/ Forside / Teknologi / Hardware / Mac / Nyhedsindlæg
Login
Glemt dit kodeord?
Brugernavn

Kodeord


Reklame
Top 10 brugere
Mac
#NavnPoint
UlrikB 4810
kipros 1675
Klaudi 1010
myg 920
pifo 907
Stouenberg 838
molokyle 830
Bille1948 815
rotw 760
10  EXTERMINA.. 750
Samtidig afvikling af Windows fra MacOS X ~
Fra : Per Rønne


Dato : 13-04-06 16:04

Så synes løsningen nær:

Artiklen kan findes på:

<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/13/technology/13pogue.html?8dpc>

> The New York Times
>
> April 13, 2006
> David Pogue
> Run Windows and Mac OS Both at Once
>
> ONLY a week ago, Apple released what seemed like an astonishing piece of
> software called Boot Camp. This program radically rewrote the rules of
> Macintosh-Windows warfare — by letting you run Windows XP on a Macintosh
> at full speed.
>
> Now, some in the Cult of Macintosh were baffled by the whole thing. Who on
> earth, they asked, wants to pollute the magnificence of the Mac with a
> headache like Windows XP?
>
> Back in the real world, though, there was plenty of interest. Lots of
> people are tempted by the Mac's sleek looks and essentially virus-free
> operating system — but worry about leaving Windows behind entirely. Others
> would find happiness with Apple's superb music, photo and movie-making
> programs — but have jobs that rely on Microsoft Access, Outlook or some
> other piece of Windows corporate-ware.
>
> Even many current Mac fans occasionally steal covert glances over the
> fence at some of the Windows-only niceties they thought they'd never have,
> like QuickBooks Online, AutoCad for architects, high-end 3-D Windows
> games, or the occasional bullheaded Web site that requires Internet
> Explorer for Windows.
>
> Few could have guessed that only days later, Boot Camp would be eclipsed
> by something even better.
>
> Boot Camp remains a free download from Apple.com. It's a public beta,
> meaning it's not technically finished. It's available only for Mac models
> containing an Intel chip. (So far that's the 2006 Mac Mini, iMac and
> MacBook Pro laptop.)
>
> The uncomplicated installation process takes about an hour, and entails
> burning a CD, inserting a Windows XP installation CD (not included), and
> waiting around a lot.
>
> Then you designate either Mac OS X or Windows as your "most of the time"
> operating system. You can also choose an operating system each time you
> start up the computer.
>
> If you choose Windows, then by golly, you're in Windows. You can install
> and run your favorite Windows programs — speech recognition, business
> software, even games — and, incredibly, they run as fast and well as they
> ever did.
>
> Correction: they run faster than they ever did. Most people comment that
> an Intel Mac runs Windows faster than any PC they've ever owned. And if
> the Windows side ever gets bogged down with viruses and spyware, you can
> flip into Mac OS X and keep right on being productive.
>
> Boot Camp's problem, though, is right there in its name: You have to
> reboot (restart) the computer every time you switch systems. As a result,
> you can't copy and paste between Mac and Windows programs. And when you
> want to run a Windows program, you have to close everything you were
> working on, shut down the Mac, and restart it in Windows — and then
> reverse the process when you're done. You lose two or three minutes each
> way.
>
> NO wonder, then, that last week, the corridors of cyberspace echoed with
> the sounds of high-fiving when a superior solution came to light. A little
> company called Parallels has found a way to eliminate all of those
> drawbacks — and to run Windows XP and Mac OS X simultaneously.
>
> The software is called Parallels Workstation for Mac OS X, although a
> better name might be No Reboot Camp. It, too, is a free public beta,
> available for download from parallels.com. You can pre-order the final
> version for $40, or pay $50 after its release (in a few weeks, says the
> company).
>
> Parallels, like Boot Camp, requires that you supply your own copy of
> Windows. But here's the cool part: with Parallels, unlike Boot Camp, it
> doesn't have to be XP. It can be any version, all the way back to Windows
> 3.1 — or even Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, OS/2 or MS-DOS. All of this is made
> possible by a feature of Intel's Core Duo chips (called virtualization)
> that's expressly designed for running multiple operating systems
> simultaneously.
>
> In the finished version, the company says, you'll be able to work in
> several operating systems at once. What the heck — install Windows XP
> three times. If one becomes virus-ridden, you can just delete it and
> smile.
>
> But before your head explodes, consider the most popular case: running one
> copy of Windows XP on your Mac.
>
> Suppose you're finishing a brochure on your Mac, and you need a phone
> number from your company's Microsoft Access database. You double-click the
> Parallels icon, and 15 seconds later — yes, 15 seconds — Windows XP is
> running in a window of its own, just as you left it. You open Access, look
> up and copy the contact information, click back into your Mac design
> program, and paste. Sweet.
>
> Using Boot Camp, you'd restart the computer in Windows, look up the number
> — but then what? Without the ability to copy and paste, what would you do
> with the phone number once you found it? Write it on an envelope?
>
> Parallels is very fast — perhaps 95 percent as fast as Boot Camp. (It's
> definitely not a software-based emulator like Microsoft's old, dog-slow
> Virtual PC program.) It's even fast enough for video games, although not
> the 3-D variety; for now, those are still better played in Boot Camp.
>
> So if Parallels' side-by-side scheme is so superior, should Apple just
> fold up its little Boot Camp tent and go home? It's much too soon to say.
> Turns out Apple's and Parallels' definitions of "beta" differ wildly.
>
> The Boot Camp beta feels finished and polished. Parallels, on the other
> hand, is obviously a labor of love by techies who are still novices in the
> Macintosh religion of simplicity. Its installation requires fewer steps
> than Boot Camp (there's no CD burning or restarting the Mac), but even its
> Quick Installation Guide is filled with jargon like "virtual machine" and
> "image file." (Parallels says it's completely rewriting its guides.)
>
> The dialogue boxes look a little quirky, too. And to get the best features
> — like copying and pasting between operating systems and enlarging the
> Windows window to nearly full-screen size — you're supposed to install
> something called Parallels Tools. They ought to be installed
> automatically.
>
> Even then, as of the current version (Beta 3), some features are missing
> in the Windows side: your U.S.B. jacks won't work, for example, and DVD's
> won't play (CD's do). Sometimes, beta really means beta.
>
> Note, too, that while it's easy to copy text between Mac OS X and Windows
> programs, copying files and folders is trickier. You don't actually see a
> Windows "hard drive," as you do when using Mac OS X with Boot Camp. To
> drag icons back and forth, you have to share the "Mac" and the "PC" with
> each other over a "network" that you establish between them. Things sure
> get weird fast when you're running two computers in one.
>
> Now, if you're a Mac fan, knowing that you can run Windows software so
> easily in Mac OS X might make your imagination run wild with
> possibilities. One of them, unfortunately, is a buzz killer of epic
> proportions: If such a feat becomes effortless, will the world's software
> companies lose their incentive to write Mac versions of their programs?
>
> No one can say. But if that fate can be avoided, then the Uni-Computer
> will be a win-win-win. The Mac will be known as the computer that can run
> nearly 100 percent of the world's software catalog. Microsoft will sell
> more copies of Windows. Consumers will enjoy the security, silent
> operation and sophisticated polish of the Mac without sacrificing
> mission-critical Windows programs.
>
> Apple, no doubt, is also gleefully contemplating the reaction of the
> masses when they experience Mac OS X and Windows side by side, day in and
> day out. Its Web site makes the point without much subtlety: "Windows
> running on a Mac," it says, is "subject to the same attacks that plague
> the Windows world. So be sure to keep it updated with the latest Microsoft
> Windows security fixes." Ouch!
>
> So in the course of seven days, the brilliant but technical Windows-on-Mac
> procedure written by a couple of hackers last month — OnMac.net — has
> become obsolete, and two more official ways to do the unthinkable have
> been born. You can use Boot Camp (fast and feature-complete, but requires
> restarting) or, in a few weeks, the finished version of Parallels (fast
> and no restarting, but geekier to install, and no 3-D games).
>
> Can't decide? Then install both. They coexist beautifully on a single Mac.
>
> Either that, or just wait. At this rate of change and innovation,
> something even better is surely just another week away.
>
> E-mail: Pogue@nytimes.com


Og der kan downloades fra:

<http://www.parallels.com/en/download/mac/>



--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk

 
 
Morten Reippuert Knu~ (13-04-2006)
Kommentar
Fra : Morten Reippuert Knu~


Dato : 13-04-06 18:29

Per Rønne <per@rqnne.invalid> wrote:
> Så synes løsningen nær:

> Artiklen kan findes på:

> <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/13/technology/13pogue.html?8dpc>

kunne du ikke nøjes med et simpelt url?

> Og der kan downloades fra:

> <http://www.parallels.com/en/download/mac/>


--
Morten Reippuert Knudsen <http://blog.reippuert.dk>

PowerMac G5: 1.6GHz, 1,25GB RAM, 300+300GB SATA, 16xDVD DL, Bluetooth
mus+tastatur, R9600PRO, iSight, eyeTV200 & LaCie Photon18Vision TFT.

Per Rønne (13-04-2006)
Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne


Dato : 13-04-06 19:45

Morten Reippuert Knudsen <spam@reippuert.dk> wrote:

> kunne du ikke nøjes med et simpelt url?

Det er betydeligt mere besværligt for den der vil læse det. Bl.a. skal
der registreres - og generelt er det også besværligere at skulle ind i
browseren.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk

Niels Jørgen Kruse (13-04-2006)
Kommentar
Fra : Niels Jørgen Kruse


Dato : 13-04-06 20:29

Per Rønne <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote:

> Morten Reippuert Knudsen <spam@reippuert.dk> wrote:
>
> > kunne du ikke nøjes med et simpelt url?
>
> Det er betydeligt mere besværligt for den der vil læse det. Bl.a. skal
> der registreres - og generelt er det også besværligere at skulle ind i
> browseren.

Har du prøvet at holde æbletasten nede mens du klikker på et URL i
MacSOUP?

--
Mvh./Regards, Niels Jørgen Kruse, Vanløse, Denmark

Per Rønne (13-04-2006)
Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne


Dato : 13-04-06 21:14

Niels Jørgen Kruse <nospam@ab-katrinedal.dk> wrote:

> Per Rønne <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Morten Reippuert Knudsen <spam@reippuert.dk> wrote:
> >
> > > kunne du ikke nøjes med et simpelt url?
> >
> > Det er betydeligt mere besværligt for den der vil læse det. Bl.a. skal
> > der registreres - og generelt er det også besværligere at skulle ind i
> > browseren.
>
> Har du prøvet at holde æbletasten nede mens du klikker på et URL i
> MacSOUP?

Det er skam den metode jeg bruger, når jeg skal se en side. Jeg finder
det bare lettere at det står i den artikel, jeg er i gang med.

Det gør det i øvrigt også meget lettere for folk at kommentere.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk

Morten Reippuert Knu~ (13-04-2006)
Kommentar
Fra : Morten Reippuert Knu~


Dato : 13-04-06 21:18

Per Rønne <per@rqnne.invalid> wrote:
> Morten Reippuert Knudsen <spam@reippuert.dk> wrote:

> > kunne du ikke nøjes med et simpelt url?

> Det er betydeligt mere besværligt for den der vil læse det. Bl.a. skal
> der registreres - og generelt er det også besværligere at skulle ind i
> browseren.

Det er muligt, men det er ikke god skik at poste et så langt indlæg
der blot er en kopi af en offentlig tilgængelig artikkel. Du kunne
have nøjes med at poste et url og brugt lidt mere krudt på at forholde
dig til artiklen.
Jeg tror de færreste gider læse den, og dem der gider opfatter det
næppe som et stort problem at de skal læse den på NTtimes site.

I øvrigt tvivler jeg på at du må bruge artiklen i hele dens længde.

--
Morten Reippuert Knudsen <http://blog.reippuert.dk>

PowerMac G5: 1.6GHz, 1,25GB RAM, 300+300GB SATA, 16xDVD DL, Bluetooth
mus+tastatur, R9600PRO, iSight, eyeTV200 & LaCie Photon18Vision TFT.

Axel Hammerschmidt (13-04-2006)
Kommentar
Fra : Axel Hammerschmidt


Dato : 13-04-06 23:15

Per Rønne <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote:

> Morten Reippuert Knudsen <spam@reippuert.dk> wrote:
>
> > kunne du ikke nøjes med et simpelt url?
>
> Det er betydeligt mere besværligt for den der vil læse det. Bl.a. skal
> der registreres...

Enig! NYT er også begyndt at ta' penge for at læse deres artikler på
nettet. Men ikke i det her tilfælde. Der var et link i Poques
nyhedsbrev, Circuits fra idag.

Per Rønne (14-04-2006)
Kommentar
Fra : Per Rønne


Dato : 14-04-06 05:15

Axel Hammerschmidt <hlexa@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Per Rønne <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Morten Reippuert Knudsen <spam@reippuert.dk> wrote:
> >
> > > kunne du ikke nøjes med et simpelt url?
> >
> > Det er betydeligt mere besværligt for den der vil læse det. Bl.a. skal
> > der registreres...
>
> Enig! NYT er også begyndt at ta' penge for at læse deres artikler på
> nettet. Men ikke i det her tilfælde. Der var et link i Poques
> nyhedsbrev, Circuits fra idag.

NYT tager normalt ikke penge for /dagens/ artikler, men artiklerne skal
ikke være mange dage [uger?] gamle, før det er tilfældet. Dermed vil
artiklen ikke være tilgængelig efter nogen tid.

Og gider man ikke læse den, så gider man ikke læse den. Jeg vil tro at
jeg ikke »gider« læse mindst 95% af de artikler, jeg modtager. Jeg
modtager dem dog stadig fuldt ud, altså ikke kun headerne. Undtagelsen
er de ganske få spam-begrænsninger jeg har lagt ind. Killfiles på ganske
få mennesker, og på subjects der eksempelvis indeholder '!!!' - et
typisk tegn på spam.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk

Søg
Reklame
Statistik
Spørgsmål : 177554
Tips : 31968
Nyheder : 719565
Indlæg : 6408852
Brugere : 218888

Månedens bedste
Årets bedste
Sidste års bedste