Which Windows version for Parallels?
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: Snowed in by Snow Leopard
Next: What is "airportthru"?
From: Richard Maine on 16 Jan 2010 15:59 J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to(a)but.see.sig> wrote: > On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:40:26 -0500, Ed Kearns wrote > (in article <C777562A.28693%kearnser(a)gmail.com>): > > Thanks for this advice! My concern is that when I'm seeking a price on any > > of these Window Oss, they are always mentioning an upgrade product! Will > > that work for me, or what do I do to get what I want? > > > Upgrade versions will usually look for older versions of Windows and so will > _not_ work. You need the _full_ version. Sales staff try to push the upgrade > versions because they are up to $100 less than the full version. And the full versions certainly exist. As J.J. mentions, you might see sales folk (and also web sites) push the upgrade versions, but that doesn't mean those are the only ones. For example, as a very quick check, I just now searched on Amazon.com for "Windows"; that's all. I am not necessarily recommending that as a place to buy Windows. Nor am I disrecommending it; I just make no recommendation one way or another on the matter. I haven't even done token research as to the best place. I just tried it as somewhere quick and easy to look. The first hit at Amazon is a Windows 7 Home Premium upgrade for $109 direct from Amazon (or less from 3rd parties). The second hit was a Windows 7 Home Premium full (non-upgrade) for $179 direct (or again, less from 3rd parties). Other versions, both upgrade and full are also on the first page of the same Amazon search. That wasn't an incredibly difficult search. I notice that the full version even lists it plus Parallels as "frequently bought together". -- Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience; email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment. domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
From: Paul Sture on 17 Jan 2010 07:17 In article <hit2v701q13(a)news2.newsguy.com>, J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to(a)but.see.sig> wrote: > Upgrade versions will usually look for older versions of Windows and so will > _not_ work. You need the _full_ version. Sales staff try to push the upgrade > versions because they are up to $100 less than the full version. Theoretically at least, you can obtain an old version at a knock down price, but this might be more hassle than it's worth, for every time you do a fresh installation you will have to show it the old version's CD/DVD. For example, when I bought Office 97 for Windows, I bought Microsoft Works plus an upgrade license for Office, and saved a bundle. This was perfectly legal. -- Paul Sture
From: M-M on 17 Jan 2010 22:05 In article <1jceo4n.x8q70qhij5v5N%christian091230(a)chance-for-children.org>, christian091230(a)chance-for-children.org (Christian) wrote: > Basically yes. But some Windows version would do not like to be run in a > virtual machine because Microsoft included some limitations. This was > the case with the "basic" version of Windows Vista; no idea how it is > with Windows 7. Windows 7 runs very slowly in Fusion 3. And even the Mac side runs very slowly while Win 7 is running. XP ran very well with Fusion 2. BootCamp works with Win 7 but Apple says it is still working on supporting it. -- m-m http://www.mhmyers.com
From: Mike Rosenberg on 18 Jan 2010 09:17 M-M <nospam.m-m(a)ny.more> wrote: > Windows 7 runs very slowly in Fusion 3. And even the Mac side runs very > slowly while Win 7 is running. XP ran very well with Fusion 2. Based on one client's new 3.06GHz Intel Core 2 Duo iMac, Windows 7 runs fine with Parallels Desktop 5 and the Mac side isn't affected when it's running. -- My latest dance performance <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_9pudbFisE> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi>
From: M-M on 18 Jan 2010 21:56
In article <1jcic48.y1v7261uzd3qwN%mikePOST(a)TOGROUPmacconsult.com>, mikePOST(a)TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote: > > Windows 7 runs very slowly in Fusion 3. And even the Mac side runs very > > slowly while Win 7 is running. XP ran very well with Fusion 2. > > Based on one client's new 3.06GHz Intel Core 2 Duo iMac, Windows 7 runs > fine with Parallels Desktop 5 and the Mac side isn't affected when it's > running. I'm using a stock MBP 2.26 gHz. It took 9 minutes for a stripped-down fully updated Win 7 to boot in Fusion. -- m-m http://www.mhmyers.com |