Comments on: Why Would You Run Windows Vista on MAC?

By: Joe

Joe — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 04:51:59 +0000

Milo – Microsoft only allows full retail versions of Vista Business or Vista Ultimate (as well as Vista Enterprise for big corporations) to run as virtual guests of a host PC. They were going to allow Home Basic and Premium, but decided against it, most likely because it is seen as a way around DRM protections. You are correct that Home Basic is not to be desired.

Scott – What’s not to understand? You can have your Mac, and still run Vista on it so you have access to all the software the world uses that won’t run on a Mac.

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 14:56:14 +0000

I don’t understand why anyone would ever want to use Vista on their Mac. I have Vista Ultimate and I would love to trade in this piece of junk operating system for a MacBook Pro.

By: Milo

Milo — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 09:08:16 +0000

Eric – if the same number of hackers of Microsoft go and crack Apple, they are going to be a mediocre.

By: Milo

Milo — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 09:05:42 +0000

Joe – I believe they only allowed the basic version, which basically leaves you nothing to desire.

By: Milo

Milo — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 09:04:47 +0000

Matthew, right. Why would you want to have Windows Vista running on Mac when you wouldn’t be able to use its functionality to the limit.

By: Matthew Vinton

Matthew Vinton — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:47:27 +0000

So, how could Media Access Control virtualize Vista?

Snarkiness aside, Mac is a shortening of Macintosh, a deliberate misspelling of McIntosh. It is not an acronym, and it is not to be yelled. :-)

As for virtualization, think of it like the Classic box which allowed OS X to run non-ported OS9 apps while they made the transition away from the older environment. Parallels or Fusion both allow a user to make a seamless move to a much more interesting platform.

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:34:16 +0000

I think you may have it backwards. Last I looked you could NOT use the home versions in a VM. Microsoft considered it for a second, then flopped back to saying no.

By: Eric Coleman

Eric Coleman — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:57:55 +0000

It’s mac users who “think” they need MS software. There are other reasons, as well.

As for the MAC’s security being questionable, I’m not surprised to see the number higher. Apple ships how many versions of free/open source software? It fails to mention how many of them are actually IN apple software or the UI etc. I’m sure a few of them were quicktime which is Apples fault, but still.

I’m not claming we are more secure, but don’t forget, your wasting what, 1/5th – 1/4th your CPU protecting yourself from viruses and spyware while im chugging away running twice the apps you can ;)