Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Hardware, OS, Software, Apple
Apple's Windows site mentions Parallels Desktop instead of Boot Camp
"If you've ever wished you could enjoy the best of both worlds, now you can" is a phrase at the bottom of Apple's Windows section of their Get a Mac site, and I think they mean that phrase now more than ever. I can't even find Apple's own Boot Camp mentioned on the 'you can even run Windows' page of Apple's Get a Mac site - surprisingly, it's Parallels Desktop that has the spotlight now. Could Apple be giving Boot Camp the back seat in favor of the no-rebooting convenience of Parallels Desktop? Or might Parallels be working with Apple on virtualization (or a buyout) for the upcoming Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard? Is it possible for us to come up with any more wild speculation? Time will only tell.[thanks blackout!]
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Jason P said 2:45PM on 6-17-2006
just to add to the rumour mill, but dont you notice how there's no dock icon for parallels in that image of the iMac running windows?
Reply
Gidge said 2:53PM on 6-17-2006
Probably because Apple doesn't want to recommend beta software.
Reply
aazp said 2:58PM on 6-17-2006
It makes sense, BootCamp is only a beta, and they don't (and don't want to) give support for it.
I hope 10.5 includes some kind of virtualization or compatibility layer (wine/darwine)
Reply
Karl Otto Henriksen said 3:13PM on 6-17-2006
They make ads about their own beta software. BootCamp. Remember? "I'm a Mac, I'm a PeeCee, I'm a PeeCee to"
Reply
Thrasher said 3:20PM on 6-17-2006
Parallels is not beta software anymore. Version 1.0 was released on Thursday.
Reply
Chris Coleman said 3:29PM on 6-17-2006
I'm planning to get a MacBook before Leopard comes out, so I hope that if Apple is planning to include virtualization, they announce it at WWDC, so people like myself don't end up buying Parallels for $80 and then get the same functionality in Tiger.
Reply
david said 3:36PM on 6-17-2006
How well do you think a windows environment modeled after Classic would work. You click on a .exe application and it loads up side by side with your os x apps. Think this would work well, besides the complications with directories etc.. Think this would allow windows viruses to clutter things up? Just curious.
Reply
yonatron said 3:37PM on 6-17-2006
Boot Camp is beta software, and it's what goes unmentioned. I think this may be what Gidge meant.
Reply
JD said 3:43PM on 6-17-2006
Hey Steve -- Buy Parallels and add it as a freebie inside 10.5.
Pullleeeezzeeee? :-)
Reply
TJ said 3:54PM on 6-17-2006
May sound dumb but with Parallels do you have to install that then install XP or do various OS' come with the virtualisation software??
Reply
Wheels said 3:57PM on 6-17-2006
"Could Apple be giving Boot Camp the back seat in favor of the no-rebooting convenience of Parallels Desktop?"
Could it be that Parallels is actually a part of Apple? - since we're rumor milling.
And why did Apple come out with Boot Camp, you may ask. Why to hide what was really going on. Apple's the king of secrecy, and they knew that they had to get virtualization right before they packaged it inside of OS X. So why not create a ghost company that Paralleled virtualization with what Boot Camp does (dual boot). Thus Parallels.
Looks good on paper, doesn't it?
Reply
Thrasher said 4:20PM on 6-17-2006
Parallels was around long before Intel Macs, making and selling virtualization software for other platforms.
As for David's question, such a thing is already available in the form of WINE. I think it may make OS X susceptible to at least some Windows viruses.
Reply
mark said 4:31PM on 6-17-2006
I don't think it will, it will probably only affect the other Windows applications. A virus for Windows isn't going to come through Internet Explorer running through Mac OS X as a Windows application and infect the other Mac OS X applications. Probably just other Windows applications, just as it is in real windows.
but in a world with no walls...who needs windows and gates.
Reply
Jared said 4:34PM on 6-17-2006
My guess and sincere hope is that Apple will include a boot-select solution AND a virtualization solution, BOTH of which use the same Windows installation. Not sure if it's technically possible, but it'd sure be slick, and Apple can surely get it going.
I can easily see myself (and many others) using Windows in both a Boot Camp- and Parallels-like manner for different applications, but having to install Windows twice would be such a downer that I'd end up just choosing one.
If Leopard includes both ways of operating under one installation, I'll seriously jump for joy.
Reply
Twist said 4:41PM on 6-17-2006
Parallels Desktop looks nice but it is no substitute for native booting. Like others have said the ultimate option will be being able to run Parallels Desktop and boot from the same Windows install. Might be handy to see it taken a step further with a Parallels Desktop version for Windows that lets you access your Mac OS X install.
Reply
Don Wilson said 4:52PM on 6-17-2006
Isn't Bootcamp still in beta? Why would they show software that the average computer user wouldn't understnad how to install?
Reply
Thayne Miller said 5:38PM on 6-17-2006
I would argue that parallels is more difficult to install than boot camp is, for the average user. Several computer-unsavy people I know just got their first macs and they got boot camp up and running just fine.
Reply
BAM said 5:39PM on 6-17-2006
Well,
I Steve wants to buy a company to enhance the Mac integration with a Windows environment, I suggest Thursby.
SMB and Active Directory integration are so bad in MacOS that DAVE and Admit Mac just just be integrated into 10.5
So Steve, please, get this working code within MacOS!
Reply
Keith said 5:55PM on 6-17-2006
Interestingly, why would you really want to run parallel OS? All you need should be within one Operating System. Although switching to another may be convenient, but it may not necessarily an efficient process.
Reply
Mark D. said 6:39PM on 6-17-2006
I'm with those hoping for a Boot Camp/Virtualization combo solution as that is rather close to how I'm working now, using boot Camp for heavy 3d windows apps and Parallels for times when I need all my files on-hand (see below.) Also, on the note of viruses, they shouldn't be able to do anything to other windows apps if something wineesque were integrated as they would first need enough of windows ot exploit the proper flaw or core part of the OS, not to mention that certain issues of being able to properly translate their functions to a different filesystem and environment, as well as the user needing to use whatever program the virus was meant for (why use emulated/simulated Outlook when it exists for OS X and happens to prevent windows-specific viruses from functioning properly?)
In reply to Keith:
well, technically right now all my design apps run in OS X on my MBP, but they're sluggish through Rosetta, and Flash is by far the worst. Running Parallels allows me full preformance and access to all my files on the OS X side of things, and Flash has always been better in Windows to boot (I think of it as two upsides, in this case.) Here it's more effiecient since the apps launch almost instantly in Windows (and don't crash, I had dueling Adobe apps, Illustrator and Photoshop hate each other it seems, killing the idling one when I sue both) and I still have all my files on-hand without having to resort to either FAT32 or another program to mount HFS+ (for Boot Camp-based Windows.) Once Adobe releases UB versions this shouldn't be needed, but right now it makes work so much easier.
As an aside, now that Parallels works better with Virtue switching requires a very efficient key combo, which makes it feel like working on two machines with a rather aesthetically pleasing KVM. It's also, incidently, reduced my desk workstation to a video player as I can now use all apps for both OS' without using the second machine.
Reply