One Way to Turn a Mac Into a PC Just Got Better
There are two common methods for running Microsoft Windows and Windows programs on an Apple Macintosh, and one of those methods just got better and easier.
The first approach uses a feature called Boot Camp that comes free on every new Mac. Using Boot Camp, the entire Mac is turned into a Windows PC, with the full capabilities and speed of a standard Windows machine. No trace of the Mac operating system is left running. The downside is that you can’t run Windows and Mac programs side by side.
The second approach uses one of two third-party programs to create a virtual Windows PC inside your Mac. This faux Windows machine runs at normal speeds and can operate simultaneously with the Mac’s own operating system. Programs native to each operating system can run side by side. The downside is that, because Windows doesn’t get complete control of the computer’s hardware, it isn’t quite as fast as in Boot Camp, and a few of its functions, like 3D graphics, don’t work as well.
This latter method is enabled by two excellent, closely matched $80 programs: Parallels, from a Swiss-based company of the same name, and Fusion, from VMWare, a U.S. company. It is Fusion that just got better, because VMWare just issued version 2.0 of the product with lots of new features, some of which let it catch up to the older Parallels and some of which push it ahead.
I’ve been testing Fusion 2.0 for a couple of weeks on two different Macs, and using it to run both Windows XP and Windows Vista. My verdict is that while you won’t go wrong with Parallels, Fusion edges it out as the better product.
The new Fusion 2.0 is a free upgrade for owners of version 1.0. It can be obtained at vmware.com/mac and at various retailers.
Like Boot Camp and Parallels, Fusion requires you to obtain and install a fresh, boxed, full version of Windows on your Mac. But once you’ve done that, your Mac becomes two computers in one. If you need to run programs that are available only on Windows, you can do so with ease.
For instance, as I write this column on a MacBook pro laptop, using a Macintosh word processor, I am using Fusion 2.0 to simultaneously run Google’s new Chrome browser, which is so far available for Windows only. I can switch between the two with a couple of keystrokes and copy text from one to the other.
Like Parallels, Fusion allows you to run Windows programs in one of three ways. You can see the entire Windows desktop, with Windows programs running within it, inside its own window on your Mac. Or, using a feature called “Unity,” each Windows program can float free, as if it were just another Mac program, with the Windows desktop invisible. If you minimize a Windows program, it disappears into an icon in the Mac’s Dock, just as Mac programs do.
Finally, you can devote the entire screen to the Windows desktop and hide the Mac operating system entirely.
Parallels can also do these things. Both programs can now also “mirror” your most common Windows and Mac file folders so that, for instance, all of the files in your Mac’s Pictures folder also appear in the My Pictures folder in Windows XP. This is a new addition to Fusion, as is the ability to take multiple “snapshots” of your Windows virtual machine, so if something goes wrong, you can roll back to a previous state when things were stable.
But Fusion has some other features Parallels lacks. For example, it allows you to automatically take those protective snapshots at timed intervals. It also permits you to completely customize keyboard commands so that the same common key combinations work in both Windows and Mac programs. It allows the faux Windows machine to take full advantage of multiple monitors, if you have them.
Fusion also uses a more modern and capable version of the proprietary 3-D graphics system in Windows, called DirectX. That means some Windows-only games and other programs that won’t work in Parallels will work in Fusion. I successfully tested two such programs, both from Microsoft: Worldwide Telescope and Photosynth.
And, in my experience, Fusion is a bit faster than Parallels. Both programs put a strain on your Mac when performing major tasks, like starting up or shutting down Windows. But Fusion seems to affect the Mac less. And, unlike Parallels, it can make Windows quicker by optionally assigning it control of the multiple “cores” in most modern processor chips.
Fusion also offers a one-year free subscription to Windows security software, while Parallels offers only a six-month subscription.
However, Fusion has its limits. Like Parallels, it cannot run the 3-D visual effects in Windows Vista. And, in my tests, it wouldn’t allow Windows running on one of my Macs to use the printer that was configured on the Mac, although that feature did work on my other test Mac.
In my view, Fusion is now the better choice for running Windows on a Mac virtually.
Find all of Walt Mossberg’s columns and videos online, free, at the All Things Digital Web site, walt.allthingsd.com.
Write to Walt Mossberg at mossberg@wsj.com





Comments
I also suggest VirtualBox, a product that can be downloaded completely free from Sun at:
http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Downloads
This product is a small download, runs fast, and is free.
I installed Vista on VirtualBox, and networking (including VPN), sound, and shared drives all work perfectly. While my Boot Camp version of Vista scores high 5s and low 6s on the Experience index, VirtualBox scores low 5s on everything except graphics (that gets a 1.0).
But everything runs fine, and you can’t beat free. I tried VMWare a while back, and it didn’t seem to run nearly as snappily as VirtualBox does (though I doubt that is still the case, especially with this most recent Fusion offering).
Anyway, VirtualBox is worth a try if you have some disk space and time to install XP again to see how it works.
Thanks,
Posted by Joe Kaufman at October 2nd, 2008 at 10:29 amJoeK
I just installed Chrome on my Mac Pro with Parallels and found the Windows side unable to keep up with Flash movies. It is especially bad when some of the newer features on the Mac that run in the background kick in. I have cable internet access so I don’t imagine the problem is due to bandwidth availability. I have noticed similar slowdowns when playing some audio files or using software designed to change the key in Karaoke songs as well. If there is a setting I can change to improve this I would welcome the information.
Posted by Edward Ayres at October 2nd, 2008 at 11:46 amDo either Parallels or Fusion require one to have a Windows XP disk with Service Pack 2 (or 3) installed on the disk? Or could I install from a plain Windows XP disk and then download and update the Service Packs?
I ask because (i) I have a pre-Service Pack Windows XP disk which I would like to use and (ii) I am aware that Boot Camp requires one to have a Windows XP disk with Service Pack 2 installed on the disk.
Posted by Jeff Michalczak at October 6th, 2008 at 12:49 pmJeff – I have used XP Pro DVDs that have not included SP1,2 or 3 to install XP in both Parallels and Fusion 1. I have not installed a new XP or Vista on Fusion 2 although I have upgraded those VMs successfully.
Posted by Mark Thibault at October 6th, 2008 at 7:27 pmYou can ease into Fusion too. I was using Boot Camp. I could load up my Windows – Boot Camp install using Fusion and shut it down when I was done. But I couldn’t suspend it.
Once I was comfortable with Fusion I converted my Boot Camp install to a native Fusion VM. Now I can suspend a session and resume it later. I can also delete it from my disk when I’m desperate for space and copy it back on from another drive.
The best news is that I hardly ever need Windows anymore, but when I do Fusion makes it easy and performs well.
Posted by Murphy Mac at October 6th, 2008 at 8:00 pmwhat microsoft and apple need to do is make virtual machines part of the os
14 years ago i tried one of the first macs with a ms-windows ability and haven’t felt the need to have a toyota and nissan running at the same time
that was when i switched from being a mac fan (i used to sell them also) to having to use a pc
since then the pc does everything i need, other than lack the steve jobs halo glow that mac has
Posted by Sam Harrison at October 7th, 2008 at 12:28 pmWell, my comment is nearly 2 months after Walt’s article has published, but there is a significant Fusion shortcoming that Walt doesn’t mention, or isn’t aware of.
Fusion still does _not_ provide native Firewire support
How hard can it be?!
If you’re trying to use a Windows video editing suite on your Mac, you’re out of luck, as most camcorders are firewire interfaced, not USB.
VMWare lists a workaround for connecting to Firewire external hard drives, but it seems clumsy. I haven’t tried it yet, to see what the effect on Firewire-800 transfer speeds is. Due to it’s very high speed, Firewire-800 is the preferred connection to external hard drives, especially when making backups or disk images.
Posted by Tom Herman at November 28th, 2008 at 11:21 am