windows on Mac

IF…(and this is a very big IF)…I wanted to run windows on a Mac, would I need one of these newfangled intel-core machines?

I have a specialist surveying programme I use a lot which only runs on windows. I had an ancient armada running this but it’s died.

I could kill two birds with one stone, upgrading the Mac (never say never, Paul!) and getting a windows facility to boot. I wouldn’t be buying new, but what spec of machine might I need to run windows reasonably fast? (and how does that work?)

Security springs to mind…would the web viruses endemic to PCs spread into the pristine heavenliness of my Mac?

regards
Hugh


offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Any Mac with an Intel processor could help you out here. And there
have been several generations of these, so your pickings should be
pretty good in the used end of the market. As to the virus thing,
yes… but.

Any virus that targets Windows and its many nooks and crannies can
and will infect Windows, whether Windows is running on your Mac or a
vanilla PC.

Whether this impacts you much or at all depends on how you are
running Windows. If you use one of the virtualization platforms, like
Parallels or VMWare (personal pick), then an infected Windows
partition can be “rolled back” to a snapshot of the partition in a
known good state. Plus, you have an additional layer of protection
from Mac OS, which sits like a ringmaster off to the side and cracks
the whip if Windows tries any funny business.

If you are using Boot Camp to run Windows without Mac OS running at
all, then you lose this layer of protection, but you are still
nowhere close to losing anything except your Windows partition. The
Windows part cannot even see the Mac part of your hard drive, let
alone write anything there, no matter which of these options you employ.

So if you are using VMWare, rolling back to a known-good snapshot is
a one- or two-click deal. If you are using Boot Camp, your recourse
would be to wipe the entire Windows partition and re-install, just
like a real Windows user should do every six months, rain or shine.

Finally, which Mac you buy is largely a function of your budget and
what you can find on eBay or in the corner of your independent
Macintosh retailer. But faster is always faster. While WIndows won’t
care how many cores you have, Mac OS will reward you for more cores,
more memory, better video card, etc. Buy the best you can afford –
it’s always a good investment because it means you can hang on to it
a little longer.

Walter

On Oct 22, 2008, at 8:08 AM, hugh wrote:

IF…(and this is a very big IF)…I wanted to run windows on a
Mac, would I need one of these newfangled intel-core machines?

I have a specialist surveying programme I use a lot which only runs
on windows. I had an ancient armada running this but it’s died.

I could kill two birds with one stone, upgrading the Mac (never say
never, Paul!) and getting a windows facility to boot. I wouldn’t be
buying new, but what spec of machine might I need to run windows
reasonably fast? (and how does that work?)

Security springs to mind…would the web viruses endemic to PCs
spread into the pristine heavenliness of my Mac?

regards
Hugh


offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options


offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

I have the first MacBook that had the Intel CoreDuo chip, and it’s plenty fast for running Windows XP and Windows 2000. I do run some security software I got free from my wife’s job on the PC side. Generally, the PC problems won’t affect your Mac stuff, but they could mess up files on the Mac side if you share files between the two sides.

You can either run Windows via Apple’s Boot Camp, or use Parallels Desktop or VMWare Fusion. The advantage of the latter two (among other things) is that you don’t have to reboot to run Windows like you do with Boot Camp, and many of your peripherals like printers and your internet connection are shared with the Mac side, so you don’t have to configure those in Windows at all. That’s a BIG advantage IMNSHO.


offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Walt and Joe, many thanks the advice…and pretty much agreed the two of you are!

I’m probably thinking MacMini because I already have a monitor …and a small house! But there seem to be many incarnations from G4 1.4s to CoreDuo 2.0s with everything inbetween. I assume the old PowerPC chipped ones won’t allow Windows operation, or very slow?

Many thanks for the help.

Hugh


offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

The old G-anything machines will only support Virtual PC, which is
very very slow indeed. It’s also not exactly the same as running
Windows on the actual hardware it’s designed for. I believe it’s also
been discontinued, but I may be wrong about that.

Walter

On Oct 22, 2008, at 12:52 PM, hugh wrote:

I’m probably thinking MacMini because I already have a
monitor …and a small house! But there seem to be many
incarnations from G4 1.4s to CoreDuo 2.0s with everything
inbetween. I assume the old PowerPC chipped ones won’t allow
Windows operation, or very slow?


offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

I still have VPC on my G5, and you’re right it is very slow - I only ever use it now for checking a few pages in IE, it’s useless for anything else.

Nathan Garner
Partner

Austin Wells Design Consultants
1 Elmgate Drive, Littledown, Bournemouth BH7 7EF
+44 (0)1202 301271
email@hidden
http://www.awdc-creative.com

Member of NAPP

On 22 Oct 2008, at 17:58, Walter Lee Davis wrote:

The old G-anything machines will only support Virtual PC, which is very very slow indeed. It’s also not exactly the same as running Windows on the actual hardware it’s designed for. I believe it’s also been discontinued, but I may be wrong about that.

Walter

On Oct 22, 2008, at 12:52 PM, hugh wrote:

I’m probably thinking MacMini because I already have a monitor …and a small house! But there seem to be many incarnations from G4 1.4s to CoreDuo 2.0s with everything inbetween. I assume the old PowerPC chipped ones won’t allow Windows operation, or very slow?


offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

OK, i get that. So is there any big difference between a core solo and a core duo?


offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

One core vs. two. Multiprocessing really sits up and barks on Mac OS
X, so more is better.

Walter

On Oct 22, 2008, at 1:18 PM, hugh wrote:

OK, i get that. So is there any big difference between a core solo
and a core duo?


offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options


offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Just in case you didn’t know, each “core” is a complete processor. So
two cores is like having two processors connected to the same memory
and peripherals. Everything that’s written to take advantage of this
gets nearly double the computing power in any given quantum.

Walter

On Oct 22, 2008, at 1:35 PM, Walter Lee Davis wrote:

One core vs. two.


offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

RE: Mac Mini

((I can only speak to my experiences))

Just keep in mind that this is basically a laptop in different wrapping. As such, the hard drive is one of the biggest limits within the machine. Try to max out the ram as much as you can, as any virtual memory read/writes will really slow down your work-flow. As long as you’re not planning on importing/viewing/editing HD footage or manipulating huge files, you should be fine.

I have an older G4 model, and only upgraded the ram just recently, which I did myself. Yes, it was a bit scary pulling (read prying) the cover off. But things went just fine. The improvement was noticeable on all levels. Startup and initial app loadings are the same, as again, the hdd is the limiter. But I can now have more background apps running and switching between them is lightning quick now.

(begin rant)
I just wish Apple better filled the gaps between their products. I would really love to be able to get the specs of an iMac sans the built-in monitor. (which I presume would make the machine that much more affordable by deleting the monitor)

I run a KVM between two machines, so my choices for my needs are either a never-quite-enough Mac mini, or an over-the-top Mac Pro. It is a tough argument to justify a jump from $600 bucks to $2800.

With those choices, I am forced to reassess the need for the machine on the other end of the KVM, and investigate the feasibility of consolidating to just a single unit.
(end rant)


offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Thanks for the infos, Walt and Weaver. I’m afraid I have no idea what a KVM is (!) but take your advice on maxing the RAM.

If this is a laptop in disguise, does the hard disk perform more slowly than a 3.5" drive? I find the performance of my PowerBook G4 800 faster than my PowerMac dual 450. Slower but dual processors and faster (?) drives on the PowerMac?..PowerBook still beats it hands down, though could be other factors maybe.


offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Keyboard Video Monitor (switch). Simple ones are huge multi-gang
rotary switches that take one set of peripherals (the K, V, and M
above) and electrically connect them to more than one computer (one
at a time). You turn the switch, kind of like changing channels on an
old-fashioned TV, and see a different computer. New fancy ones are
all solid-state, no moving parts. I use Leopard’s Screen Sharing or
Chicken of the VNC for the same purpose any more.

Walter

On Oct 23, 2008, at 7:35 PM, hugh wrote:

Thanks for the infos, Walt and Weaver. I’m afraid I have no idea
what a KVM is (!) but take your advice on maxing the RAM.

If this is a laptop in disguise, does the hard disk perform more
slowly than a 3.5" drive? I find the performance of my PowerBook G4
800 faster than my PowerMac dual 450. Slower but dual processors
and faster (?) drives on the PowerMac?..PowerBook still beats it
hands down, though could be other factors maybe.


offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options


offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

I switched from a Cube 450 mhz to a used mini core duo (I would
sugggest to use a mini core2 duo, which is the actual model and will
support future 64-bit OS). The speed is much much faster than the
speed of the good old Cube. You can also try to change the HD to a
7200 rpm model, which will run also faster than the original 5400 rpm
model (a comment I read today says, that the temperature will not
change noteworthy). Another idea about a virtual machine is
VirtualBox, distributed for free by sun. Link: http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/VirtualBox
. I do not know, if there is a “roll-back” modus like the one Walter
discribed for VM Ware (which really sounds clever).
iwo

Am 24.10.2008 um 01:35 schrieb hugh:

Thanks for the infos, Walt and Weaver. I’m afraid I have no idea
what a KVM is (!) but take your advice on maxing the RAM.

If this is a laptop in disguise, does the hard disk perform more
slowly than a 3.5" drive? I find the performance of my PowerBook G4
800 faster than my PowerMac dual 450. Slower but dual processors and
faster (?) drives on the PowerMac?..PowerBook still beats it hands
down, though could be other factors maybe.


offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options


offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options