I downloaded the latest (and perhaps the last) Microsoft Windows Vista Release Candidate (#2 Build 5744) over the weekend (it took 12 hours, btw). The first thing I installed it on was… a MacBook running the current Parallels Desktop for Mac release candidate. The Parallels RC has an experimental Vista installation option that seems to work pretty well with Build 5744. The installation process was just as fast (and maybe a bit faster) than installations of earlier Vista releases on a real PC (under 30 minutes on a 2GHz MacBook). Parallels’ experimental Vista installer options gave it 512MB RAM and I left it at that since I only have 1GB RAM in the MacBook. Vista booted fine but didn’t see the network card. However, installing Parallels Tools (a simple click on the Parallels pull-down menu) fixed this without even requiring a reboot. Vista seems to run fast enough to comfortable use the MacBook with Parallels for further testing.
The file containing the virtual hard drive is just under 6GB (having not yet tried to run the Compressor on it) which is much smaller than the 9GB file generated using previous Vista beta releases installed under Parallels Desktop for Mac and Virtual PC 2004 (running on a Windows XP box).
The Open Source ClamWin Antivirus software installed fine to provide the test Vista installation with some virus protection.
Twelve hours? Were you having the bits delivered by overnight mail?
How about CPU usage of mac? When I tried Vista RC1 on Parallels, it consumes most of cpu usag even at an idling time.
Jeff: No. That's what happens when tens of thousands of technical beta testers download a multi-gigabyte ISO file at the same time. Of course individual experiences vary depending on other factors.
Hiroshi: The CPU hit on my MacBook seems about the same or maybe a little more than when I run Windows XP Pro SP2 as a Guest OS under Parallels. The other thing to note is that the version of Parallels I'm using is itself a Release Candidate. So, this perceived performance may change in the coming weeks.
Were you able to use Aero?
It runs slooooooooowwwwww. Vista is a piece of shit and it shows BIG TIME.
Anthony: Aero requires a dedicated graphics that is Vista-ready with a minimum of 128MB RAM. Since the MacBook does not have a hardware graphics card and Parallels does not simulate one in its virtual machine, Aero is not turned on.
Hi, I have Parallels but when I tried to install Vista RC1 - I got the message that the BIOS/firmware did not support ACPI. Is there a way around this? I have a MAC MINI CORE DUO with 1.25Gb RAM. Do I need a newer version of Parallels?
John,
You should make sure you have the latest update: http://www.parallels.com/en/download/desktop/update/
I'm running Vista RC2 on my mini 1.66 Duo w/1 GB. It installed and runs fine. I won't be touching Vista I'm sticking with XP for my gaming. Otherwise I run OS X or Linux. But I'm a certified PC tech so sadly I have to learn my way around Vista at some point LOL.
Vista seems to focus on graphics so much that it missed the essential networking improvements that should have been the priority.
I too have an issue with installing PC games. I receive errors saying that it cannot detect any 3D graphics and directs me to DirectX. So I found a DirectX that is compatible with Vista and successfully install it onto the computer. Yet, I am still unable to install any PC game. The Mac Pro under OSX is wonderful, and able to run World of Warcraft perfectly.
Cheers,
Jeremiah
~~If anyone has any suggestions, let me know, thanks.