Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Christopher Angell on May 14, 2010 at 12:34am

I also use VMWare and XP. I tried using Parallels (my wife uses that, I use fusion) and wasn't able to get it to work, though I'm sure it's possible. I am much happier having all my info on the computer I actually use then having a separate one just for Dex (and XP is cheap on ebay).

Permalink Reply by roxylove on August 18, 2010 at 5:00am

I have a Mac but have Parallels installed with Windows XP. The Dexcom software runs just fine on it. Only Leopard and Snow Leopard are compatible with Parallels, but if you have Tiger or even Panther, they both support Virtual PC. You can install Windows on Virtual PC, albeit it will be slower than if you have Parallels. However, if you are only using one program it should handle it just fine.

Permalink Reply by Jake on August 19, 2010 at 7:56am

Another option is to run VirtualBox for the Mac similar to Parellels and VMWare.. and its.. (gasp) Free..
There are things that the others do better but its a really well done application..

You could also try Boot Camp. but its a bit trickier to install, esp if your not an extremely tech saavy mac user.. You have to partition a hard disk to use it.. and it really is dual boot, you are NOT in mac os unlinke the other virtualizers...

Permalink Reply by Lindsay Sears on August 20, 2010 at 8:59am

I run VirtualBox with Windows XP Home on my MacBook and it works great. Not to mention being free... I think the advantage of VirtualBox over Boot Camp is that you can have both operating systems running at the same time without rebooting your computer. VirtualBox just shows up like a browser window that you can minimize while you are doing other things on your computer. The only issue I have encountered is that you need to have as much RAM as possible on your computer to run multiple operating systems at the same time. I have 1G of RAM (with 512 Meg devoted to VirtualBox) and I sometimes find that my computer runs unbearably slowly when I have both operating systems open.

Good luck finding a solution that works for you!

Permalink Reply by jdowdle on September 2, 2010 at 4:38pm

The whole Mac vs PC thing is a red herring. There are many options now for companies to produce a cross-platform software product. Dexcom went to the trouble to build this using .Net, when they could have just as easily written it in Java and had cross-platform from the get-go. Honestly, the best approach these days would be to put all this stuff on the web. Rich internet applications are the future, and having this diabetes information available from any computer at any time would be huge, not just for personal use, but in the doctors office, where you could pull up all your records, not just what the Dexcom has from the last 30 days.

Permalink Reply by Luca Bertagnolio on September 3, 2010 at 1:44am

Completely agree with you!

A simple plugin into the browser to allow communication between the hardware and the web-based application, and sooner than you think you can have platform independence. Or a small software providing the same link between the local device and the website.

Garmin took this route with their GPS, and it's very easy to manage the data coming from their devices online. There is a small USB dongle with a little piece of software that handles the communication between the GPS (in case it's a wireless device like my 405cx) and the Garmin Connect website, and then everything is done online.

The big issue I see with all this is data privacy, even more so since this is health-related data, very much under the HIPAA radar. And I smell a lot of liabilities there, so this will not be an easy thing to achieve. But it's the future, without a doubt.

Ciao, Luca

Permalink Reply by onesaint on September 3, 2010 at 11:12am

This is presently ho MM does things. You receive a small dongle that your pump communicates to which uploads reading directly to the web via their secure portal. The only issue I have with it is the browser support then becomes the issue and OS depending on the platform (*nix is out of the question right now).

Permalink Reply by DianaS on September 3, 2010 at 2:05pm

I actually had more problems with Minimed's Carelink than I do desktop versions of software. Instead of making their web based software a universally based platform they tied it to Internet Explorer, an old version of Java and certain windows only operating systems. The nightmares I had downloading my pump were one of the main reasons I switched from Minimed to an Animas/Dex combination. With web based software you have little control. With desktop software you may be able to find a workaround.

Having a well done, universal, secure web based platform would definatly have some benefits. For me right now the Dex software works much much better and I have no complaints.

Diana

Permalink Reply by Jake on September 3, 2010 at 6:58pm

Using a cross compatible development layer only means the app is easier to build.. the problem is the FDA will have to certify BOTH platform versions of the app, and its usually separate for each OS...

Plus you still have hardware driver issues relating to developing on the individual platforms..

Medtronic really was required to tie Carelink to IE because of the FDA.. The FDA really doesnt like open ended devices and wants the specifications to be set for runninng. For instance it has to be certified to run on a particular browser ... the problem with *any* browser (browser agnostic). is they would have to get certification FOR EACH BROWSER and PLATFORM they want to run the java app on..

The biggest user share for now is windows users.. and they only support Windows XP for the most part officially..
The advantage of making it work with XP is it will run with most virtualization software "off label" so other os's and machines can use it but they cant officially tell you that or the FDA would be riding their asses..

This is why you arent seeing Iphone/Ipod meters for *sale* yet... the concept is avalible... Also why you dont see a lot of bluetooth devices yet.. How abott got around this was by using a "Keyed" Bluetooth device.. meaning their software would only work with their IOGEAR BT dongle.. They were able to say to the FDA...This BT adapter is how the Frestyle Navigator will connect to the computer, We arent supporting others and well have the software verify this is how the user wants to connect.

A lot of these software issues may have initially been propriatary, but as Iv been told by a few people in the industry the FDA basically wants devices to be closed. The approval process for updating software is horrid from what i gather, its close to writing the app from scratch and starting the entire QA process from the beiginning again.

If someone wants to find out more from the FDA directly and contradict me,id be happy, but it seems that multiple companies have more or less told me different versions of this same story..Don't know how hard it *really* is but people are saying the same thing repeatedly, so i tend to beleve theres some basis of truth to it.

Permalink Reply by onesaint on September 3, 2010 at 11:50pm

Interesting Jake. Thanks for the info.

Permalink Reply by Jake on September 4, 2010 at 8:51am

This PDF sort of explains *some* of the issues with the FDA software process..

http://www.intertechengineering.com/PDF/FDA_Regulation_of_Software_...

Permalink Reply by mcleanwick on February 26, 2012 at 8:48am

I just got the Dexcom then found out the management software is not Mac compatible. I have downloaded VoiceBox and have OS X operating system. Now I understand that I also have to have a Windows program to use this? I don't. So frustrating as I don't understand all of this and every step I take leads to more steps needed. I may just go out to purchase something PC with only what I need to run and print this management system......
Going to the Mac store to see what they recommend too. I can get a PC just for this for about $300.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page