Windows on a MAC laptop?

[CrimsonChaos]

I've seen posts (and articles) that says you can run Windows AND Windows software on a Macintosh. How do you do this? Do you partition the drives? Do you special-order it?

I'm asking because my wife wants a laptop, and neither one of us are Mac-savvy. I don't want a lot of headache if we get the Mac laptop. So here are some questions:

- Which Apple laptop do I need to get to do this? Or are the all capable of it?
- What type of specs should the laptop have, or does it run the same as if there were only one OS on it?
- How do you switch between OSX and Windows?

Any other information you could provide would be great.

 

[TheStu]

Any of the new Intel based Macs can do this. So, Core Solo (in the Mac Mini for a while), Core Duo, Core 2 Duo and Xeon (Mac Pro) Processors.

The specific model names for laptops are the MacBooks and MacBook Pros. Anything they sell will be capable of it, and to switch between windows and OS X, you just restart the computer, hold down ALT and then choose the OS you want.

There are 2 main ways to run Windows on the Mac

1) BootCamp: Made by Apple, this is a bootloader and driver suite that you can download from their website. After you install BootCamp and then run it, it will let you easily partition your drive (pretty much the only thing I know of that will let you partition the system drive) and then you can use it to burn off a Windows drivers CD (they provide the drivers). You then pop in your Windows install CD, restart the computer and you install it like it is any other computer. *This method has you install Windows onto your hard drive directly, restarts are required to use Windows*
**You are not installing Windows on, in, around, or on top of BootCamp. BootCamp is just a partitioner that gives you drivers, that's it. Windows runs native**

2) Virtualization: VMWare Fusion or Parallels will let you install Windows inside OS X as a virtual OS. The advantage to this is that now you don't have to restart in order to quickly check something in IE7, or to use Outlook. If you want to installl Windows via BootCamp, you can then use that as the Virtual OS... you get to only install Windows once! YMMV, but I prefer VMWare Fusion, others prefer Parallels.

Now, to clear you up right quick. Unless you have Windows installed you are not going to be able to run Windows software on the Mac. So, don't try to take your Office CD and install it in OS X.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask in the Apple Section, PM me, or here again.

 

[dnuggett]

If you go the virtualization route VMWare gets my vote. I've used both Parallels and VMWare and greatly prefer VMWare.

2 other things I'll add-

When you say Windows I am assuming you mean XP. I wouldn't try Vista (with Aero) on anything other than a MacBook Pro, Imac or Mac Pro if you plan on running it in a virtual setting. Basically you need a dedicated graphics card to use Aero to it's potential. And I would recommend at least 3GB of RAM.

For XP I would suggest 2 GB of RAM minimum and you can throw in the Mini and Macbook as capable of running XP in a virtual environment.

 

[TheStu]

Originally posted by: dnuggett
If you go the virtualization route VMWare gets my vote. I've used both Parallels and VMWare and greatly prefer VMWare.

2 other things I'll add-

When you say Windows I am assuming you mean XP. I wouldn't try Vista (with Aero) on anything other than a MacBook Pro, Imac or Mac Pro if you plan on running it in a virtual setting. Basically you need a dedicated graphics card to use Aero to it's potential. And I would recommend at least 3GB of RAM.

For XP I would suggest 2 GB of RAM minimum and you can throw in the Mini and Macbook as capable of running XP in a virtual environment.

From personal experience, I have run Vista (no aero) on VMWare Fusion with 512MB of RAM. I have run XP Pro with 384MB of RAM. So your RAM recommendations are sound, but over the top.

Vista with Aero ran natively on the MacBook in my sig just fine, I just got tired of Windows so I uninstalled it. To the best of my knowledge, you can't get Aero through Fusion or Parallels anyway... but that may have been changed recently

 

[dnuggett]

To each their own. I run XP in OSX using Fusion and need every bit of the 2GB I have. I don't want to just run the OS. I am in Windows for specific reasons and those reasons require RAM. I'd rather be able to leave open what I have going on in OSX and fire up Windows without worrying about slowing down. No way could I get anything done with 384 or 512 unless I wanted to just browse the internet.

No where in my post was I talking about running natively. I suppose you could run Aero with the GMA 950. Just like I could walk to Houston from Dallas. Not ideal, but it could be done.

 

[TheStu]

Thats fair, I normally just used Windows to watch Netflix movies and use Google Sketchup, so I didn't need that much RAM, and by giving Windows 384, I have enough left over for OS X. I was just offering my experiences

And I was mentioning the native Vista install for the OPs benefit.

 

[RichieZ]

Originally posted by: TheStu
Thats fair, I normally just used Windows to watch Netflix movies and use Google Sketchup, so I didn't need that much RAM, and by giving Windows 384, I have enough left over for OS X. I was just offering my experiences

And I was mentioning the native Vista install for the OPs benefit.

i don't find 1gb to be sufficient for OSX itself, i have 2GB in my macbook and it was much slower when it was stock at 1gb. I agree that 384 is enough for windows, i keep the install pretty clean

 

[TheStu]

Originally posted by: RichieZ

Originally posted by: TheStu
Thats fair, I normally just used Windows to watch Netflix movies and use Google Sketchup, so I didn't need that much RAM, and by giving Windows 384, I have enough left over for OS X. I was just offering my experiences

And I was mentioning the native Vista install for the OPs benefit.

i don't find 1gb to be sufficient for OSX itself, i have 2GB in my macbook and it was much slower when it was stock at 1gb. I agree that 384 is enough for windows, i keep the install pretty clean

I have found that OS X adapts itself well to what you give it. 1GB runs noticably smoother and faster than 512MB that it shipped with, but even with 512MB everything that I did, with the exception of Office 04, ran smooth, now with 1GB it runs anything and everything. And Leopard runs really well with 1GB too (had the beta installed but reverted due to software incompatibility). I can't imagine how much I could do if I had 2GB in my MacBook, but 1GB is working well for me.

 

[RichieZ]

Originally posted by: TheStu

Originally posted by: RichieZ

Originally posted by: TheStu
Thats fair, I normally just used Windows to watch Netflix movies and use Google Sketchup, so I didn't need that much RAM, and by giving Windows 384, I have enough left over for OS X. I was just offering my experiences

And I was mentioning the native Vista install for the OPs benefit.

i don't find 1gb to be sufficient for OSX itself, i have 2GB in my macbook and it was much slower when it was stock at 1gb. I agree that 384 is enough for windows, i keep the install pretty clean

I have found that OS X adapts itself well to what you give it. 1GB runs noticably smoother and faster than 512MB that it shipped with, but even with 512MB everything that I did, with the exception of Office 04, ran smooth, now with 1GB it runs anything and everything. And Leopard runs really well with 1GB too (had the beta installed but reverted due to software incompatibility). I can't imagine how much I could do if I had 2GB in my MacBook, but 1GB is working well for me.

every bodies experience is different but with 1gb of ram the little beachball was constantly coming up because it was out of ram. Intel based macs use more memory than PPC, with 1GB is was snappier in general but would slow down a lot more than my old 1.33ghz G4 powerbook with 768MB

 

[dnuggett]

NM