Running Windows XP on a MacBook
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: Migration Assistant
Next: [Recent Items] - folders?
From: Erik Richard Sørensen on 9 Feb 2010 20:40 Jim Gibson wrote: > John <jwolf6589(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >> I will soon be getting my Refurbished MacBook which will be able to run >> Windows XP. I plan to buy the home version on ebay for a low cost. How >> much do you recommend I allocate to Windows XP? I was planning on giving >> XP 30GB's but not sure if that can be changed once allocated. I do not >> have much to run in Windows, however most apps work only on Windows, and >> some job websites or online applications will not work in a mac browser >> so it would be helpful to have Windows. (Although I have a job, I would >> like a higher paying job and it frustrates me going to company job >> applications that work only in Windows). For most of my day to day work >> I will be using Snow Leopard. Also another advantage of XP is the much >> superior BlackBerry desktop Manager. > > 30GB sounds about right. You are right in that you cannot change this > value without redoing your Windows install. > >> For the time being I will be booting into Windows and eventually may run >> them side by side, but this will require more RAM and I think Windows >> may not work as well in such an environment, although I do not know. >> Also can someone tell me if Windows hardware will work on my MacBook? I >> may want to get a USB to serial adaptor for some hardware and eventually >> dump my old 1999 Compaq Windows 98 laptop, but may keep it for the old >> hardware. I have a GPS and a Jornada 720 which I use to connect t the >> Compaq via Serial. Will it work in Windows XP on the Macbook? > > Under Bootcamp, Mac OS X and Windows cannot run "side by side". Only > one can run at a time, as determined at boot time. Some Windows > hardware may work on a Mac, as many of the peripheral connections are > the same (USB, etc.). There is no way to tell ahead of time, unless you > can find somebody who has already used the exact same hardware on the > same computer. Unless you boot into OS X and then for example install 'VirtualBox' (freeware), Parallels Desktop (commercial) or VMWare Fusion (commercial), then they both can run at the same time. XP is then run as a virtual system. >> Also where will the XP files be stored? Can I use XP to access the Mac >> files and vice versa in the boot camp mode? May install Office 2003 on >> MacBook (as its much nicer than the Macs Office and Outlook beats >> Entourage for most uses. > > XP file will be stored on the Windows partition on your boot drive. > Windows cannot access the Mac files on the other partition without > special software (e.g. <http://www.macdisk.com/mden.php3>). Mac OS X > can access Windows files, either read-only or read-write depending upon > the type and size of the Windows file system (see info link below). > > <http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1656> Indeed you can. XPHome/XPPro can access the Mac OS X partition as a 'shared disk', and it's even possible to drag&drop copy to/from the Windows partition. Just remember to add the OS X diskpartition as 'shared disk' in the Windows network setup. - I can access any of my internal and external disks directly in XPPro without problems. So I'll recommend to let the Windows installer initialize the Windows partition in NTFS and install XP as normal. Then download VirtualBox and install VB on the OS X and assign the Windows partition to VB. Also download and install the NTFS-3G driver on OS X to make it possible to drag&drop copy directly to the Windows partition from OS X. VirtualBox 3.1.2 (freeware) http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/32363 NTFS-3G 2010.1.16 (freeware) http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/10913782 Setup in this way you can boot from XP or OS X and you can run XP from within OS X. Cheers, Erik Richard -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Erik Richard Sørensen, Member of ADC, <mac-manNOSP(a)Mstofanet.dk> NisusWriter - The Future In Multilingual Text Processing - www.nisus.com OpenOffice.org - The Modern Productivity Solution - www.openoffice.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Erik Richard Sørensen on 9 Feb 2010 20:48 Mike Rosenberg wrote: > Stefan Patric <not(a)this.address.com> wrote: >> VirtualBox is the easiest VM to set up and work with, and for personal >> use, it's free. >> >> http://www.virtualbox.org > > The price is definitely right, but how is it easier than Fusion or > Parallels? Don't know whether the new VB 3.1.2 is easier or not, but the ver. 2.x was rather hard to get to work properly in the networking part. - For me Parallels runs just fine along with XPPro... Cheers, Erik Richard -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Erik Richard Sørensen, Member of ADC, <mac-manNOSP(a)Mstofanet.dk> NisusWriter - The Future In Multilingual Text Processing - www.nisus.com OpenOffice.org - The Modern Productivity Solution - www.openoffice.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Marc Heusser on 10 Feb 2010 09:06 In article <me-CFBF8A.21042909022010(a)news.supernews.com>, Dan <me(a)here.net> wrote: > In article > <jwolf6589-107028.20120109022010(a)newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com>, > John <jwolf6589(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Ebay what version of Windows XP Home do I need to look for? > > Forget XP Home. Professional is the same price on eBay - about $50 - > $60. > > You want at least SP2. Discs with SP3 are a little more, around $75. > You can download SP3 and install it yourself if you need it. I > personally have not bothered with SP3 on the ancient laptops that I have > that are still running XP. > > All of my main Windows machines here are 7 now. Just deleted my last > remaining Vista partition. I would take either Vista or 7 over XP on > new hardware. Running XP on new hardware is like running OS X 10.2 on > new hardware - pointless. Get Parallels 5 unless short of cash http://www.mactech.com/articles/special/1002-VirtualizationHeadToHead/ind ex-001.html If you can, get a corporate edition of Windows XP - no activation. Otherwise get Windows XP SP2 at least (so you can boot XP as well under BootCamp - it is possible to use the same partition also in Parallels, ie parallel to Mac OS X). And certainly update to SP3 immediately, to cover the most glaring security holes. And certainly do not get Vista, if not XP then get Windows 7, much cleaner. But Windows XP is still compatible with more software, so unless you need Windows 7, or absolutely want it, then go with Windows XP. It will run faster. You'll find yourself using Windows less and less anyway. HTH Marc -- remove bye and from mercial to get valid e-mail <http://www.heusser.com>
From: Stefan Patric on 10 Feb 2010 17:29 On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:58:17 -0500, Mike Rosenberg wrote: > Stefan Patric <not(a)this.address.com> wrote: > >> VirtualBox is the easiest VM to set up and work with, and for personal >> use, it's free. >> >> http://www.virtualbox.org > > The price is definitely right, but how is it easier than Fusion or > Parallels? Perhaps it isn't anymore. They all have GUI interfaces now. It has been about 4 years since I last seriously looked at VMWare. At that time, VMWare--I don't even think they had a Mac version then--was a very stable, for pay, commercial product designed for running multiple virtual server servers, although you could run it on a desktop, and people did. (There is now a free one for non-commercial users, but only for PC platforms. I hear it's very good.) Set up was technical--you had to know what you were doing--but was at least through a GUI and a lot easier than the commandline VM I was using then. Then I discovered VirtualBox. Its market was for the general desktop computer user like me who wanted an alternative to multi-booting OSes. It still basically is that, although they do have a "pro" version that they sell. Since VirtualBox is free, even for the Mac, and is designed for the casual user, wouldn't it pay to try it before buying one? Have no experience with Parallels. Stef
From: Richard Maine on 10 Feb 2010 17:56
Stefan Patric <not(a)this.address.com> wrote: > On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:58:17 -0500, Mike Rosenberg wrote: > > > Stefan Patric <not(a)this.address.com> wrote: > > > >> VirtualBox is the easiest VM to set up and work with, and for personal > >> use, it's free. > >> > >> http://www.virtualbox.org > > > > The price is definitely right, but how is it easier than Fusion or > > Parallels? > > Perhaps it isn't anymore. They all have GUI interfaces now. > > It has been about 4 years since I last seriously looked at VMWare. At > that time, VMWare--I don't even think they had a Mac version then... They didn't. It was released in late 2007, if Wikipedia has it right. So no, you don't have any experience with the Mac product. And... > Have no experience with Parallels. Ok. So you have no basis for judging whether "it is the easiest VM to set up and work with". It might be easy. Not having tried it myself. I couldn't say. (I have used both Parallels and VMWare on the Mac, in addition to a much older VMWare product on Linux some time ago). I don't dispute that VirtualBox might be a fine product, and that the price is right. I just note that your statement about it being "the easiest" is, by definition, a statement of comparison, for which you appear to have no basis. -- Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience; email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment. domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain |