Running bw on an Intel Mac

[Curious Batuwaa]

(I have posted a similar message in a Mac/Parallels thread but this asks about the bw-on-Mac idea in general...the intro is repeated but the questions are different.)
The idea is get a new computer before v1 Vista hits the streets. (Ie, buy a new machine with a fully up to date XP OS--wait a few years for Vista to stablize or 3 years when MS stops supporting XP, or...)
Mac w/Intel chip has become minimally a hardware option but I have two important (to me) applications that have no Mac counterparts--bw & Info Select. (Tech support word has it that Logos is working on a Mac version.)
Windows apps on new Mac options are:
dual-boot Apple BootCamp
virtualized Parallels
code-tweaked Code Weavers' CrossOver (nee' Wine?)

I have read in the forum that there is at least one happy bootCamper who finds bw w/BootCamp running as fast as or faster than prior PC installations.
How do the specs for the Mac and the prior PCs compare? (I currently run XP with 2gb on a 2.5gHz P4.)
Re Parallel--is the performance hit noticeable v. BootCamp?

I understand that Code Weaver wrote Wine(?), which several bw users run successfully in Linux, have run for several(?) years. It would seem that CrossOver would be the best Mac solution of the three, apparently running bw as if it were written for the Mac OS--no XP copy necessary.
Have the bw/Wine issues been resolved? (Demonstrating that the authors of Wine have some familiarity with bw.)
Is bw7 running in Linux comparably well to Windows?

[Dogfish Jones]

I'm not computer-literate enough to mess with Crossover. And I like to be able to work with Word, Powerpoint and BW all at the same time, so Boot Camp wasn't really an option for me either. i went with Parallels.

Overall, I've found it to be a great experience. It is relatively easy to switch back and forth, and you can copy and paste between OSX and Windows with ease.

I have noticed that the machine runs hotter and not as smoothly as others report, though. I think that is related to some other performance issues I'm having with the computer. However, I am ordering a C2D today that will have twice the RAM of this one and, of course, the C2D speed boost as well. I anticipate that smoothing out much of the problems that I'm having.

[cozart]

i tried BW6 with CrossOver and didn't like it all. when i would resize the window, it didn't automatically redraw the lines and i had to minimize and then maximize for it to work right. then, when looking up verses, text would overlap or not show up at all.

this might be different for BW7, but i didn't like the way it worked with BW6 at all.

i currently just use Parallels. i do wish, however, that there was a way to load BW faster than having to wait for windows to boot up before i can even start BW up.

[Adelphos]

I have a different problem than all you guys.

You see, with my dual-core processor and 2GB of memory and a gazillion GB hard drive, et cetera, BW7 loads and runs super fast. However...

It takes at LEAST thirty seconds for BW7 to load on my Commodore 64!

Can anybody duplicate this?

[Dale A. Brueggemann]

It takes at LEAST thirty seconds for BW7 to load on my Commodore 64! Can anybody duplicate this?

This definitely gave me my morning laugh. Also made me think of my earlier computing days, when I was hacking all kinds of interesting solutions to scenarios I sometimes created myself.

You know BW 3-7 have all run quite well on the platform for which they were designed. Here at Tyndale House in Cambridge, we're also running Accordance on Windows machines--kind of running it, if you're patient. Sound familiar?

[Adelphos]

Here at Tyndale House in Cambridge, we're also running Accordance on Windows machines--kind of running it, if you're patient. Sound familiar?

Well, if it's any consolation, it takes almost a full minute for Accordance to run on my Commodor 64, so BW is still about twice as fast.

Of course, the OS on my C64 is the Grand Electronic Nanotech Express Randomly Intelligent Computer System (aka GENERICS), so naturally, the comparison may be a little skewed. However, the OS is blazingly fast! Lots faster than Windows or Mac.

In case anybody is interested, you can get the GENERICS OS wherever Commodore 64's are sold.

[countach]

It seems to me that it is high time Bibleworks came out with a Mac SUPPORTED version. Yes, I know they don't want to re-write the app, but they could build WINE into the Mac version, and iron out the glitches and the install issues for us. That ought not be TOO much effort to support.

How about it guys?

[Dale A. Brueggemann]

It seems to me that it is high time Bibleworks came out with a Mac SUPPORTED version.

I think that's somewhere BW isn't going, because they don't want to compete with their good friends at Accordance.

[Carvalho]

Dear Dogfish,
I've been using Parallels, and that's true, it is easy to switch back and forth. However, I've not been able to cut the text from the Windows and paste it in the OSX Word.
How are you doing that?

Carvalho

[Dogfish Jones]

Update: Everything is silky smooth on the C2D. And the MBP isn't running as hot as the previous one was. Interesting.

Regarding cut- or copy-n-pasting, I actually hadn't tried getting any text out of BW yet. I have copied from Logos and Pradis to Word:Mac without any trouble though. I did just try and was unsuccessful. I imagine a clunky work-around would be to copy the text within Windows to Word or something and then copy it again to see if Parallels picks it up then.