What is Digg?64 Comments
- MikeyisaFag, on 10/12/2007, -3/+37Sound advice from a guy with fart in his name. ;p
- brocklese, on 10/12/2007, -20/+46Okay, why would you want to run vista on a mac? I mean come on, thats like using basic cable with a HDTV...
- FarcicalFart, on 10/12/2007, -9/+30Never talk about yourself in the third person. Ever.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15@acumenprobitas
not in Parallels. At least not yet *hopes* - MikeyisaFag, on 10/12/2007, -9/+21OOOOO SICK BURN! :)
- mindsnare, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11it runs close to perfect. I use it all the time
- acumenprobitas, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16Gaming.
- Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Vista really isn't that compelling a buy if you're a gamer; XP will do just fine. Vista is a resource hog and a DRM stronghold. Do your gaming in XP, and do everything else you need in MacOS, and you'll be just fine. Dip your toes into the dirty water as little as possible.
As far as I have read in reviews, it doesn't run so well and problem free as an upgrade even on PC's; it is only expected to really do well on new computers that have it pre-installed, and I don't think you'll ever see that happen on a Mac. - MrMacMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7It runs everything perfectly well outside of video card intense applications ala gaming.
Every other piece of software you can probably think of is running fine. - jonmills, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This is a very poor review. These people don't know what they are talking about.
Vista works fine in Parallels. I've been using the RTM for months.
Networking didn't work right away, but it did after I installed the drivers (duh, which are supplied by Parallels). And of course the Aero graphics aren't going to be supported...it doesn't have accelerated video....because it's a virtual machine (again, duh, no virtual machines have that; it's not Parallels's fault). - WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15The possible comparisons are endless...
It's like drinking cheap wine in a fine crystal wine glass.
Like smoking dirt weed in a fine glass bong.
Like taking a cheap street ho to a fine restaurant.
(I think it's time to STFU before you diggas tell me to!) - bartbrinkman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6You should use Boot Camp for Vista. I've had Vista Ultimate on my MacBook (1.83 ghz version); it works excellent. All the graphical features, without a hitch.
- wastern, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6>>If I'm not mistaken, wasn't Vista demoed on an iMac? What was up with that? And most importantly, did it run okay, or was that a fluke?
A lot of the Vista demos have been done on iMacs and MacBook Pros, especially early on when they were some of the few machines that would run it well.
I don't really plan on buy Vista, however I'm a tech whore so I'll need Jobs to show off all of Leopard soon so I have something to look forward to and don't drop money on an OS I don't need and won'y use. However I was looking around at Vista notebooks just out of curiosity and didn't see a single one that appealed to me. As funny as it sounds, if I were to get Vista, I'd buy and Apple to put it on, or dual boot the one I already have. - phatvolvo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I'm at a loss for words....
That was brilliant. - nerditup, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10I installed Ubuntu on several machines and my L2 cache served proprietarily well, please consult your local wikipedia books for more information on parallel universes caused by mac os x. Please practice safe OS X, but thats not funny because OS X is pronounced OS 10 by all the fanboys and diggas who stole my bike. RTFA
- jakebarnes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@howski
I think you've installed it wrong. - truk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Vista runs very well on Intel Macs. The article isn't about running Vista on Mac hardware, it's about running Vista in a virtual machine. If you had read the article you would have seen the first line - "After seeing how the Mac Pro ran Microsoft Vista better than OS X..."
- Spampy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2With Boot Camp my CD / 2GHZ / 2GB RAM MBP runs stuff like CS:Source, HL2, and Battlefield 2 pretty well, with the Source stuff running at high settings and Battlefield at medium.
- kethraal, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5"Try running OSX on an older Mac without a new video card, not much RAM, etc. It runs slow. "
Like an iMac DV SE (G3 400) with 256 RAM?
Yeah... that's what I'm using now. It seems to be running Tiger just fine.... faster than 10.1, actually.
Yes, Tiger won't run well on the original beige G3... but OS X's eye candy is quite well optimized... it will happily fall through to a rather efficient CPU-bound compositing path if the GPU can't handle the compositing stuff that it requires. Vista... won't. - tehbear, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Nearly flawless, from my experience. We installed Vista Enterprise yesterday on both a Quad Core Mac Pro and Mac Book Pro and the only problem we ran into was the Mac Pro already had a partition with XP on it. Vista wouldn't let us install until we blew away and recreated that partition. We only selected the defaults on the install but it was amazingly simple.
My manager really likes it and is going to keep it. (He is required to us Windows for some of the software we use)
The token Mac Fanboy of our department spent his time saying that he had the same features in OSX but did admit that coming from XP to Vista, he liked a lot of the new features. (Features which already exist in OSX... OK, WE GET IT!)
My 2 cents: There may be features that compare to features in OSX but we didn't have any of those in XP. There are people who won't benefit from the power of Vista (IE: Regulated users who have machines locked down or non power users) but for the rest of us, Vista is a step in the right direction.
Note: First, I'm writing this after one day of use. Secondly, I work for a University, so prices don't play as large of a part as they would in the real world. - noeljohnhoward, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2any1 know how bootcamp does with vista?
- adiosk8, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Most of the people who commented earlier...the article is about running it in a virtual environment , not on straight hardware, please read the article.
- dapengi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I got it working on boot camp. It installed nice actually went alot faster than it did on my desktop but there is no drivers for airport and bluetooth yet. WTF
- ispcaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2
Been using Vista a little. I do not care what ever happens to Vista. Vista is nothing more then service pack 3 for XP with expensive eye candy.
I can see the commercial now...
XP with Zone Alarm (free), AVG (free), Yahoo gadgets (free), Eye candy icons (free), Saving $299 by NOT buying Vista.. Priceless.
I will stick with XP. Vista is just not worth the headaches. - NinJar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5buddy osx > vista and if you want to play games on a windows operating system then just use xp for now
- zonk3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1XP runs very nicely for me. I have a 2.33ghz C2D MBP. I'm running the latest beta release of Parallels (bleeding edge, yes) and while there are a few rough edges for what I use it for it is great. Note I don't do gaming on it. I will say that the video driver is kinda weird in that the screen sometimes updates strangely, almost in two vertical stripes. Happens *very* quickly but it is noticeable when scrolling large amounts of text in a browser window for instance. Dunno if others are seeing this too.
As far as Vista goes in the world of virtualization, I'm not all that impressed with VMware at the moment having rather shoddy Vista support. I've seen hacks and workarounds to get it working but it doesn't look very good on the "other side of the fence" in the virtualization market.
Give it time and both Parallels and VMware will have decent support. I'm guessing they probably have it working but were waiting for the retail version to come out to do final testing but that's just a theory. - gaijintendo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1In addition to mindsnare, the cohesion feature is reallly useful, and very well implemented. (mixing windows apps amongst your mac apps with no windows desktop)
- OdinEye, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't think OSX was perfect out the gate.
Still, it would be nice to see a computer software product that wasn't released with the expectation of multiple updates shortly after release. - chrismcelligott, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Very good, I ran RC2 on it for a month or two without a hitch.
- wastern, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The system score worked in Vista Beta 2 running in VMware Fusion on my MacBook Pro (2.0 ghz Core Duo)
ok...well I was going to post it the results here, but the great and stable OS has decided it doesn't want to open the control panel. Everything else will open up, just not that..don't know why. However rather then getting pissed off at it I'm just going to delete it from my hard drive and get 8gb of space back
From what I remember it was a 0.2 or something horrid. The graphics card, being generic due to the virtual machine got a score of 0 I think. The score card doesn't use an average so the whole computer is only as strong as the weakest link. Averaged out the score was around a 3.2 I believe. (I believe I had 1gb of memory dedicated to the VM) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1When Microsoft OS removes the registry database I will use it again. Yes, Windows does feel faster than the Mac OS. I have been using Mac now for 6 months and I will say that Windows is faster. I can copy folders faster between drives and over the network using Windows - however - my registry database got corrupted many times, and I can't clone my OS like I can with Mac OS. So for now, I am sticking to the Mac. I hope apple improves the speed. They have been doing a good job of that. When I bought my first mac with the original mac os x (10.0) I took it back because it was SOOO SLOW... 10.4 is much much faster.
- truk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The Mac uses a USB keyboard. I use a Microsoft Wireless ergonomic keyboard on mine, even in OSX. Other than that, I think the Apple command key will act as the Windows key if you want the Apple keyboard.
- Kelmon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The answer depends very much on what you mean by "slower than a PC". Virtualisation is wonderful when compared to emulation but it doesn't come without a performance hit, albeit a much smaller one than that seen under the old VirtualPC. Given this XP runs slower under Parallels than it does under Boot Camp (i.e. running it "on a PC") but for day-to-day computing I personally find XP under Parallels on a MacBook Pro to be much faster than any "real" PC that I've used in the past. So, yes, it is slower but I doubt you'll notice.
- Schwa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1XP runs quite dandy on my Macbook(2Ghz/2G RAM) in Parallels, and it's not as powerful as the iMacs. Haven't done any gaming on it, but I use it to develop web apps in Visual Studio.NET, and it builds them faster than my 1-year-old Dell laptop. SQL Server, VSS- all run great. In Coherence mode, it really is like using one integrated system. Yes, things run incrementally faster in Boot Camp, but you won't miss it.
- Tippis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ah, blogspam with ancient information in it. How nice.
- tony.pitale, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Not so hot, at least not on my MBP C2D. The drivers just weren't working for me.
- SyDIGG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Lets be honest ...Vista is not quite there yet either.
- ozziek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Rubbish review. Firstly Vista does install fine and networking does work on MBP 2.33ghz. In fact every works except Aero (for obvious reasons that are well documented and should be solved in V3 when 3D support is added). There are issues with detecting the processor speed and performance index but is that important? No because what do you expect from a virtualised OS?
The REAL problem with Vista on Parallels is not mentioned in the article at all and that is related to the performance. Vista seems clunky and sluggish doing basic things. It doesn't seem as snappy as XP in all areas. USB 2.0 support is not high speed so you can't use Readyboost to boost up the RAM and save system memory. Currently I'm using with XP under Parallels on a daily basis as my work/home machine.
For proper informative information about using Parallels Beta on Mac with Vista and XP go to my blog at http://jasonkneen.blogspot.com. Digg me down if you think I'm spamming but I'm not - I'm tired of seeing inaccurate articles on this kind of stuff. - iancampbell2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm bored with the whole vista OSX parallels debate, and the lies and misinformation posted on this subject.
Firstly If you have a preference, I'm pleased for you, so do I just dont ry to convert someone one way or another with inaccurate information.
Secondly Vista runs great on my core 2 duo MBP under bootcamp.I've been using it for 3 months and It is fast and stable.
Thirdly, why do Mac 'fan boys' get so excited about Parrallels, its not new or innovative. In fact its a poor quality 'proprietary' virtualisation software that is OK for home users wanting to run the odd game... however it will never be a VMWare.
Finally I love my MBP and I love OSX, but it is not virus free and it does crash (all the time esp iTunes!) - dawks-, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I wasn't able to locate Vista wireless drivers for my Macbook Pro Core2Duo. Other then that, it worked fine.
- noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Nm, I misread it.
- ribs15183, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0My friend and I installed Vista Enterprise on his Macbook Pro using Parallels, and I thought it was extremely easy to use and very well put together. Anyone who's had experiences with Virtual Machines in the past will be pleased with the simplicity of Parallels here. I did notice a lot of hard drive activity and memory usage while Vista was idling, but I just assumed that was just all of the viruses and security holes rejoicing in harmony.
- xhtmled, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I haven't tried Vista yet, but I heard that you need to have the Windows key on the keyboard in order to use a lot of the new "cool" features. Is this true? Is there anyway around not having it on a Mac keyboard?
- sixth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This whole article is pretty ridiculous. First off...running Vista in Parallels is not completely supported yet. (when you select vista in parallels as the OS it straight out says 'testing'). Do you really expect a Virtual machine to run a OS that NEEDS good hardware (on a program that is STILL BETA/RC1? Come on. I am running Vista Ultimate on my MBP C2D via Boot Camp and everything works. Audio...Wireless...Buttons everything. I am using rEFiT as a boot manager and it all works flawlessly.
- iancampbell2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm sure how the keyboard works in parallel's, in bootcamp I run 'input remapper'. There are a few keyboard quirks but nothing that will stop you getting things done.
- NotEvenClose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Install Parallels Tools to get the network drivers.
- KinsaleFisher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Windows XP SP2 works pretty fast and near trouble-free for me under latest Parallels beta build 3120 on 2GB MacBook Pro 2.16GHz. Just give it enough breathing room for its virtual hard drive.... I use a 32GB self-expanding drive and give it at least 512MB RAM ..... I use it for some legacy MS Access databases, MS MapPoint and a couple of other Windows only programs.... other than that I use OS X for everything else. Coherence Mode rocks too. Bottom line, make sure you use the latest beta for maximum performance and usability.
- WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I'd really like to know how well WinXP would run in parallels on an intel Mac.
...Not that I can afford Mac hardware anytime soon...but I was just wondering if it would be slower than on a PC. - ogden, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Because we used to use a pirated copy of XP in parallels but MS was nice enough to send us a free copy of Vista? :-D
- sancho320, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@mobile
that was really lame
try not to hurt yourself -
Show 51 - 64 of 64 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is