Mapsource on a MAC - native!!

[dfinazzo]

Go to this Garmin site and start your migration from PC to MAC . . .

Windows not required!!

http://www8.garmin.com/support/down...ils.jsp?id=3886 (http://www8.garmin.com/support/download_details.jsp?id=3886)

I am in the process and since this is Beta too early to report on results !!

[dfinazzo]

Please note this is a Beta version - not entirely functional on the MAC at this time!!

Note: You do not need to have an Intel based MAC - operates just fine on OSX Tiger 10.4.11

Installation takes quite a few confusing steps on both your PC - getting the maps prepared / compressed. Uncompressing them on the MAC and then running the Map Install and Map Manager software - then finally running the mapping program Bobcat.

Downloaded data from my 376c - wayponts, routes and tracks. Program is not all that slick of course neither is Mapsource - but it works!! Will be test driving more to look for limitions and or improvements!!

You need to zoom in real close for streets to show up and there does not appear to be a way to adjust detail levels!!

But this out of the box Beta is moving in the right direction. It may be in a short time that I will not require owning a Windows since it was the only reason I kept it for the GPS mapping!! :D

[munson]

But this out of the box Beta is moving in the right direction. It may be in a short time that I will not require owning a Windows since it was the only reason I kept it for the GPS mapping!! :D
Cool! I just ordered two new Mac Pro's for the lab at work. I'll give the beta a try for grins.

[eljeffe]

Cool! I just ordered two new Mac Pro's for the lab at work. I'll give the beta a try for grins.

Yo Rev! Don't spend too much time on it, or you'll end up abandoning the "other" platforms.

FYI, if you plan on using any virtualization software, there are 2 choices: Parallels and VMWare Fusion. Based on all the reviews, these two are neck and neck; however, there are some differences worth knowing:

1. Parallels is much faster when running XP than on Fusion
2. Fusion is much faster when running Vista than on Parallels
3. Migrating from Parallels to Fusion is a snap
- VMWare has migration tools to take Parallels disk images to Fusion
- Currently, there is no way to go the other way (that I know of)
4. Parallels has a more diagnostic and other tools (i.e. disk image resizer)
5. Fusion is part of the VMWare suite or products, so if you are familiar with it, VM images from Fusion can be run on other VMWare instances

Both are working on server versions of their software. Parallels Server can even allow multiple instances of OS X to be run as virtual machines.

I've tried both, and I use Parallels because of the performance benefit. If all thing were equal, I would probably go to VMWare because of the compatibility with their much larger product base. But for now, I'll stick with Parallels. Both are priced at about $80, and there are usually $20 rebates that can be found. You will need your own copy of the guest operating system in order to install it -- I've installed XP, Vista, Red Hat, and Solaris 10 as VMs under both, and it's pretty slick (if you have enough disk space) ;)