Windows on a Mac?

In my opinion, the best way is to use Boot Camp.

I have just written some general advice on Boot Camp, with a Windows XP partition, which I also highly recommend, herein.

First, you should read the Boot Camp manual carefully and follow it in detail.

http://manuals.info.apple.com/enUS/Boot_CampInstall-Setup.pdf

Second, you should format your Windows partition using the NTFS format. Fat 32 will not support files larger than 3.5 GB.

By having your partition formatted as NTFS, you will be able to upgrade to Windows 7 easily in the future should you wish to do so. I would recommend a minimum partition size of 40 GB.

To access your Mac hard drive from Windows, you would want to check out MacDrive 7, which is really good.

http://www.mediafour.com

Under NTFS, you will be able to read your Windows drive from your Mac drive.

However, if you want to write to it, you will need the following software from Paragon.

http://www.paragon-software.com/home/ntfs-mac/

If you go with XP, and to save money, look for Microsoft OEM versions of Windows XP. These are the same as retail versions of Windows, but you will pay far less, i.e. $129 vs. $399.

However, do not go for manufacturer OEM copies of Windows, like from Dell or HP, as they will not work properly.

You can find the proper versions at CDW or Amazon.

http://www.cdw.com

Good luck, and let us know

Two ways: Boot Camp and/or virtualization. Boot Camp, you reboot into Windows. You'd need that for games, CAD apps, etc. Virtualization (Parallels, VMware Fusion) allows you to run Windows within the Mac OS, along side your Mac programs. You can also set up Boot Camp and then use the virtual machines to run from that partition (a 'hybrid' solution that allows you to reboot into Windows if you need to).

Personally, I run XP under Parallels (without Boot Camp) - that works well for using Outlook, accessing my corporate VPN, running some data analysis apps, etc., without disturbing my productivity on the Mac side. If you'll be using a virtual machine, be sure you have adequate RAM (4 GB would be advisable, but it runs ok with just 2 GB).

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/bootcamp.html

http://www.parallels.com/products/desktop/

http://www.vmware.com/products/fusion/

Boot Camp is included with the Mac OS. You'll need to buy a copy of Windows (XP is still available from many vendors, e.g. newegg). The Apple Store does not sell Windows.

I guess I'll add my two cents. There are quite a few options for running Windows or Windows applications on a Mac.

Windows on Intel Macs

There are presently several alternatives for running Windows on Intel Macs.

1. Install the Apple Boot Camp software. Purchase Windows XP w/Service Pak 2 or Vista. Follow instructions in the Boot Camp documentation on installation of Boot Camp, creating Driver CD, and installing Windows. Boot Camp enables you to boot the computer into OS X or Windows.

2. Parallels Desktop for Mac and Windows XP, Vista Business, or Vista Ultimate. Parallels is software virtualization that enables running Windows concurrently with OS X.

3. VM Fusionand Windows XP, Vista Business, or Vista Ultimate. VM Fusion is software virtualization that enables running Windows concurrently with OS X.

4. CrossOver which enables running many Windows applications without having to install Windows. The Windows applications can run concurrently with OS X.

5. VirtualBox is a new Open Source freeware virtual machine such as VM Fusion and Parallels that was developed by Solaris. It is not yet fully developed for the Mac - some features are not yet implemented - but it does work otherwise.

6. Last is Q. Q is a freeware emulator that is compatible with Intel Macs. It is much slower than the virtualization software, Parallels and VM Fusion.

Note that Parallels and VM Fusion can also run other operating systems such as Linux, Unix, OS/2, Solaris, etc. There are performance differences between dual-boot systems and virtualization. The latter tend to be a little slower (not much) and do not provide the video performance of the dual-boot system.

See MacTech.com's Virtualization Benchmarking for comparisons of Boot Camp, Parallels, and VM Fusion.

Boot Camp is only available with Leopard. The Boot Camp Beta that was used with Tiger has expired and is no longer available for use. So contrary to the other poster's comment, Boot Camp isn't truly "free." You must purchase Leopard to get it.

To supplement LukeD's excellent information: In addition to the Paragon software for reading/writing NTFS disks on the Mac is NTFS Mac. It is freeware consisting of MacFuse and an NTFS filesystem plug-in delivered in a single package.

Kappy wrote:
To supplement LukeD's excellent information: In addition to the Paragon software for reading/writing NTFS disks on the Mac is NTFS Mac. It is freeware consisting of MacFuse and an NTFS filesystem plug-in delivered in a single package.

Hey Kappy,

Thank you very much for the compliment and for pointing out that new solution!

I am going to check that out!

Compliment deserved, frequently.

NTFS Mac is just a single package installer of MacFuse and the NTFS-3G filesystem plug-in. It's not truly "new" other than the single package installer.

Oh, I see. I had thought that it could have been a brand new MacFuse solution.

Thank you!

All the best,
LukeD

On my Mac Pro I run VMWare Fusion and XP Pro SP3 and it is fine for my work apps (data analysis apps). Virtualization has the advantage of having built in ability to share folders from the Apple native machine, so you do not need to allocate a large amount of disc space for the virtual windows machine. I use my OS X Users space for most of the files I need on the Windows machine, and just access them from shared folders (which appear in Windows as pseudo-network shares).

The problems with virtualization, over booting into windows directly, is that you give up some performance (especially video performance, as the virtual machine has to use drivers provided by the virtual machine to interface with your graphics card). Also, you need to have enough RAM to run OS X, load a virtual machine, and run a virtual Windows box in it. My work Mac Pro has 10GB of real RAM, so I actually have a 3.5GB Windows virtual machine running all the time, with still plenty of RAM available for OS X and its applications. On a laptop limited to 4GB, that could be a real limitation (although for those who can afford it, a new 17" MacBook Pro with 8GB would be fine). Depending on disc space needs (how much has to be windows native for your windows applications), a laptops hard drive could also be an issue.

So, I'd say you need to really nail down just what you need to do in windows and decide accordingly. If it is for games, then Boot Camp clearly seems best, as you would be booting into a native windows installation with direct access to all it's required hardware (no virtualization layer between it and the hardware). If it is for files that you wish to share with both OS X applications and Windows applications, then virtualization is better, IMO, as you can simultaneously use both operating systems, and easily move files back and forth between your OS X desktop and your windows virtual desktop.

Also note if you go for virtual windows, then VMWare Fusion is available form the Apple store for an education discount price (I don't know about Parallels).

Hey Kappy... You might want to update your comment for VirtualBox in your "Windows on Intel Macs" summary. The OS X version has been feature complete for a while. They're actually up to version 2.2.0 now. VirtualBox is from Sun (not Solaris... which is Sun's proprietary UNIX OS). We all trust your comments a lot... If you say something isn't fully developed, most people will follow your advice. It's not quite as full featured as Parallels or Fusion, but it is fast, stable, and an excellent value. 😉

Yes, I am current on the version, but reviewing the docs still seems to leave things as yet incomplete for the OS X version. This may be a lacking in their updating the documentation and making it clear and simple for the non-technical user. I have tried 2.2.0 and still find the file sharing between OS X and the VM to be about as clear as mud. Compared to VM Fusion and Parallels it's reminiscent of a stone-aged implementation. The VM is also extremely slow compared to Fusion and Parallels. Based on my *admittedly limited experience* I would not be very quick to recommend it to a non-technical user.

BTW, I don't consider myself a non-technical user, but I'm also not a Unix pro.

Thank you for the comments, however. If you spot any other errors or items needing updates, please tell me. I will fix things up ASAP.

Ah... I totally forgot about setting up a share. I had tried on an earlier version and eventually just gave up. I tried again recently and managed to get it to work.... although, I'm not entirely sure how. But you're totally correct regarding the documentation. I think their documentation assumes a certain level of familiarity with with a lot of things that the average (or in my case... somewhat beyond average) user might not know by second nature. Since it is an open source project, it's safe to say that the vast majority of people working on it are technically advanced... they don't always do the best job in translating from tech guru to run-of-the-mill Joe. I do think the product itself is solid and stable and a viable free alternative to Parallels or Fusion... maybe just not for someone with a less than moderate technical background. That's generally the problem with a lot of open source stuff... most of the effort goes into the product... not the documentation. Fortunately, just like here, there are usually people willing to help out (although, it seemed like I was the only person having a problem setting up a share as I couldn't really find any useful info online... I was thinking maybe it was just so obvious that I must have been missing something).

I actually prefer Parallels as it is a much more finished product, but I do use VirtualBox to set up virtual machines on my PC. For some reason, the PC version of Parallels lags way behind the OS X version. Plus, I usually just set up virtual machines to try out different flavors of Linux, PC BSD (which is actually better than most flavors of Linux I've played around with), and different versions of Windows. It's not for production type stuff... so I really didn't want to shell out the $$ for the PC version.

it seemed like I was the only person having a problem setting up a share as I couldn't really find any useful info online... I was thinking maybe it was just so obvious that I must have been missing something).

That was exactly my feeling when I first tried it. I futzed through 3 different versions without success hoping that they would make it more user-friendly or that I was just too dumb to figure it out. I, too, finally got it working but had no idea why. Couldn't repeat it on a subsequent try. Finally gave up. Next version I managed to get it working again - still don't know how. Then the latest version left me puzzling to remember what the heck I did right the last time. I still don't know.

I was rather disappointed with its speed. It was very slow and the so-called 2D/3D acceleration options didn't seem to matter. One benchmark was so bad it didn't even register high enough to compare to other tested video cards that were emulated. I can't see how any Windows users would like it for gaming. I don't even do any gaming, and didn't find it very satisfying. Very slow window refreshes.

Like you I prefer either Fusion or Parallels. Both are much better, faster, and more refined products with equally frustrating documentation!

I don't think there's an engineer or software programmer alive in the world today who has a clue about users and the need for intelligent and thorough documentation. Reminds me of the documentation Microsoft used to produce for their first generation language compilers. Today's documentation isn't a whole lot better, just not as terse and moderately less cryptic.