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