I'm trying to decide between Parallels and VM Fusion, having finally found "Jack", a bridge-playing program, that is worth polluting my Macbook with a Windows environment.
Knowing how cutting-edge you are, I looked in your blog Profile for your machine configurations, and came up blank.
Consider adding "Computer" to your profile -- many of us would be interested.
Knowing how cutting-edge you are, I looked in your blog Profile for your machine configurations, and came up blank.
Consider adding "Computer" to your profile -- many of us would be interested.
Good idea, I did.
Maybe two years ago, I tried a Windows emulator on my Mac Pro. I forget what it's called, there were two major ones at the times, and it was the one which is not called Parallels*. I also bought Windows Vista, and Dragonsoft Naturally Speaking dictation software, which was my reason for the whole thing.
It seemed I would have been better off with Win XP, because David Pogue told me that this was running really well in simulation for him, and running Naturally Speaking well. And the latter I just could not get to run in this setup.
Anyway, later I've decided that for the occasional use I'd need Windows for, I might as well just buy a used notebook on eBay, which I did. Got a used HP for less than £200, and it runs well. (I bought it from one of those professional guys who buy them used from universities and big companies, and set them up nicely with software etc. Recommended.)
*... I took a look. It was Virtual PC 5.
I would say though, that if one needs a PC emulator on a Mac, now is better than ever, because the new Macs have Intel chips, so there's barely any emulation necessary, it runs almost directly on the chip, which means it's very good and fast, just as fast as a native Windows machine, which could not be said before the big processor change in 2006. Before that the emulation was very slow.
----
PS: Before my honorable critics chime in, let me say that I wouldn't consider myself "cutting edge".
"Slightly leaned forward" is a good thing in business and in life, but "cutting edge", while perhaps exciting, is often a liability. It's usually expensive and under-developed. For example, a photographer who started shooting digital already back in the nineties is unlikely to have gotten much advantage from it. The digital cameras back then, if they were usable professionally, cost as much as a good car, and even then they were not yet as good as film.
Voice recognition is computationally intensive. It's not surprising it didn't work well under emulation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your remarks about the "cutting edge", but it's the place to be if a) you can afford it, and b) you want to influence the direction of future development. An early adopter who makes a convincing case to vendors and other early adopters, may be able to turn version 2 into a product more precisely tailored to his needs.
Say, maybe you can get Apple to open up the App Store!
"Voice recognition is computationally intensive. It's not surprising it didn't work well under emulation."
ReplyDeleteGood point.
Although "emulation" is so good on Intel chips that it hardly should make a difference, and indeed Pogue told me it runs perfectly on Windows XP on a Mac for him.
Anyhoo, it was not that it ran poorly it was that it wouldn't start up at all.
And I just gave it up, seeing as it was just something I was playing around with, and also no dictation solution has ever worked well for me, I get errors in every sentence.
You may have a slight accent. Keep your eyes peeled for a "Dane living in England" edition.
ReplyDelete(Word verification: 'choporm'. I really don't want to know...)
vmplayer is a freebie.
ReplyDeleteJust need a coppy of xp to run in it.
HTH
For playing a bridge game, a free program called virtualbox would probably suffice.
ReplyDeleteWithout having to cast my mind too far back (I think it would be maybe 1997/8ish?) I can recall seeing the very first consumer offerings of digital cameras.
ReplyDeleteThey were manufactured by Olympus, had a resolution of 640x480 pixels ... and cost over £800!!!
Cutting edge indeed! :-)
FWIW, blank CDs were sold individually at that time, cheapos were about 12 quid each!
Michael Burton said...
ReplyDelete"You may have a slight accent."
Yeah...ever so "slight." :0)
"Keep your eyes peeled for a "Dane living in England" edition."
Funny! :-)
The earliest consumer digital camera I was aware of was Apple's QuickTake, which came out in 1994. I remember thinking that for websites (early days), desktop-published newsletters, and other low-res applications, it might provide a very quick and easy workflow. I never bought one, though, so the guy from the Smithsonian Institute can just stop calling me, please!
ReplyDeleteMy first, in 1998, was a Nikon Coolpix 700. I'm glad I didn't start earlier, for looking back at it now, that cam had gawd-awful image quality. Blown highlights, less than one million pixels, and even then they were not good pixels by any measure.
ReplyDeleteWhen I bought it, it had just been reduced from about $1000 to about $600.