Run Windows XP on MAC

[Paul H]

Virtualbox works well enough, and is free. You can run it in seamless mode, which makes the windows program look like it's running directly on your Mac desktop. I've run Virtualbox on my Mac, and on a Linux box at work for some time.

Parallels or VMware Fusion are commercial options that may have a little more functionality, but obviously cost money.

In some cases though, you can get away with running the windows programs through CrossOver, which is a supported implementation of WINE / Darwine.

[Kirk Gittings]

I use Bootcamp but you do have to reboot to change the OS. Parallels Desktop allows switching back and forth without rebooting but you have to pay for it. Also I understand Bootcamp runs better than Parallels.

I gave up on Parallels a couple of years ago. I found it very quirky and unstable. Maybe it is better now.

[clay harmon]

I also had an earlier version of Parallels that was flaky, which was why I picked up VMware Fusion. The latest version of Parallels is much better and very stable, however.

I gave up on Parallels a couple of years ago. I found it very quirky and unstable. Maybe it is better now.

[Ken Lee]

Another vote for VMWare Fusion. I run XP with it on my iMac. You do need an Intel Mac, though. (The old PowerPC architecture is not supported by Parallels, VMWare, or VirtualBox.)

I found Parallels not only flaky and highly unstable, but also a mess to uninstall.

One nice thing about running Windows (or any other OS) as a VM, is that you can save the state of the machine, with programs running etc. You can back up the disk image and save it, or send it to someone if you like.

[Marko]

I've been using Parallels here and there over the last few years and didn't have any negative experience. It is a little quirky to install, but nothing that couldn't be dealt with.

What Joanna stated about memory, especially the leaks, is accurate and something to keep in mind. Since you already have enough RAM installed, you should be fine if you don't quit and restart your sessions too often.

Marko

[Joanna Carter]

I gave up on Parallels a couple of years ago. I found it very quirky and unstable. Maybe it is better now.

Oh, it's a lot better. I use it to support multi-platform software development and can happily run all day; which, if you were a programmer, you would realise is quite a feat, considering how many chances you have to screw up the memory

[Joanna Carter]

One nice thing about running Windows (or any other OS) as a VM, is that you can save the state of the machine, with programs running etc. You can back up the disk image and save it, or send it to someone if you like.

Now there you have one heck of a reason to use VMs.

I make sure that, after I have installed and setup Windows and the applications I want to use, the first thing I do is to make a disk copy of the "machine" plus a "snapshot" within the VM. So now I have a base "clean machine" that I can revert to should things go too pear-shaped in Windows.

In the software development world, more and more people are setting up multiple VMs, each one dedicated to a particular development tool for a particular client; thus avoiding all sorts of stability problems and ensuring each client's confidentiality.

With enough meory/CPU cores, you can even test network communications between two "machines", all on the one computer.

[bsimison]

Another vote for VirtualBox. I have used both Parallels and VMWare, and while they were nice (but not without their quirks), I have found VirtualBox to meet all of my needs. I switched because I could never get either of the $$ applications to successfully communicate with my Magellan GPS. VirtualBox did so easily.

[Scott Knowles]

To ask the obvious, why not use an available application which does run on Mac's? Why emulate Windows just for some old apps and have all the headaches of a parallel OS? There's quite a few excellent apps ( which you can export the datasets into them or into a compatible app like Numbers) to create plots. It would seem easier to me to convert to new apps than run Windows for a few old apps.

[Ken Lee]

1) Not all Windows applications have an OS X analogue - and vice versa.

2) If you've already paid for one, why not simply use it ?