01-24-2007, 05:57 AM

I just bought a new macbook last week for the sole purpose of running windows xp on it. (as all my software etc.. is windows based, and it would be way too expensive for me to switch to mac apps).

Anyway the guy at the mac shop told me that it could rubn windows smoothly and the same as any other intel based computer. Well unfortunately this is not true although i wish it was.

Some issues that i have noticed is that the sound cracks every now and then. This along with the clock always changing time, is not much of a big deal and something that I can live with... but what is really, really, fustrating is when the mouse cursor freezes for a few seconds and sometimes when the screen freezes up... also sometimes when i close the lid of the laptop for say 5 minutes, it goes to that "blue windows disk error screen" which means i have to restart my computer...

Im not meaning to pay macs out or anything... but this is not what i expected from a brand new laptop... and its just mega fustrating because i have alot of work to do during the day which involves the computer, and it is annoying when you have to deal with these little issues. Tommorrow, i am going to call apple, and ask for a refund (hopefully they will give it to me). I usually wouldn't do this, and am not the type of person to complain and winge... but really the salesperson at the apple store shouldn't have said that it will run windows the same as any other intel based computer, plus i paid $1,700 for the macbook, and its alot of money for me as i am still at university.

If i get a refund, fingers-crossed, im going to go out and buy an "all-white" sony vaio laptop. I love the mac design, but personally i dont think it is up to the stage where it can run windows, 100% smoothly.

01-24-2007, 06:07 AM

I agree, if the only reason you bought it was to run XP then you shouldn't have bought a Mac at all really (And you could probably have saved a bit of cash).

I would recommend a Macbook all day long but cannot understand buying one solely for XP. I haven't used XP on my Macbook so can't really help there (Sorry) Go get the Vaio, I suppose...

01-24-2007, 06:11 AM

Well, if your sole purpose is to run Windows, you did a fundamental mistake purchasing a Mac. They are made to run OS X and Windows is just a small complement. I am sure you would have found top of the line lappy from some other notebook manufacturer for that price.

Most of the Mac enthusiasts are spending high price not just for the hardware, but it is the combination of hardware and software that makes Macs so great. People install windows on Macs only to run one or two non compatible software or if they are into gaming. Windows as the main OS in a Mac is a very rare case.

Good luck!

01-24-2007, 06:30 AM

Originally Posted by novicew

Most of the Mac enthusiasts are spending high price not just for the hardware, but it is the combination of hardware and software that makes Macs so great.

I'll just second that - I didn't buy my mac 'cos it was pretty (ok, not just 'cos it's pretty) but for OSx and the bundled apps, among other things. I suggest having a think about what you need from a laptop and then find one that fits instead of fitting what you need into one that you like. Presuming you get your refund...Good luck mate.

01-24-2007, 06:59 AM

Bootcamp is beta at the moment.

You'll have to wait for Leopard for the finished article.

01-24-2007, 07:22 AM

Macbooks are nice looking - but that expense for the sole purpose of running XP - not a good idea.

What Windows software do you need? perhaps we can suggest cheap or even free alternatives..

I'm sorry you're not happy with your purchase but I guess at the end of the day you bought it for the wrong reason(s). Good luck with your Sony Vaio. As regards to the macbook I'd have thought they'd take it back but might charge you a restocking fee or something.

01-24-2007, 10:41 AM

It sounds like you need a good, reliable laptop for professional use. I would recommend a Thnkpad. They are a little expensive, but small, relatively lightweight, and very durable/reliable systems. That's what I would have bought had I not switched to Macs.

If you want something that looks good, look into an LG T1. It's not like a mac, but very beautiful in it's own way, plus it has a bigger screen and is thinner/lighter than the macbook. You can't get it in the states, but you can order it from Canadian suppliers and shipping isn't bad at all.

If you can somehow try, I recommend using OS X instead. After a few weeks you'll be hooked.

01-24-2007, 04:57 PM

I am rather surprised at hearing this.

I am in the same boat. I bought a $4k Mac Pro with lots of
memory in order to run Windows....

...but I am not doing it via Boot Camp.

When VISTA is released next week I plan to install it via
Parallels. From what I hear, as long as you don't do gaming,
you can absolutely run Windows almost flawlessly within your
Mac OS X environment. In fact, you can instantly switch between
the two environments.

My plan is to use all the great Windows software I have owned,
but very slowly, migrate over to MAS OS X which I think is the
superior operating system.

I haven't installed Parallels yet, but if you read this forum, you
will see that people are having very positive results running
Windows through it.

Personally, if you are not into gaming, I'd recommend Parallels.

01-24-2007, 05:08 PM

Parallels is still an emulator, now matter how good it is. It will not run WinXP software as well as booting directly into WinXP itself (via BootCamp). So buying a nice expensive Mac Pro to use Parallels is probably overkill.

However, it makes perfect sense if you want to work cooperatively between Win apps and OS X apps. The only thing I do in Parallels is run MSIE for sites that require Active X capability. The only thing I do in Boot Camp is play games. All of the actual work I do (photography, word processing, spread sheets, mail, browsing, etc.) is all done with native Mac OS X applications.

01-24-2007, 05:12 PM

dell.com

01-24-2007, 05:19 PM

Todd,

Let me explain my intentions a little more and you can tell
me if I did indeed overkill.....

I bought a Mac Pro because I was very curious about OS X. So
far, I absolutely love it, though the software available for it is
a mixed bag compared to Windows. Graphic programs are greatly
better with mac, while everyday programs, including OUTLOOK
are better in Windows.

I loaded up my Mac Pro with 4GB ram for very good reason.
Though I am awaiting VISTA next week to actually try out Parallels,
I have done enough advance research to know that it is a very
successful emulator that runs most Windows programs fluently.
In fact, many say they see no slowdown of Windows under Parallels.

Getting back to memory....

When setting up Parallels it asks how much you want to devote
to Parallels. I figured 2GB to Vista and 2GB to Mac OS X.

I may be shooting myself in the foot talking confidently about
software I have yet to install, but just reading feedback on this
forum alone, I am confident I can run a variety of my favorite
Windows applications including OFFICE, PHOTOSHOP, and other
goodies on Vista ala Parallels.

Of course, I hear there are limitations. USB support may not
be completely there yet. Some programs may not play well
under Parallels.

However, there is much hope on the horizon....

Parallels improves, it seems, on a weekly basis. That company
is actively improving the software and making Windows more
compatible and able to run faster in its environment. Furthermore,
there are rumors that LEOPARD will introduce its own virtual
software to run Windows on it as well.

So, in my opinion, for those that are now buying macs to run
Windows (and this is an increasing phenomenon), there is much
hope for success!

Your thoughts?

01-24-2007, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by ToddG

Parallels is still an emulator, now matter how good it is. It will not run WinXP software as well as booting directly into WinXP itself (via BootCamp). So buying a nice expensive Mac Pro to use Parallels is probably overkill.

Parallels isn't really an emulator, it's using virtualisation technology. Virtual PC was an emulator, and was quite slow. I find running the majority of my applications under Parallels to be quite comparable in speed to running them natively.

What you lose with virtualisation is direct hardware access. You won't get accelerated video and audio, and hence cannot expect to play games on it. Likewise, while Parallels will run Vista, you shouldn't expect to get its "eye-candy"

01-24-2007, 05:30 PM

Likewise, while Parallels will run Vista, you shouldn't expect to get its "eye-candy"

This is an interesting statement.

I read that on the macbooks you can't use Aero because it has
no dedicated graphics card.

I am hoping this is different with my Mac Pro. Can anyone confirm?

01-24-2007, 05:36 PM

Paralells is still in its beta stages so not everything is promised to work for you.

01-24-2007, 05:39 PM

djames42 -- Thanks for the clarification; I hadn't realized that.

NJRonbo -- Don't misunderstand, I don't think you've done anything wrong at all! Hopefully in short order you'll find enough native OS X apps to make Parallels less necessary for your day to day work. I use Office 2004 with great success. I migrated from Outlook to the included Mail, Address Book, and iCal programs from OS X. I was never a real "power user" of Outlook so these apps more than meet my needs.

New Universal Binary versions of both Office and Adobe CS should be available in 2007. In the meantime, I'd say it's a toss-up between using the "Rosetta" versions or running Win versions under Parallels.

Anything in Vista that requires Direct3D will be lost in Parallels, because Parallels uses an emulated/visualized/something-or-other-ified video card instead of the one actually living in your box.