Getting viruses are just as easy regardless of which method you use to run windows. Thats because obtaining viruses are 100% user error.
As both a windows and mac user then I have to say that viruses are NOT the problem that mac fanatics like to play them up to be. Yes, its better to not have to worry about them, but if you've got any common sense then its easy to avoid. The last virus Ive ever had on ANY of my systems is almost a decade ago when a friend used his virus-laden floppy drive. Other than that our entire family knows what to open and what not to.
If you mean that people haven't done everything they can do prevent transmission of a virus to their computer, I would agree. However, how realistic is that? How realisitc is it to say that a car accident is your fault no matter what because you didn't do what you needed to do to prevent it?
"We are continuing our efforts for bringing you even more feature-full product and we are making our latest Parallels Desktop for Mac Beta Build 3036 early available to you. It will be one more FREE update of the currently available version."
Does this mean we'll be paying for updates later?
Parallels has always stated that major upgrades (i.e., from version 2.x which is the current version of Parallels Desktop for Mac to version 3.0) will be paid upgrades. They've implied that there will be some form of upgrade pricing.
According to Parallels, the next major version is due out early next year (1st quarter?) and is supposed to include USB 2.0 support, 64-bit virtualization, and 3D accelerated graphics.
Supposedly, it is. Only one OS can have control of it at once. Makes sense when you think about it. OS X still controls the machine. The virtual machine is really just riding piggyback. Which OS should control the GPU?
If that turns out to by the piggyback OS, then none of OS X's graphics functions will work. Uh oh!
SOLUTION: Dual core GPUs!
Each OS can have it's own GPU.
or in a Mac Pro it could have its own graphics card in another slot.
It means the same Windows installation in Boot Camp can be booted up and used in Parallels, so you don't have to have two seperate installations! This is SOOO COOOL! I've been waiting for this! Thank you Parallels!!!!
This is the killer feature many have been waiting for.
I have a 120GB HD in my MBP but did not want to have two seperate installations of XP taking up precious space on my drive.
So I opted to use just Parallels and get rid of the bootcamp partition.
Under the old scheme many were forced to pick one or the other.
Now I can enjoy the best of both worlds without having to sacrifice twice the hard drive space!
"Latest Build of Parallels Desktop now supports direct graphic card acceleration"
That is when things are going to blow up. Not just on these boards but everywhere. My prediction, the new cool thing for PC gamers will actually be a Mac.
I think that will only be the case when virtual machines don't have a Ram limitation. Otherwise you will still see some slowdown compared to Bootcamp. I'm waiting for it too but I also don't have high hopes for it. I fail to see how the Parallels team can pull it off when virtualization companies tried for years and didn't succeed. Having said that, I'm sure Connectix managed to get the Voodoo gfx cards working with Virtual PC so we'll have to wait and see. It was supposed to happen this side of the new year though and time is drawing tight.
One thing that worries me about the Bootcamp support is that it will likely encourage users to use Bootcamp and I think they will eventually see there's not much difference between rebooting into Windows and booting up Parallels. They may then just forget Parallels altogether.
Another major enhancement in the new version -- labeled Parallels Desktop for Mac Beta Build 3036 -- will allow a pre-installed Apple Boot Camp partition with Windows XP to be used as a virtual hard disk drive. Users of the software will be able to boot from that Boot Camp partition directly from within Parallels Desktop, forgoing a restart.
OK, since Boot Camp is running Windows directly on the Intel chip...not through virtualization/emulation...and since Parallels will now allow you to run Boot Camp in its window, wouldn't you be running Windows without virtualization/emulation?
It's not "running bootcamp in a window" - bootcamp is just a partitioning application plus a set of drivers that you can install in Windows. All this new parallels will do is save hard drive space by allowing you to use the copy of Windows you already have installed on the separate partition, rather than installing two copies of Windows. That is a Very Good Thing (right now I have two copies of windows on my Mac), it's just not what you're talking about.
I fail to see how the Parallels team can pull it off when virtualization companies tried for years and didn't succeed. Having said that, I'm sure Connectix managed to get the Voodoo gfx cards working with Virtual PC so we'll have to wait and see. It was supposed to happen this side of the new year though and time is drawing tight.
Intel's upcoming Virtualization for Directed I/O (Intel VT-d) technology is supposed to provide better performance by allowing you to assign physical devices to virtual machines.
I have a quick review of the new beta with a few screen shots (the most interesting of which is at the end of the article, showing Windows XP apps and Mac apps side by side using the new Coherence feature of Parallels): http://www.gigoblog.com/
It's not "running bootcamp in a window" - bootcamp is just a partitioning application plus a set of drivers that you can install in Windows. All this new parallels will do is save hard drive space by allowing you to use the copy of Windows you already have installed on the separate partition, rather than installing two copies of Windows. That is a Very Good Thing, it's just not what you're talking about.
I don't run either so pardon my ignorance on how it all works. I still come to the same question, however. It would seem that Boot Camp alone would not be an issue with Vista's licensing issues...assuming, of course, that Microsoft doesn't specify anything more than they have already. If you REBOOT, you are running Windows on a real PC. Therefore, it would seem that any version of Vista would be allowed under Boot Camp.
Now, if you're accessing Boot Camp through Parallels while under OS X, would this change anything? Is the fact that you're able to switch between OSs ON THE FLY using Parallels the feature that makes this a true virtual machine and therefore subject to MS's licensing issues? Again, I'm basing this on MS's current wording in their license.
Is the fact that you're able to switch between OSs ON THE FLY using Parallels the feature that makes this a true virtual machine and therefore subject to MS's licensing issues?
Yes. If the license prevents running Vista in a virtual machine, and you're running Vista under Parallels, then you're running it in a virtual machine and thus violating the license. It doesn't matter whether Vista was installed on a separate partition or as an image on the Mac partition. It's still running virtually.
Yes. If the license prevents running Vista in a virtual machine, and you're running Vista under Parallels, then you're running it in a virtual machine and thus violating the license. It doesn't matter whether Vista was installed on a separate partition or as an image on the Mac partition. It's still running virtually.
All the more reason to stay away from Vista.
Makes sense. Thanks. So I would infer then that running Vista with Boot Camp would not be a virtual machine issue; you should be able to run any version. Do you agree?
Of course, there is the whole other issue of the insane hardware requirements of Vista. This alone may make people just stick with XP.
My prediction, the new cool thing for PC gamers will actually be a Mac.
That just isn't going to happen any time soon. The world of PC gaming is dominated by people who build their own PC and live to squeeze small but measurable performance increases out of their systems.
Apple has only one box you can configure for gaming and it's way too expensive as a base box. Gamers and other PC enthusiasts want to be able to customize everything whereas Apple doesn't let you fiddle with anything. It makes for a great out-of-box experience, but it's never going to satisfy the hard core, trend setting PC users who experiment with voltages and bus speeds to drive every component just below the point of failure. They demand choice in every component and Apple just doesn't offer much of anything.
Here's a quick comparison:
Apple: logic board offers zero configuration, no optimization
PC: 20 different brands, fine tune to your heart's content, overclock anything
Apple: Xeon processors (designed and priced for servers)
PC: Core2 Duo Conroe and Athlon64 X2 (designed and priced for home PCs)
Apple: dual channel, high latency FB-DIMMs
PC: dual channel PC2-6400 - faster and cheaper than Mac Pro
Apple: AMD x1900 video card with lower specs than PC version
PC: Full catalog of AMD and nVidia cards including bleeding edge performance and SLI
If Apple put out a mid-range box utilizing the most optimized price/performance ratios for CPU and RAM, offer SLI support and work with AMD and nVidia to get support for a wider range of video cards, maybe then the gamers would realize that the hours spent building and modding their boxes with neon tubes and color changing LEDs, and the further hours wasted squeezing out a 4% performance improvement could be spent actually playing their games.
My prediction, the new cool thing for PC gamers will actually be a Mac.
That just isn't going to happen any time soon. The world of PC gaming is dominated by people who build their own PC and live to squeeze small but measurable performance increases out of their systems.
Apple has only one box you can configure for gaming and it's way too expensive as a base box. Gamers and other PC enthusiasts want to be able to customize everything whereas Apple doesn't let you fiddle with anything. It makes for a great out-of-box experience, but it's never going to satisfy the hard core, trend setting PC users who experiment with voltages and bus speeds to drive every component just below the point of failure. They demand choice in every component and Apple just doesn't offer much of anything.
Here's a quick comparison:
Apple: logic board offers zero configuration, no optimization
PC: 20 different brands, fine tune to your heart's content, overclock anything
Apple: Xeon processors (designed and priced for servers)
PC: Core2 Duo Conroe and Athlon64 X2 (designed and priced for home PCs)
Apple: dual channel, high latency FB-DIMMs
PC: dual channel PC2-6400 - faster and cheaper than Mac Pro
Apple: AMD x1900 video card with lower specs than PC version
PC: Full catalog of AMD and nVidia cards including bleeding edge performance and SLI
If Apple put out a mid-range box utilizing the most optimized price/performance ratios for CPU and RAM, offer SLI support and work with AMD and nVidia to get support for a wider range of video cards, maybe then the gamers would realize that the hours spent building and modding their boxes with neon tubes and color changing LEDs, and the further hours wasted squeezing out a 4% performance improvement could be spent actually playing their games.
Getting viruses are just as easy regardless of which method you use to run windows. Thats because obtaining viruses are 100% user error.
As both a windows and mac user then I have to say that viruses are NOT the problem that mac fanatics like to play them up to be. Yes, its better to not have to worry about them, but if you've got any common sense then its easy to avoid. The last virus Ive ever had on ANY of my systems is almost a decade ago when a friend used his virus-laden floppy drive. Other than that our entire family knows what to open and what not to.
actually they are still a problem. if it was "common" sense then viruses wouldn't be so widespread. perhaps viruses and spyware aren't an issue for you on your windows machine, but they are an issue at large. my father has viruses all over his damn windows computer and he has a doctorate in physics. most people are just not diligent about how they run their computers. only very technologically savvy users ever say that it's "common" sense to avoid viruses on windows. the fact that so many computers are infected proves that wrong outright.
Comments
Getting viruses are just as easy regardless of which method you use to run windows. Thats because obtaining viruses are 100% user error.
As both a windows and mac user then I have to say that viruses are NOT the problem that mac fanatics like to play them up to be. Yes, its better to not have to worry about them, but if you've got any common sense then its easy to avoid. The last virus Ive ever had on ANY of my systems is almost a decade ago when a friend used his virus-laden floppy drive. Other than that our entire family knows what to open and what not to.
If you mean that people haven't done everything they can do prevent transmission of a virus to their computer, I would agree. However, how realistic is that? How realisitc is it to say that a car accident is your fault no matter what because you didn't do what you needed to do to prevent it?
"We are continuing our efforts for bringing you even more feature-full product and we are making our latest Parallels Desktop for Mac Beta Build 3036 early available to you. It will be one more FREE update of the currently available version."
Does this mean we'll be paying for updates later?
Parallels has always stated that major upgrades (i.e., from version 2.x which is the current version of Parallels Desktop for Mac to version 3.0) will be paid upgrades. They've implied that there will be some form of upgrade pricing.
According to Parallels, the next major version is due out early next year (1st quarter?) and is supposed to include USB 2.0 support, 64-bit virtualization, and 3D accelerated graphics.
Supposedly, it is. Only one OS can have control of it at once. Makes sense when you think about it. OS X still controls the machine. The virtual machine is really just riding piggyback. Which OS should control the GPU?
If that turns out to by the piggyback OS, then none of OS X's graphics functions will work. Uh oh!
SOLUTION: Dual core GPUs!
Each OS can have it's own GPU.
or in a Mac Pro it could have its own graphics card in another slot.
It means the same Windows installation in Boot Camp can be booted up and used in Parallels, so you don't have to have two seperate installations! This is SOOO COOOL! I've been waiting for this! Thank you Parallels!!!!
This is the killer feature many have been waiting for.
I have a 120GB HD in my MBP but did not want to have two seperate installations of XP taking up precious space on my drive.
So I opted to use just Parallels and get rid of the bootcamp partition.
Under the old scheme many were forced to pick one or the other.
Now I can enjoy the best of both worlds without having to sacrifice twice the hard drive space!
WooHoo!
Man, can't wait until the headline reads
"Latest Build of Parallels Desktop now supports direct graphic card acceleration"
That is when things are going to blow up. Not just on these boards but everywhere. My prediction, the new cool thing for PC gamers will actually be a Mac.
I think that will only be the case when virtual machines don't have a Ram limitation. Otherwise you will still see some slowdown compared to Bootcamp. I'm waiting for it too but I also don't have high hopes for it. I fail to see how the Parallels team can pull it off when virtualization companies tried for years and didn't succeed. Having said that, I'm sure Connectix managed to get the Voodoo gfx cards working with Virtual PC so we'll have to wait and see. It was supposed to happen this side of the new year though and time is drawing tight.
One thing that worries me about the Bootcamp support is that it will likely encourage users to use Bootcamp and I think they will eventually see there's not much difference between rebooting into Windows and booting up Parallels. They may then just forget Parallels altogether.
Another major enhancement in the new version -- labeled Parallels Desktop for Mac Beta Build 3036 -- will allow a pre-installed Apple Boot Camp partition with Windows XP to be used as a virtual hard disk drive. Users of the software will be able to boot from that Boot Camp partition directly from within Parallels Desktop, forgoing a restart.
OK, since Boot Camp is running Windows directly on the Intel chip...not through virtualization/emulation...and since Parallels will now allow you to run Boot Camp in its window, wouldn't you be running Windows without virtualization/emulation?
It's not "running bootcamp in a window" - bootcamp is just a partitioning application plus a set of drivers that you can install in Windows. All this new parallels will do is save hard drive space by allowing you to use the copy of Windows you already have installed on the separate partition, rather than installing two copies of Windows. That is a Very Good Thing (right now I have two copies of windows on my Mac), it's just not what you're talking about.
I fail to see how the Parallels team can pull it off when virtualization companies tried for years and didn't succeed. Having said that, I'm sure Connectix managed to get the Voodoo gfx cards working with Virtual PC so we'll have to wait and see. It was supposed to happen this side of the new year though and time is drawing tight.
Intel's upcoming Virtualization for Directed I/O (Intel VT-d) technology is supposed to provide better performance by allowing you to assign physical devices to virtual machines.
It's not "running bootcamp in a window" - bootcamp is just a partitioning application plus a set of drivers that you can install in Windows. All this new parallels will do is save hard drive space by allowing you to use the copy of Windows you already have installed on the separate partition, rather than installing two copies of Windows. That is a Very Good Thing, it's just not what you're talking about.
I don't run either so pardon my ignorance on how it all works. I still come to the same question, however. It would seem that Boot Camp alone would not be an issue with Vista's licensing issues...assuming, of course, that Microsoft doesn't specify anything more than they have already. If you REBOOT, you are running Windows on a real PC. Therefore, it would seem that any version of Vista would be allowed under Boot Camp.
Now, if you're accessing Boot Camp through Parallels while under OS X, would this change anything? Is the fact that you're able to switch between OSs ON THE FLY using Parallels the feature that makes this a true virtual machine and therefore subject to MS's licensing issues? Again, I'm basing this on MS's current wording in their license.
Getting viruses are just as easy regardless of which method you use to run windows. Thats because obtaining viruses are 100% user error.
What about when it installs itself without your knowledge, as is the case with adware and spyware.
What about when it installs itself without your knowledge, as is the case with adware and spyware.
That means the user is running unsafe software such as IE, Outlook, Windows Messenger or some other malware carrier...
Is the fact that you're able to switch between OSs ON THE FLY using Parallels the feature that makes this a true virtual machine and therefore subject to MS's licensing issues?
Yes. If the license prevents running Vista in a virtual machine, and you're running Vista under Parallels, then you're running it in a virtual machine and thus violating the license. It doesn't matter whether Vista was installed on a separate partition or as an image on the Mac partition. It's still running virtually.
All the more reason to stay away from Vista.
Yes. If the license prevents running Vista in a virtual machine, and you're running Vista under Parallels, then you're running it in a virtual machine and thus violating the license. It doesn't matter whether Vista was installed on a separate partition or as an image on the Mac partition. It's still running virtually.
All the more reason to stay away from Vista.
Makes sense. Thanks. So I would infer then that running Vista with Boot Camp would not be a virtual machine issue; you should be able to run any version. Do you agree?
Of course, there is the whole other issue of the insane hardware requirements of Vista. This alone may make people just stick with XP.
So I would infer then that running Vista with Boot Camp would not be a virtual machine issue; you should be able to run any version. Do you agree?
I would agree. As far as I know, the Vista restrictions only apply to virtualization, and under Boot Camp, there is no virtualization.
I would agree. As far as I know, the Vista restrictions only apply to virtualization, and under Boot Camp, there is no virtualization.
Thanks, vocaro.
My prediction, the new cool thing for PC gamers will actually be a Mac.
That just isn't going to happen any time soon. The world of PC gaming is dominated by people who build their own PC and live to squeeze small but measurable performance increases out of their systems.
Apple has only one box you can configure for gaming and it's way too expensive as a base box. Gamers and other PC enthusiasts want to be able to customize everything whereas Apple doesn't let you fiddle with anything. It makes for a great out-of-box experience, but it's never going to satisfy the hard core, trend setting PC users who experiment with voltages and bus speeds to drive every component just below the point of failure. They demand choice in every component and Apple just doesn't offer much of anything.
Here's a quick comparison:
Apple: logic board offers zero configuration, no optimization
PC: 20 different brands, fine tune to your heart's content, overclock anything
Apple: Xeon processors (designed and priced for servers)
PC: Core2 Duo Conroe and Athlon64 X2 (designed and priced for home PCs)
Apple: dual channel, high latency FB-DIMMs
PC: dual channel PC2-6400 - faster and cheaper than Mac Pro
Apple: AMD x1900 video card with lower specs than PC version
PC: Full catalog of AMD and nVidia cards including bleeding edge performance and SLI
If Apple put out a mid-range box utilizing the most optimized price/performance ratios for CPU and RAM, offer SLI support and work with AMD and nVidia to get support for a wider range of video cards, maybe then the gamers would realize that the hours spent building and modding their boxes with neon tubes and color changing LEDs, and the further hours wasted squeezing out a 4% performance improvement could be spent actually playing their games.
My prediction, the new cool thing for PC gamers will actually be a Mac.
That just isn't going to happen any time soon. The world of PC gaming is dominated by people who build their own PC and live to squeeze small but measurable performance increases out of their systems.
Apple has only one box you can configure for gaming and it's way too expensive as a base box. Gamers and other PC enthusiasts want to be able to customize everything whereas Apple doesn't let you fiddle with anything. It makes for a great out-of-box experience, but it's never going to satisfy the hard core, trend setting PC users who experiment with voltages and bus speeds to drive every component just below the point of failure. They demand choice in every component and Apple just doesn't offer much of anything.
Here's a quick comparison:
Apple: logic board offers zero configuration, no optimization
PC: 20 different brands, fine tune to your heart's content, overclock anything
Apple: Xeon processors (designed and priced for servers)
PC: Core2 Duo Conroe and Athlon64 X2 (designed and priced for home PCs)
Apple: dual channel, high latency FB-DIMMs
PC: dual channel PC2-6400 - faster and cheaper than Mac Pro
Apple: AMD x1900 video card with lower specs than PC version
PC: Full catalog of AMD and nVidia cards including bleeding edge performance and SLI
If Apple put out a mid-range box utilizing the most optimized price/performance ratios for CPU and RAM, offer SLI support and work with AMD and nVidia to get support for a wider range of video cards, maybe then the gamers would realize that the hours spent building and modding their boxes with neon tubes and color changing LEDs, and the further hours wasted squeezing out a 4% performance improvement could be spent actually playing their games.
Getting viruses are just as easy regardless of which method you use to run windows. Thats because obtaining viruses are 100% user error.
As both a windows and mac user then I have to say that viruses are NOT the problem that mac fanatics like to play them up to be. Yes, its better to not have to worry about them, but if you've got any common sense then its easy to avoid. The last virus Ive ever had on ANY of my systems is almost a decade ago when a friend used his virus-laden floppy drive. Other than that our entire family knows what to open and what not to.
actually they are still a problem. if it was "common" sense then viruses wouldn't be so widespread. perhaps viruses and spyware aren't an issue for you on your windows machine, but they are an issue at large. my father has viruses all over his damn windows computer and he has a doctorate in physics. most people are just not diligent about how they run their computers. only very technologically savvy users ever say that it's "common" sense to avoid viruses on windows. the fact that so many computers are infected proves that wrong outright.