I read up on both and came to conclusion that VMWare Fusion sounded like the way to go. Thanks for your input on the two. > You'll find most will tell you Windows XP - hands down - because it > performs better and does not utilize as much of the hardware to do the > same work. But you should also consider the system requirements of > whatever Windows applications you plan to run. If one or more require > Vista, you may be stuck with running Vista. Yes, so far all PC people I know say XP. But now I wonder if Pro or Home. Have no idea what the difference is besides price. Amazing how many versions of Windows OS compared to how Mac OS releases are handled. Pretty crazy! > It may be that some of these supposed Windows-only CDs are not actually > Windows-only. If you give us a list, we can tell you more. They are indeed only Windows only. I tried opening on Mac and the only files on them are EXE files. They are Pharmacy Technician Study CDs, and also some study and informational CDs from specific hospitals and retail pharmacies. Thanks again for your input, it's much appreciated! > > You'll enjoy the upgrade immensly, I think. : ) > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I did read up that I need to use Boot Camp in order to set up. Not if you want to use vmWare Fusion or Parallels Desktop , you don't. : ) > I also > read about Paraells and VMFusion. I purchased a copy of VMWare Fusion. > > How much HD space should be used to partition for Windows? Whatever suits you best. If you use vmWare Fusion, you don't have to bother with partitioning your hard drive, since Fusion will just create a file of the right size to use as a virtual hard drive image. I typically use 20-40 GB for my virtual hard disks. > > Virtualization solutions have one major caveat: While they run most > > Windows applications at full speed just as if you were booted into [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > been much of a gamer, even on the Mac. So it sounds like VMWare Fusion > will work well. In that case, yep - it'll run most everything you throw at it at apparent full speed. You'll be impressed / pleased! > Thanks though for the additional information. If I should decide to run > any game programs in the future, I'll remember to boot directly into > Windows from Boot Camp. That will entails creating a Windows boot partition on a hard drive as well, which may be a bit of an inconvenience for you. Just kep that in mind. > > Feature-wise, the two are very similar. In general, I've found that > > vmWare Fusion is more no-frills and is compatible with more USB devices, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Yes, so far all PC people I know say XP. I'm one of those "PC people". I just happen to be a Mac user as well. : ) I think a lot of people assume if you are a Mac user, you must not have much experience with Windows, Linux, Solaris, and other operating systems. For some of us, nothing could be further from the truth. ; ) > But now I wonder if Pro or > Home. Have no idea what the difference is besides price. The big glaring difference that *I* happen to care about it that Pro has a lot of the networking support that I need to connect and interface with the network of my corporate employer. See if this helps you get a better idea: <http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp_home_pro.asp> > Amazing how many versions of Windows OS compared to how Mac OS releases > are handled. Pretty crazy! [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and also some study and informational CDs from specific hospitals and > retail pharmacies. Ah - that's a shame. > Thanks again for your input, it's much appreciated! Any time! : ) SignatureSend responses to the relevant news group rather than to me, as E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR Dear friends: >> You'll enjoy the upgrade immensly, I think. : ) > [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > >Thanks again for your input, it's much appreciated! Strictly speaking, you don't need BootCamp to use VMWare Fusion or Parallels Desktop, but I see several advantages to use it. First, your data is on a real disk partition instead of a simulated disk partition, and this is a good measure to protect your data, the most valuable asset in your computer. Real disk partitions are the standard way where any operating system store valuable data. Secondly, real disk partitions are faster than simulated disk partitions, and they need less care to optimize them. I don't have years of experience using VMWare Fusion for Mac, but I have a lot of years of experience using VMWare for other platforms, and in order to have a good disk access in their simulated disk partitions you should periodically do a compacting and defragmenting process on them. And these processes aren't without any risk. Finally, real disk partitions don't disturb Apple's Time Machine (Apple's backup on OSX), and simulated disk partitions (which are simple OSX files) do, unless you explicitly exclude them in Time Machine's settings. Thanks Juan I. Cahis Santiago de Chile (South America) Note: Please forgive me for my bad English, I am trying to improve it! > Strictly speaking, you don't need BootCamp to use VMWare Fusion or > Parallels Desktop, but I see several advantages to use it. First, your > data is on a real disk partition instead of a simulated disk > partition, and this is a good measure to protect your data, the most > valuable asset in your computer. Real disk partitions are the standard > way where any operating system store valuable data. If a hard disk dies, every partition on that drive dies with it. Virtual machine disk images, on the other hand, can be copied anywhere and backed up just like any other file. Also, you can expand disk images without having to repartition your hard drive. ; ) To me, the drawbacks of real partitions are far worse than disk images. > Secondly, real disk partitions are faster than simulated disk > partitions, and they need less care to optimize them. While real hardware is a bit faster, when it comes to vmWare Fusion performance, it's not *that* much faster (see the link below). > I don't have > years of experience using VMWare Fusion for Mac, but I have a lot of > years of experience using VMWare for other platforms, and in order to > have a good disk access in their simulated disk partitions you should > periodically do a compacting and defragmenting process on them. And > these processes aren't without any risk. The numbers show vmWare's disk performance is very close to native disk performance: <http://tinyurl.com/2egwwy> Parallels Desktop, on the other hand, leaves a lot to be desired, and could use some improvement. > Finally, real disk partitions don't disturb Apple's Time Machine > (Apple's backup on OSX), and simulated disk partitions (which are > simple OSX files) do, unless you explicitly exclude them in Time > Machine's settings. Huh? Virtual Machine disk images don't "disturb" the operation of Time Machine in the slightest. Time Machine is able to back up virtual disk images just fine. The only drawback is that they are large files, so if you have a 40 GB disk image, Time Machine backups can add up. But Time Machine is designed to automatically trim old files from the backup when it runs low on space on the backup volume. SignatureSend responses to the relevant news group rather than to me, as E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR > > Secondly, real disk partitions are faster than simulated disk > > partitions, and they need less care to optimize them. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Parallels Desktop, on the other hand, leaves a lot to be desired, and > could use some improvement. More benchmarks here: <http://tinyurl.com/yvfy9k> SignatureSend responses to the relevant news group rather than to me, as E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR Dear friends: >> Finally, real disk partitions don't disturb Apple's Time Machine >> (Apple's backup on OSX), and simulated disk partitions (which are [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Machine is designed to automatically trim old files from the backup when >it runs low on space on the backup volume. That's the problem. Even if you only boot your Windows Virtual Machine that it uses a simulated disk partition (an OSX file), and "do nothing", Time Machine will detect your 40 GB as modified, and it will backup it again. That will take a lot of time, and even that Time Machine can automatically delete the old copies, you will spend a lot of GB in your backup hard disk with some outdated copies. Another issue that I have not tested, is the *Windows* consistence of a backup of a simulated windows partition that it was backuped by Time Machine when the related Windows Virtual Machine was running. Do you have any experience regarding this issue? What happens with the backup that Time Machine did just when Windows was modifying the registry, for example? Thanks Juan I. Cahis Santiago de Chile (South America) Note: Please forgive me for my bad English, I am trying to improve it! > Dear friends: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Machine can automatically delete the old copies, you will spend a lot > of GB in your backup hard disk with some outdated copies. Not a problem. I have a large backup drive. Hard drive space is cheap these days. If you are buying a hard drive, chances are you can afford a very large one. Also, I don't find it taking all that long to back up mine. > Another issue that I have not tested, is the *Windows* consistence of > a backup of a simulated windows partition that it was backuped by Time > Machine when the related Windows Virtual Machine was running. Do you > have any experience regarding this issue? What happens with the backup > that Time Machine did just when Windows was modifying the registry, > for example? Don't know, and don't care, to be honest. SignatureSend responses to the relevant news group rather than to me, as E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR Dear friends: >> Dear friends: >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > >Don't know, and don't care, to be honest. Well, that was the reason of my recommendation to exclude simulated windows partitions from Time Machine. If it is not sure that Time Machine backups of a running Windows simulated partition will be OK for restoring purposes, and taking in consideration that their backups could take maybe 40GB or more, it seems to me a better choice to exclude them and to look for another backup alternative. MsWindows disk imaging backup programs, like Ghost or TrueImage, use a special API developed by Microsoft to backup working Windows installations, and that API guarantees the Registry integrity. Time Machine cannot use this API because it is blind of what happens inside the running Windows Virtual Machine. Thanks Juan I. Cahis Santiago de Chile (South America) Note: Please forgive me for my bad English, I am trying to improve it! > Dear friends: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > could take maybe 40GB or more, it seems to me a better choice to > exclude them and to look for another backup alternative. I guess I should have been more clear: I've restored virtual disk images several times from both Retrospect and simple Finder file copy backups with zero problems. Whatever issue you think might affect Time Machine backups almost certainly would affect Retrospect and file copy backups as well. As far as I can tell, there are no problems. Without evidence to the contrary, I'll continue to assume they are just fine, as they have worked for me. > MsWindows disk imaging backup programs, like Ghost or TrueImage, use a > special API developed by Microsoft to backup working Windows > installations, and that API guarantees the Registry integrity. Time > Machine cannot use this API because it is blind of what happens inside > the running Windows Virtual Machine. Virtual disk images are cached just like anything else - meaning when you back one up, you're going to get a snapshot of the state of the disk image before any cached data is syncronized to the disk image file. This holds true for *any* backup scheme - possibly with the exception of the Windows APIs you mention above, but even then, I'm sure there are cases where it's possible to end up with a backup that is not entirely current. Regardless, this isn't something I'd lose sleep over, and it's certainly not something I'd use to justify whether or not to use a virtual disk image. There are pros and cons to partitions, just as there are pros and cons to virtual disk images. I think we've pretty well outlined thm in this thread. Let the OP decide. : ) SignatureSend responses to the relevant news group rather than to me, as E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR Dear friends: >> Dear friends: >> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >to virtual disk images. I think we've pretty well outlined thm in this >thread. Let the OP decide. : ) That's right!!!!!! :-) :-) :-) Thanks Juan I. Cahis Santiago de Chile (South America) Note: Please forgive me for my bad English, I am trying to improve it! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.