I wonder if any of the people saying Parallels is slow even use it?

I run XP via Parallels on my MBP with only 2GB of RAM and it's plenty fast enough for me to run 3D apps (like my VR Cycling Trainer, which is primarily what I use it for).

I admit I've never used VMWare, so I can't say for comparisons sake, but I've never used VMWare because I've never needed to. Parallels is more than sufficient.

 

agree 100%.

 

I will be able to provide some fresh feedback on Fusion later this week.

BootCamp is an amazing tool. Vista Ultimate screams on this machine. MacOS is very clean and well organized.

The back-lit keyboard is awesome!

 

Got my 4GB kit today and it is great. Mac, of course worked great with 2GB. After installing SP1, Vista Ultimate is showing 4GB of RAM.

I will install Fusion later this week.

 

Going to be a pretty sweet set up ...

Run some bench marks on both sides of it to compare, and post here. I am curious for some real world results.

 

Does Apple release updated drivers for those that run windows under boot camp?

 

I think everytime they released a new beta of boot camp for tiger there'd be new drivers but there haven't been any new drivers since the release of leopard that I know of.

 

So my webcam and printer doesn't work on the Mac. I see there is the Bootcamp assistant in the utilities. Do I just need a copy of XP to install it?

 

What brand webcam and printer?

 

yup, all you need is a copy of XP SP2 to install.

I redid my windows setup yesterday, switched to a boot camp install on a 5GB partition, rather than the stock Parallels set up that left a 14GB disk image in my users folder.

Parallels loaded the boot camp install right up, and after about 2 mins it restarted and everything worked perfectly.

Am I the only one who finds it odd that I can't access my external drives, or even my mac hard drive when i boot up using boot camp??

 

No. That's odd.

 

Does XP/Vista under bootcamp have drivers for the OS X filesystem?

 

no. what file format are your external drives, HFS or Fat 32? If you do FAT 32 they'll work with both os x and Xp/Vista if you choose HFS then only OS X and if you go NTFS then only XP/Vista.

 

Logitech for the webcam and Lexmark for the printer...

 

Cool....Ill give it a shot...

 

I thought OS X could mount local NTFS volumes as read-only. Not correct?

 

I have the NTFS partition for my Win XP Pro installation set up on OS X as read-only.

I've accessed it and been able to read files off of it.

 

Try this for the webcam http://webcam-osx.sourceforge.net/.
I would imagine that a driver is available for the Lexmark.

 

Thanks..Ill try it...The Lexmark is an x2480 and google turns up nothing....

 

For the printer http://www.lexmark.com/lexmark/seque...8_0_en,00.html

 

sorry I should've clarified that, OS X will mount NTFS as read only but if you want read and write with OS X it's got to be FAT 32.

FYI you can't install Vista on FAT 32 but you can with XP. I've seen some hack to make Vista install on FAT 32 but it didn't seem worth it and would probably cause alot of problems.

 

Yea, I was gonna say... Good change the driver came with the leopard install.

 

No dice...http://downloads.lexmark.com/cgi-per...27:5:0:569:0:0


I need a new printer anyways....

 

Got a new HP printer and it works great...I'm even sharing it with my Windows computers using Bonjour. I can VNC from my Vista to the Mac and Remote Desktop to any Windows computer.....No dice on the webcam though.

 

Thank god. I can only image what we would have to look at!!

A whiskers "pics of my day" thread might just be pretty terrible.

 

i formatted my boot camp partition in NTFS, and I can read it from my desktop in OSX.

 

No writes though, correct?

 

Installed VMFusion and it found everything and the sound in my Vista Ultimate worked with no probs. I gave it 2.5GB of RAM and everything seems to work great.

I love the way I can go from one to the other and how it shows status for USB and DVD/CD drive.

I am not sure how to bench test, but the performance is very good.

 

that is correct sir!

 

On a completely superficial level, it's strange that OS X can't write to a locally mounted NTFS volume but has no problem doing so to a network volume that's NTFS. I know that's a glaring example of my ignorance of OS architecture, but still. If they can code for "writing to the network" when it's NTFS why can't they code for writing to local disk when it's NTFS? I wonder if it's simply because the network writes might be using SAMBA which is free whereas local disk writes would have to be licensed from Microsoft.

 

Forgive my ignorance on this subject matter as well. If you have say, Computer A, connected to a network drive provided by Computer B using a samba share. Computer A isn't doing the writing, it is simply sending a file to the drive which is on Computer B and Computer B actually does the writing doesn't it?

Same goes for ext3 formats. I have my XP Pro box connected to multiple samba shares on my linux server which has ext3 partitions. I was always under the assumption that the computer that owns the mapped drive does the writing. The client's only purpose is to communicate with the drive through network protocols.

 

I think we're talking from two different perspectives Sly. You're talking from the point of view of who's doing the physical disk write. I'm talking from the end user's POV. I'm assuming that even on a client computer saving to a network share, the client's OS is still issue a file write command of some sort. I'm guessing the difference with the network share is that the file write is being issued to a network "device" instead of the client OS' own local volume management.

 

Isn't it ironic that Apple made a commercial saying that people upgrading to Vista were buying new printers cause the old ones didn't work so you should get leopard instead! Yeah right, as soon I we upgraded to leopard our printers didn't work right and they still don't work right but the same printer works just perfectly with Vista! Maybe it's just me but I always have the exact opposite experience as these commercials. If they say you have hardware and software problems with Vista I actually have the exact opposite, all of my programs work with Vista and some of the programs and hardware I use with Leopard don't work. maybe that's why I think they're commercials while funny and amusing are total bullshit! Most of them some of them I agree with, like the one about PC coming with bloatware (craplets) and Macs don't.

 

Well, I would tend to blame the vendors for not being compatible...But both my printer and webcam didn't work...

 

so would I but people still blamed MS when it happened to Vista even though the companies had 5 years to make drivers for Vista!

 

I need to make a correction. I had assumed that since I couldn't give my NTFS boot camp partition a color label that I couldn't write to it from OSX...I can however copy files from my OSX desktop to the Boot Camp drive...

 

Yep. OSX loves to work on the NTFS partition. NTFS think OSX smokes crack!