Hi, Pat:

 From a user's viewpoint, "Parallels" is similar to Microsoft's 
"Virtual PC." Tech-heads say the the technologies are somewhat 
different, but from the user side, the experience is similar:

* You pay for a copy of Windows, and install it on your Mac.

* You pay for a copy of any Windows software you need, and install it 
on the Windows "side."

* You pay a penalty in speed because VPC and Parallels both have to 
imitate Windows.

Each generation of faster machines makes the speed loss somewhat 
less. Older Windows applications that were developed for slower 
environments exhibit less slow-down, but newer resource-hungry 
applications struggle.

I'm still surprised by how nimble FM under Classic on my older TiBook 
*seems*, compared to InDesign CS2 under OS X Panther 10.3.9; partly 
this is due to Classic taking some of my maximum load of 1GB RAM, and 
my FM being set to a large memory partition under Classic, and partly 
even 1GB under OS X is borderline for ID CS2, Bridge, and Version 
Cue, without Classic. However, on my newer Windows laptop and WinXP, 
FM 7.2 is nimble enough, and has all the updated features and bug-fix 
patches that aren't available since FM 7 was discontinued on 

MacTel's story is only beginning, however. Who knows what might 
happen next for FM users?


Peter Gold
KnowHow ProServices

At 3:58 PM -0700 4/13/06, Pat Christenson wrote:
>The NY Times had an article today about Parallels Workstation, a 
>beta software that allows you to run OS X and Windows (any version, 
>not just XP) simultaneously on an intel-powered Mac. You don't have 
>to reboot when you switch. You can copy/paste between systems. You 
>have to "network" them to share files. The free download is 
>available at http://www.parallels.com/.
>This sounds like the most acceptable solution for the "I don't wanna 
>buy a PC just to run FrameMaker" folks (of which I am one, although 
>I already have both a Mac and a PC).
>Pat Christenson

Reply via email to