![]() |
OSCR Help ForumsA resource for the Students, Staff, and Facultyof the University of Arizona
[ OSCR Homepage
| OSCR Workshops
]
|
|
|
#1 |
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5
|
How Do I Run Windows On My Mac?
I have an intel-based MacPro running OS X 10.4. I want to use some microsoft programs that are PC only on my Mac. I have access to download Windows XP from my college, as well as Virtual PC for Mac.
Where do I start? Can I use Virtual PC for this or do I have to buy Parallels or similar software? I'd rather use Virtual PC if I can because its free for me. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
OSCR Staff
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 800
|
If Virtual PC supports the Intel Mac with installed OS, then go for it!
Install Virtual PC, then when asked insert XP cd.
__________________
Bernard Begay |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5
|
Thanks for the heads up. Virtual PC for Mac doesn't support intel macs. I'm looking into Fusion.
Also, I have two options for Windows XP. One that only says Windows XP and the other that says 64-bit edition. Will I have a problem running 64 bit Windows on my computer? Last edited by sjvarela; 08-26-2008 at 02:16 PM. Reason: Add more info |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
OSCR Staff
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 800
|
All Intel Core Duo and Xeon Based Macs are 64-bit Ready! The problem is finding 64-bit ready apps.
__________________
Bernard Begay |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
OSCR Consultant
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 78
|
Just to expand on Bernard's answer some:
Regular ol' Windows XP tends to be better for people because it runs more programs than 64-bit; that is, anything that says it can run on Windows XP will run on the regular (32-bit) XP; 64-bit is hit and miss when it comes to software working on it. IMHO, XP 64 tends to be more work than it's worth, unless you're very serious about those additional 32 bits, which you really shouldn't have to be. For some performance comparisons (which basically confirm that there aren't performance advantages with XP 64): http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1857480,00.asp Simply put, when you use XP 64, performance doesn't typically increase, while compatibility plummets. Best, Aaron |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
OSCR Consultant
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 14
|
I'll also add that while Parallels and VMWare Fusion are excellent programs, VirtualBox is free to all (virtualbox.org). It is fully functional, although lacks some of the polish that the aforementioned programs have. To my knowledge, all of these should support both 32 and 64 bit versions of Windows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 1,009
|
With regards to 64-bit Windows:
Neither VirtualBox nor Parallels Desktop support 64-bit guests. If you plan to install Windows XP 64-bit in a Virtual Machine, VMWare Fusion is your only choice. Though, as Aaron pointed out, 64-bit XP is not very well supported and likely not required for what you will need. I see you mentioned that you are running OSX 10.4 - have you considered upgrading to OSX 10.5 Leopard? I mention this only because Leopard includes Boot Camp, which allows you to dual-boot between OS X and Windows. Virtualization will never be as fast as rebooting into Windows natively, and Boot Camp comes free with Leopard.
__________________
Dane Velasquez Multimedia Tech Lead |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5
|
VMware Fusion is cheaper than upgrading.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Tags |
| None |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|