An article over at Computerworld notes that Parallels has sold over 1 million of its Parallels Desktop offering since 2006, while VMware, which only recently launched its Fusion product, says it sold 250,000 copies in the first five months.
So does that mean more people are buying Macs to run Windows? It's my own opinion of course, but I strongly believe a lot of people get Macs for their cool effect and such, but either can't figure it out or are so used to Windows they just use that instead.
Not just for home users, but also in businesses. Instead of providing real support for Macs, the IT departments may just be telling Mac users to run Windows.
"Macs run Windows, and IT supports Windows, therefore IT supports Macs."
"Now we can call ourselves Mac supporters because we help Mac users run Windows."
Imagine some PC guy saying this during a job interview. And some stupid hiring manager may just go along with it.
Unfortunately, many Mac users don't see the long term effects because they are just happy to be able to run their Windows-only applications. Once corporate Mac users start running one application in Windows, they will want to run more applications in Windows so they can avoid switching back and forth. Pretty soon, Mac users in businesses will be accustomed to running everything in Windows. And IT will say "Since Macs can run Windows, who needs Mac OS?"
So does that mean more people are buying Macs to run Windows? It's my own opinion of course, but I strongly believe a lot of people get Macs for their cool effect and such, but either can't figure it out or are so used to Windows they just use that instead.
It does not mean such a thing at all. But if you actually work in a corporate environment sooner or later you WILL be faced with Windows software. Like it or not. But most S&P or FTSE500 companies have some form of homebrew software that in 999.99% of all case relies on Windows. And that is where VMW or Parallels kick in. You still have your Mac and can seamlessly change over to your WinTel software, even keep using your clipboard and all.
So IMHO it is actually th best of both worlds. At the end of the day I want the best computer doing the best job and using the best software. And that means a Mac with Windows running in -well- a Window
I personally like Aplle Computers first for their design, then for the virus free OSX, then for the ability of being able to run windows and then -and only then- their software.
All in all Mac, OSX and Windows - a match made in heaven
It appears I'm in the minority. I've been using Parallels for 2 years and have been very happy with it. I really haven't had problems with it at all in fact I use the USB port often with a Palm Pilot and never really had many problems. I haven't tried VM Ware but I really haven't had the need to either.
So does that mean more people are buying Macs to run Windows? It's my own opinion of course, but I strongly believe a lot of people get Macs for their cool effect and such, but either can't figure it out or are so used to Windows they just use that instead.
In my case, I bought a Mac because it was a Mac but being able to run Windows makes the Mac twice as useful for me. There is lots of software out there that isn't available for the Mac. And some software available for the Mac runs better in Windows.
There is no question that being able to run Windows instead of OS X or Windows on OS X has helped sell Macs by giving the consumer some peace of mind if they didn't like or couldn't use OS X because of a certain program that was Windows only, so I see the need for people to initially invest into Parallels, Fusion, or just use BootCamp, but I'd like to know the percentages of those who have found they don't need Windows at all, have decided they prefer Windows and those that use both. For those that use both I'd like to know what app types they find are better on Windows over Mac OS X.
Fusion has a nice trick that I don't think Parallel has - if you have Windows installed in Boot Camp, you can use Fusion to run the Boot Camp partition.
Another thing I hope Apple will listen..please change the license agreement so people can run OSX in virtual machines. For developers, that's a big deal.
Testing is way easier in VM's - if you mess up the system, you can easily roll back to a previous snapshot instead of reinstalling the OS. And....Apple could probably sell more Mac Pro and XServes instead of a bunch of Mini's to the developers.
It does not mean such a thing at all. But if you actually work in a corporate environment sooner or later you WILL be faced with Windows software. Like it or not. But most S&P or FTSE500 companies have some form of homebrew software that in 999.99% of all case relies on Windows. And that is where VMW or Parallels kick in. You still have your Mac and can seamlessly change over to your WinTel software, even keep using your clipboard and all.
So IMHO it is actually th best of both worlds. At the end of the day I want the best computer doing the best job and using the best software. And that means a Mac with Windows running in -well- a Window
I personally like Aplle Computers first for their design, then for the virus free OSX, then for the ability of being able to run windows and then -and only then- their software.
All in all Mac, OSX and Windows - a match made in heaven
But I thought that after watching those Apple commercials, software companies and IT departments everywhere would start throwing out their PCs and making everything work on Mac OS. Apparently not.
To corporate IT departments, the "best of both worlds" is those vocal minority of "darn Mac users" get to have a computer with a shiny Apple logo, while running completely Windows as the IT department dictates. A lot of IT departments hate Macs and want to get rid of Macs, but they won't admit it directly. Running Windows on Macs benefits the IT department because they don't need to learn Mac OS. At the same time, IT gets to look good in front of Mac users by appearing to "support" Macs. They tell Mac users "we will happily assist you in running Windows applications on your Macs". But in the end, it's just a way for IT to wean Mac users away from Mac OS and encourage them to use Windows more and more. And those Mac users will just go along with it.
Mac users think they are screwing Bill Gates by purchasing a Mac. But if Mac users run Windows on their Macs, then who is really getting screwed? We can very well have a situation in which Apple's market share increases, but Mac OS support does not improve. With Mac users proclaiming how great it is to run Windows on Macs, won't third party developers pick up on that message? Is that what Mac users really want? Or are they too busy running Windows to notice?
"Fox turned into a softcore porn channel so gradually, I didn't even notice." -- Marge Simpson
There is no question that being able to run Windows instead of OS X or Windows on OS X has helped sell Macs by giving the consumer some peace of mind if they didn't like or couldn't use OS X because of a certain program that was Windows only, so I see the need for people to initially invest into Parallels, Fusion, or just use BootCamp, but I'd like to know the percentages of those who have found they don't need Windows at all, have decided they prefer Windows and those that use both. For those that use both I'd like to know what app types they find are better on Windows over Mac OS X.
I see this comment if anyone found no need for Windows at all on the Macs...
Until recently I was a happy camper mac-only user (I'm a convert from PCs). Then I encountered a couple of things -
1. My company VPN server won't support Mac/Safari. It used to, but now I get a message that it is no more gonna. I used to VPN from a webpage, now I have to do this from Windows.
2. My payroll website (ADP) launches a .asp thingy when I choose to view my W-2's. I researched on Mirosoft, and it seems the .net framework is compiled and packaged only for Windows. Strangely enough, I wasn't able to open the W-2 even from IE/Windows on Fusion...what's the deal with that?!
Nevertheless...the point is, I won't be at ease without the Windows crutch around.
For apps that work, CrossOver is fine, and less taxing on the Mac side. Problem is, there are more apps that don't work than that do work.
My biggest wish list is a good sleep mode for a VM app that keeps the VM environment near or at 0% CPU usage when idle, but will spring back to life in 0.5 seconds when I need it to. Then I could just keep the app open in the background and go to it when I need it. I've tried that with both Parallels and VMWare but they both use up a decent chunk of CPU time even to a point I'll get annoyed and will have to suspend the VM.
Has anyone used CrossOver? What has your experience been like?
I've used IE6 with Flash in CrossOver to correctly access the realtor MLS, which requires ActiveX. The only drawback was that I could change the tool bars in IE and printing did not work correctly, though I had set this up for someone and didn't check the printing myself so I don't know if I could have found a suitable workaround.
Seinfeld: Oh yes, it works much faster on my Macbook Pro
Bill: Greaaaa.....whaaaaat?
This way, Seinfeld isn't a traitor as he's still using a Mac and he satisfies the Bill using Windows on it! Now you can have your cake and eat it too! hehehe
Anyway, back on topic: yahh, I've used Parallels since it came out and liked it since but not without it's problems.... I have found it not as stable as it should be and it still seems to have hiccups with USB devices. I still think it sucks how they made folks pay all over again to go to their 3.0 version but whatever. I'd probably go with VMWare if Parallels makes me pay again to go their next version. My friend uses VMWare now and likes it.
Maybe I am the only person here that is interested in loading Windows on a Mac machine with the intent to use only Windows. Why? Macs are really nice machines and I want the flexibility if I do decide to go 100% Mac in the future. But that will only be happening if the new Macbooks come with DDR3. There are great things about each OS and some infuriating things about each. I can see why virtualization is taking off.
I bet there are a lot of students that are interested, too. Not all universities and colleges (even highschools) have Mac systems, so this would be great for students. It's definately not just corporate.
Maybe I am the only person here that is interested in loading Windows on a Mac machine with the intent to use only Windows. Why? Macs are really nice machines and I want the flexibility if I do decide to go 100% Mac in the future. But that will only be happening if the new Macbooks come with DDR3. There are great things about each OS and some infuriating things about each. I can see why virtualization is taking off.
I bet there are a lot of students that are interested, too. Not all universities and colleges (even highschools) have Mac systems, so this would be great for students. It's definately not just corporate.
Are you deciding on your os platform based on the type of RAM memory the hardware uses?
I was referring to the use of the far less expressive OEM pack which could have been XP or Vista. It didn't work at first, the DVD was unreadable by a Mac or VMWare for some reason. Then I upgraded my VMWare to v 2 and low and behold it installed flawlessly. It also activated on line and verified fine. The OEM Business Vista was only $139! I can recommend these OEM versions to any Mac user at this price. I think the Business version (or higher) is the one MS license to be able to run under a VM too (they have altered position several times I seem to remember).
Comments
An article over at Computerworld notes that Parallels has sold over 1 million of its Parallels Desktop offering since 2006, while VMware, which only recently launched its Fusion product, says it sold 250,000 copies in the first five months.
VirtualBox is FREE
http://virtualbox.org/
Installing Windows on a Mac? That's crazy talk!
Yup, as bad as Apple going Intel.
So does that mean more people are buying Macs to run Windows? It's my own opinion of course, but I strongly believe a lot of people get Macs for their cool effect and such, but either can't figure it out or are so used to Windows they just use that instead.
Not just for home users, but also in businesses. Instead of providing real support for Macs, the IT departments may just be telling Mac users to run Windows.
"Macs run Windows, and IT supports Windows, therefore IT supports Macs."
"Now we can call ourselves Mac supporters because we help Mac users run Windows."
Imagine some PC guy saying this during a job interview. And some stupid hiring manager may just go along with it.
Unfortunately, many Mac users don't see the long term effects because they are just happy to be able to run their Windows-only applications. Once corporate Mac users start running one application in Windows, they will want to run more applications in Windows so they can avoid switching back and forth. Pretty soon, Mac users in businesses will be accustomed to running everything in Windows. And IT will say "Since Macs can run Windows, who needs Mac OS?"
So does that mean more people are buying Macs to run Windows? It's my own opinion of course, but I strongly believe a lot of people get Macs for their cool effect and such, but either can't figure it out or are so used to Windows they just use that instead.
It does not mean such a thing at all. But if you actually work in a corporate environment sooner or later you WILL be faced with Windows software. Like it or not. But most S&P or FTSE500 companies have some form of homebrew software that in 999.99% of all case relies on Windows. And that is where VMW or Parallels kick in. You still have your Mac and can seamlessly change over to your WinTel software, even keep using your clipboard and all.
So IMHO it is actually th best of both worlds. At the end of the day I want the best computer doing the best job and using the best software. And that means a Mac with Windows running in -well- a Window
I personally like Aplle Computers first for their design, then for the virus free OSX, then for the ability of being able to run windows and then -and only then- their software.
All in all Mac, OSX and Windows - a match made in heaven
--Dave
So does that mean more people are buying Macs to run Windows? It's my own opinion of course, but I strongly believe a lot of people get Macs for their cool effect and such, but either can't figure it out or are so used to Windows they just use that instead.
In my case, I bought a Mac because it was a Mac but being able to run Windows makes the Mac twice as useful for me. There is lots of software out there that isn't available for the Mac. And some software available for the Mac runs better in Windows.
Just for that, I use Fusion instead of Parallel.
Testing is way easier in VM's - if you mess up the system, you can easily roll back to a previous snapshot instead of reinstalling the OS. And....Apple could probably sell more Mac Pro and XServes instead of a bunch of Mini's to the developers.
It does not mean such a thing at all. But if you actually work in a corporate environment sooner or later you WILL be faced with Windows software. Like it or not. But most S&P or FTSE500 companies have some form of homebrew software that in 999.99% of all case relies on Windows. And that is where VMW or Parallels kick in. You still have your Mac and can seamlessly change over to your WinTel software, even keep using your clipboard and all.
So IMHO it is actually th best of both worlds. At the end of the day I want the best computer doing the best job and using the best software. And that means a Mac with Windows running in -well- a Window
I personally like Aplle Computers first for their design, then for the virus free OSX, then for the ability of being able to run windows and then -and only then- their software.
All in all Mac, OSX and Windows - a match made in heaven
But I thought that after watching those Apple commercials, software companies and IT departments everywhere would start throwing out their PCs and making everything work on Mac OS. Apparently not.
To corporate IT departments, the "best of both worlds" is those vocal minority of "darn Mac users" get to have a computer with a shiny Apple logo, while running completely Windows as the IT department dictates. A lot of IT departments hate Macs and want to get rid of Macs, but they won't admit it directly. Running Windows on Macs benefits the IT department because they don't need to learn Mac OS. At the same time, IT gets to look good in front of Mac users by appearing to "support" Macs. They tell Mac users "we will happily assist you in running Windows applications on your Macs". But in the end, it's just a way for IT to wean Mac users away from Mac OS and encourage them to use Windows more and more. And those Mac users will just go along with it.
Mac users think they are screwing Bill Gates by purchasing a Mac. But if Mac users run Windows on their Macs, then who is really getting screwed? We can very well have a situation in which Apple's market share increases, but Mac OS support does not improve. With Mac users proclaiming how great it is to run Windows on Macs, won't third party developers pick up on that message? Is that what Mac users really want? Or are they too busy running Windows to notice?
"Fox turned into a softcore porn channel so gradually, I didn't even notice." -- Marge Simpson
There is no question that being able to run Windows instead of OS X or Windows on OS X has helped sell Macs by giving the consumer some peace of mind if they didn't like or couldn't use OS X because of a certain program that was Windows only, so I see the need for people to initially invest into Parallels, Fusion, or just use BootCamp, but I'd like to know the percentages of those who have found they don't need Windows at all, have decided they prefer Windows and those that use both. For those that use both I'd like to know what app types they find are better on Windows over Mac OS X.
I see this comment if anyone found no need for Windows at all on the Macs...
Until recently I was a happy camper mac-only user (I'm a convert from PCs). Then I encountered a couple of things -
1. My company VPN server won't support Mac/Safari. It used to, but now I get a message that it is no more gonna. I used to VPN from a webpage, now I have to do this from Windows.
2. My payroll website (ADP) launches a .asp thingy when I choose to view my W-2's. I researched on Mirosoft, and it seems the .net framework is compiled and packaged only for Windows. Strangely enough, I wasn't able to open the W-2 even from IE/Windows on Fusion...what's the deal with that?!
Nevertheless...the point is, I won't be at ease without the Windows crutch around.
My biggest wish list is a good sleep mode for a VM app that keeps the VM environment near or at 0% CPU usage when idle, but will spring back to life in 0.5 seconds when I need it to. Then I could just keep the app open in the background and go to it when I need it. I've tried that with both Parallels and VMWare but they both use up a decent chunk of CPU time even to a point I'll get annoyed and will have to suspend the VM.
Has anyone used CrossOver? What has your experience been like?
I've used IE6 with Flash in CrossOver to correctly access the realtor MLS, which requires ActiveX. The only drawback was that I could change the tool bars in IE and printing did not work correctly, though I had set this up for someone and didn't check the printing myself so I don't know if I could have found a suitable workaround.
<Bill Gates and Seinfeld.....>
Bill: So, you are using Windows, righttttt?
Seinfeld: Oh yes, it works much faster on my Macbook Pro
Bill: Greaaaa.....whaaaaat?
This way, Seinfeld isn't a traitor as he's still using a Mac and he satisfies the Bill using Windows on it! Now you can have your cake and eat it too! hehehe
Anyway, back on topic: yahh, I've used Parallels since it came out and liked it since but not without it's problems.... I have found it not as stable as it should be and it still seems to have hiccups with USB devices. I still think it sucks how they made folks pay all over again to go to their 3.0 version but whatever. I'd probably go with VMWare if Parallels makes me pay again to go their next version. My friend uses VMWare now and likes it.
Maybe I am the only person here that is interested in loading Windows on a Mac machine with the intent to use only Windows. Why? Macs are really nice machines and I want the flexibility if I do decide to go 100% Mac in the future. But that will only be happening if the new Macbooks come with DDR3. There are great things about each OS and some infuriating things about each. I can see why virtualization is taking off.
I bet there are a lot of students that are interested, too. Not all universities and colleges (even highschools) have Mac systems, so this would be great for students. It's definately not just corporate.
Hello. New to forum.
Maybe I am the only person here that is interested in loading Windows on a Mac machine with the intent to use only Windows. Why? Macs are really nice machines and I want the flexibility if I do decide to go 100% Mac in the future. But that will only be happening if the new Macbooks come with DDR3. There are great things about each OS and some infuriating things about each. I can see why virtualization is taking off.
I bet there are a lot of students that are interested, too. Not all universities and colleges (even highschools) have Mac systems, so this would be great for students. It's definately not just corporate.
Are you deciding on your os platform based on the type of RAM memory the hardware uses?
Really?
Don't know. I use XP.
I was referring to the use of the far less expressive OEM pack which could have been XP or Vista. It didn't work at first, the DVD was unreadable by a Mac or VMWare for some reason. Then I upgraded my VMWare to v 2 and low and behold it installed flawlessly. It also activated on line and verified fine. The OEM Business Vista was only $139! I can recommend these OEM versions to any Mac user at this price. I think the Business version (or higher) is the one MS license to be able to run under a VM too (they have altered position several times I seem to remember).