Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Choosing Parallels Over BootCamp for OS X

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the things-are-getting-all-tangly dept.

juusan writes "Sysadmin Jeremy Randall outlines his installation and impressions of Parallels for Mac OS X. Is it better than BootCamp? Does it run succesfully on a Mac Mini? Does it pass the scrutiny of a fairly picky system administrator? Yes indeed, on all counts."

50 of 138 comments (clear)

  1. Back in Time by nighty5 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The application looks like something from Windows 3.11

  2. Summary: It's OK by rblum · · Score: 4, Informative

    And really, not much more to read in the article. If he actually were a picky sysadmin, he'd have looked at such points as "can the VM access the host drive, and how can I stop that". If he had a more than cursory interest in it, he would've looked at DirectX support. He couldn't even be bothered to figure out if his Mac supports certain features.

    (Don't get me wrong - that's an indicator that Parallels is fairly good. He doesn't even have to care if some things work or not. But that's certainly not "in-depth")

    1. Re:Summary: It's OK by Dragonfly · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've been using Parallels for a couple of months now on my 2.0 Ghz Intel iMac. Parallels can access a special shared folder, or you can turn on Windows networking on yoru Mac and the VM can connect to it as a server (my preferred method as it doesn't require that you create a special folder and move things in and out of it just so you can access them from the VM).

      I run WinXP Pro on my VM and have 512MB of RAM assigned to it (out of a total of 2 gigs in the iMac) and performance is quite acceptable for running Office apps and testing web sites with different versions of IE. Naturally, the more RAM the better, and in an ideal world my iMac would have 4gigs of RAM with 1 gig given to the VM, but that's mostly because I often have Safari, Firefox, Photoshop, Illustrator, and Dreamweaver running under OS X and that doesn't leave a lot of room for Parallels without a lot of swapping.

      I know that Parallels is planning to improve USB device support in future releases, but for now connecting to devices over the network works for me.

  3. I'll save you time by Golias · · Score: 5, Informative

    Everything TFA has to say.

    1. It works pretty good for a version-1 app.
    2. It doesn't work well with external USB drives.
    3. You get the occasional "beach ball" if you are running other apps on the OS X desktop and have only 1 GB of RAM.
    4. The author is "platform agnostic" and really, really wants you to know that.
    5. Rumors are flying that Apple might buy them and incorporate this into 10.5, but then again, maybe not.

    Everybody who read my summary instead of clicking the link just saved 5 minutes. If a few million of you did so, I just saved a whole bunch of of entire lives!

    --

    Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    1. Re:I'll save you time by macaulay805 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I vote for you to be a Slashdot mod and put your summaries in every story. Save the world some time (and 40 "next" page link clicks).

    2. Re:I'll save you time by PatMouser · · Score: 5, Informative

      I've been running in for a few weeks now (Beta 6, RC1, RC2, and the final production version) and haven't had a problem with the external drive, but I'm using a LaCie d2 connected via my FW800 port, so it's a little zippier. :)

      It's a seriously cool product and right now with XP running Word 2003 with one document open, AVG, and the generic Windows XP crap top is showing anywhere from 11.7 to 13.0 percent cpu. That's on a 17" MBP with 2G RAM.

    3. Re:I'll save you time by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 4, Funny

      Damnit, I just squandered those 5 minutes you saved me reading the comments in the thread.

      --
      Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
  4. Doesn't "do" graphics by SuperBanana · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Is it better than BootCamp?

    No. For starters, it can't directly access the graphics hardware, which makes it useless for almost any 3D gaming. It also uses an enormous amount of CPU time sitting around doing absolutely nothing. Seriously- XP, sitting doing nothing, nothing open- uses 20% of my Macbook's CPU. In Qemu (or rather, the Q Project build of QEMU), it's under 5%...and QEMU is emulating, whereas Parallels supposedly is using virtualization technology. What the hell?

    If only Boot Camp and XP supported external drives (you have to hack XP considerably, unless you're using eSATA, I think)...

    --
    Please help metamoderate.
    1. Re:Doesn't "do" graphics by mgv · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No. For starters, it can't directly access the graphics hardware, which makes it useless for almost any 3D gaming. It also uses an enormous amount of CPU time sitting around doing absolutely nothing. Seriously- XP, sitting doing nothing, nothing open- uses 20% of my Macbook's CPU. In Qemu (or rather, the Q Project build of QEMU), it's under 5%...and QEMU is emulating, whereas Parallels supposedly is using virtualization technology. What the hell?

      My macbook only needs about 5% of CPU time using parallels. But that is running windows 2000. Maybe its not parallels fault that XP is doing stuff when its supposed to be idle?

      Michael

      --
      There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
    2. Re:Doesn't "do" graphics by pla · · Score: 4, Informative

      Seriously- XP, sitting doing nothing, nothing open- uses 20% of my Macbook's CPU.

      Welcome to the Windows world. XP, sitting doing nothing, on a native PC install, uses between 4% and 11% of the CPU on an Athlon 64 3000.


      it's under 5%...and QEMU is emulating

      QEMU (and most any emulator) actually optimizes out XP's OCD-like behavior, resulting in lower idle CPU use than the real thing. Add a moderate load, though, and watch the difference reverse itself drastically. Virtualization should see that 20% vanish into the actual load, while an emulator will grind to a crawl under load.

    3. Re:Doesn't "do" graphics by pla · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's interesting how Windows on Slashdot always tends to be 10 times worse than when I ever use it.

      Well, as the most obvious question - Do you get your numbers from Windows Task Manager, or from something a bit more accurate such as Sysinternals' Process Explorer? I used the latter, with an update speed of 5s (for both the longer sampling window and to reduce its own CPU use). And I find that it does indeed disagree with Task manager. I'll trust procexp over taskman any day, though.

      Now you've got me curious, though - I tend to tighten XP to an extreme so probably don't make the best example (though ironically, I manke a good example in Microsoft's favor) Tomorrow I'll try a clean install on a machine at work and see how bad it looks with things like themes, indexing, and system restore left on. I'll give MS a break and not install SQL personal/desktop edition, however (with which Vista will ship enabled, sucking an ungodly amount of CPU and memory).

    4. Re:Doesn't "do" graphics by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Using procexp, the program that you suggest, tells me that my computer is currently using 7% of its CPU.

      3% of that is Winamp, which I did not bother to pause. 1% of that is VNC, which I am running in the background. 2% is "System" - I don't know what this consists of, but considering that I have three windows updating frequently, I don't mind too much. 1% appears to be getting lost in rounding error. Note that this is an Intel system which predates hyperthreading. It is not exactly a powerhouse.

      I suggest fixing your computer - whatever's wrong with it, it's not Windows's fault.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    5. Re:Doesn't "do" graphics by sootman · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's XP's 'idle' process. Dvorak can tell you all about it.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    6. Re:Doesn't "do" graphics by Sithgunner · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wow, what do you guys eat to get that high cpu cycles for an machine?
      Just erase any unnecessary softwares out... seriously it's the best way to make your Windows run stable and fast.

      I simply get 0% cpu cycle on my WinXP watching task manager's graph drawing a horizontal line at the bottom with about 300MB of unused RAM on a 512MB ram machine.
      It's not the Windows... it's you that's abbusing the system resource.

    7. Re:Doesn't "do" graphics by bazorg · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe its not parallels fault that XP is doing stuff when its supposed to be idle?
      virtualized pwnage!!!

    8. Re:Doesn't "do" graphics by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2, Informative
      Seriously- XP, sitting doing nothing, nothing open- uses 20% of my Macbook's CPU.

      Welcome to the Windows world. XP, sitting doing nothing, on a native PC install, uses between 4% and 11% of the CPU on an Athlon 64 3000.


      Life isn't as bad as all that. First off, remove all unnecessary services to reduce both your memory footprint and your idle CPU consumption. You'll have to tweak that list a little, but my XP system at home runs in about 100MB of RAM with 1-2% CPU. It also only has 6 services running, and no AV software. It boots up in less than 40s, and that's on a 2.4 GHz P4 w/ 1GB RAM.

      As for the no AV, if you don't download anything, don't use MS applications (use Firefox, Thunderbird, and Gaim instead) and have a hardware firewall or two between you and the internet, the risk of a virus or worm is quite small. (I do occassionally install and run AV software for a check, or when I do download something from an unknown source)

      Lastly, if you're running McAfee or Norton AV software, switch to something else. Both of those are resource hogs, both in memory and CPU. AVG seems a better product in that regard on all counts.
      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    9. Re:Doesn't "do" graphics by sootman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >> Is it better than BootCamp?

      > No.

      *sigh.* Once again, kids: there's no single criterion with which you can determine a universal correct answer to the question of 'better.' What I use Windows for doesn't require graphics acceleration. So, let's look at this another way:

      Is Boot Camp better than Parallels?

      No. It forces you to reboot.

      See?

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  5. You'd use it in the same place you'd use VMware by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Or VPC because that's all it is. It's just a virtualizer. The advantages are you don't need to leave your main OS, you can have multiple guests, even runnig at the same thing if your system is powerful enough, and it probaly supports some kind of snapshot system, like VMWare. The disadvantages are of course the same as with VMware, mainly speed and hardware support. At least until VT support gets ramped up or hypervisors become popular you aren't going to get anywhere near native speeds. Also at this point the hardware in VMs is pretty low level. If you have a nice pro 3D card or multi-channel audio card, your guest OSes will not have access to their features.

    Like Boot Camp, I think Parallels it getting more hype than it mertis just because it happens ot run on OS-X. Yep, it virtualizes a computer and lets you run Linux or Windows at a reasonable speed. Ok great, same thing as VMWare on a Linux or Windows host. Certianly not worthless, but nothing that's really news.

    Use a native install (Boot Camp) if it's speed and access to hardware that are the prime requirements and you are willing to spend time booting back and forth. Use a virtualizer if you just need incidental access to the other OS and can take teh speed hit.

    1. Re:You'd use it in the same place you'd use VMware by nathanh · · Score: 2, Informative
      Or VPC because that's all it is. It's just a virtualizer.

      Except Virtual PC on the Mac is actually an emulator and not a virtualizer. With VPC the CPU is emulated so it is mind-numbingly slow. Parallels on the Mac will virtualise the CPU if your CPU supports VT-x (although everything else is emulated).

    2. Re:You'd use it in the same place you'd use VMware by nathanh · · Score: 2, Informative
      It shouldn't need VT to virtualize the CPU.

      It shouldn't but it does.

      Also not sure what good VT support would do it, as I am unaware of any Macs with VT capable chips.

      The MacBook Pro, for one.

      The Core Duos do not.

      You are wrong. Shush now.

    3. Re:You'd use it in the same place you'd use VMware by JazzCrazed · · Score: 2, Interesting
      According to this brief (PDF) from Intel, the Core Duos do, as stated in the second paragraph of the introduction:
      The Intel® Core(TM) Duo Processor also includes support for Intel® Virtualization Technology which is a set of hardware enhancements to Intel server and client systems that combined with the appropriate software, will enable enhanced virtualization robustness and performance for both enterprise and consumer uses.
  6. I installed Parallels also by tool462 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And it does everything I need it to do, and does it well. I can VPN to my company's network and can run all the software I need to get my work done, and it runs plenty fast. It also handles the older games I still play with no noticeable problems (starcraft, civ 3, etc). I plan to try out some new games like Oblivion soon, just to see how well that runs. I'm not as optimistic about that, however.

    The key advantages to me, over using something like BootCamp, is that I don't have to reboot my machine to access my Windows only stuff, and I minimize my risk of cross contamination. I'm less likely to hose my OSX install if I destroy my Win2K install (which I am prone to doing). :) I avoid computational and memory intensive stuff on the Win2K VM, so that potential downfall doesn't cause me any trouble.

    1. Re:I installed Parallels also by tool462 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm running Parallels on the exact same setup, and all that stuff runs fine. I do plan to upgrade to 2GB of RAM on the MacBook Pro, though. I will start to have slowdown issues if I have, say, iTunes & Safari running on OSX and then run something memory intensive on the Win2K VM, which is set to use 512MB of RAM. You may not be quite as fast as running it on your Dell, but any slowdown shouldn't be noticeable. At any rate, Parallels has a free trial code, so you can give it a shot without any cost but your time.

  7. Windows Addicts by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Friends of mine just switched. They have fiddled around with Bootcamp and Parallels. Personally I think this stuff sucks. If you're trying to give up drinking you don't take an occasional belt from your hip flask, even if everyone else around you is still drunk off their ass. I've seen this kind of behaviour with Linux users. They try the live CD, decide they like it and set up a dual boot system. After using nothing but Linux for a month they find they miss some app they only have on Windows (typically a game) and reboot to use it. Then they surf the web a bit with Firefox and may or may not notice how much better it runs under Windows. Reluctantly they reboot into Linux and feel the withdrawl symptoms. Soon they're installing VMware or Cedega but it's just not as good as the raw experience. A month later their Linux partition is just a big waste of harddrive space, so they delete it.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Windows Addicts by GeorgeMcBay · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So.. what you're saying is that Windows is a better OS than Linux for your casual user friends?

      SHOCKING!!

    2. Re:Windows Addicts by Xuranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is something inherently wrong with a design of an OS when you're asking the user to be strong willed and willing to make sacrafices (in this case happiness) in the name of the OS. I have a great idea: how about you show your friends a great alternative to the program they want to use in windows or make their system run firefox as smooth in linux as it does Windows. If you can't manage this task, you need to step down from your high horse and accept that all your friends aren't willing to make the sacrifices that you are in the name of supporting Linux. Sheeple will admit their flaws, will the zealots?

      This is being typed in Safari on OS X.

      --
      "There is no real right or wrong, just what the majority accepts at the time."
  8. Two things missing: by bloggin+joe · · Score: 4, Interesting
    As someone else said elsewhere, there's two things missing:
    1. Hardware accellerated graphics - doesn't need to be perfect or native-speed, but anything is better than software (I hate the current redraws when resizing windows)
    2. Direct HD partition support so we can boot off the same 'system' and have the same applications and data, with the only thing needed being a seperate Hardware profile in Windows - would make things a lot easier to use and convenient (Boot directly into windows for games, boot in Parallels for work, as needed)
    Plus I would add a third: bring the price back down to $49.99 as it was originally.
    1. Re:Two things missing: by Dragonfly · · Score: 2, Informative

      2. Direct HD partition support so we can boot off the same 'system' and have the same applications and data

      It's coming in a future release.

      Lots of more info at the official Parallels blog.

  9. Does it run succesfully on a Mac Mini? by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 4, Informative

    Does it run succesfully on a Mac Mini?

    Why is this even a real question? The Mac Mini is nothing but an Intel Yonah (Core Solo / Duo) CPU system with an Intel 945 Express chipset (and integrated Intel GMA950 GPU), and EFI instead of a BIOS. Hardware wise, it's an exceptionally common Intel system.

  10. Apple agrees! by sootman · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Here's the interesting thing: Apple talks about Parallels, not Boot Camp, on their "OMG It runs teh windoze!!!111oneone" page:
    Talk about a win-win situation. Now you can take advantage of all the benefits of owning a Mac but still enjoy the convenience of starting up your Mac in Windows XP and running a Windows-only game or productivity application when needed. Third-party software solutions such as Parallels Desktop for Mac help make it possible.

    (From http://www.apple.com/getamac/windows.html)

    The funny thing is, they mention "starting up your Mac in Windows XP"--sounds like some of the copy writers need a crash-course in the difference between multibooting and virtualization.
    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    1. Re:Apple agrees! by mr_matticus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, the "start your Mac up in Windows XP" is a direct reference to Boot Camp. The last sentence really belongs in the following paragraph and I'd have worded it differently, but there it is.

      Beyond that, there's a certain quiet genius in the ad. They're pushing Parallels because it helps the publisher make money, but it also achieves an OS X marketing advantage. Not only does it cost more to buy Windows+Parallels, but it doesn't run exceptionally well--OS X will always be faster. Both of these reduce the use of Windows on Macs without resorting to active malice. It fits in with the strategy of allowing but not encouraging Windows use.

  11. Why choose? by Anonymous+Freak · · Score: 4, Informative

    They are meant for different markets.

    Parallels is for people who need to run OS X and Windows at the same time.

    Boot Camp is for people who need to occassionally run Windows separately from Mac OS X. For example: games, secure environments, people who just want to use Apple hardware with Windows, and have nothing to do with OS X whatsoever.

    --
    Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
    The purpose of that site was not known.
  12. Neither product claims to support gaming by multimediavt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ok, for everyone that thinks, i.e., assumes and doesn't know, that Boot Camp from Apple or Parallel's Desktop for Macintosh were created for gamers, you're dead wrong!

    Neither product claims to be able to play games, nor offers much in the way of support for gaming. Although, Boot Camp and running Windows XP natively on the hardware will certainly give you a better chance of doing so.

    These applications are for people (like me) who work in an office that is Windows abundant so they can run stupid, lousy, poorly written pieces of software like Outlook and can get on the Exchange server to do what they're already doing BETTER with an open source product running someplace else. It's also for those of us that need access to applications like AutoCAD from time-to-time or some other application that only runs under Windows.

    Yes, for some, the desire to play Windows-based games is driving them to these products, but they're no where near ready for that crowd. Parallels Desktop is RC2 and even though it has a version number of 2.1, it's really the first revision for the Intel-based Macs. Boot Camp, well, it's clearly labeled on the web page as "Public BETA", i.e., use at your own peril.

    Please stop bashing a product simply because it doesn't do what you want it to do even though it wasn't designed (or intended) to do that task. Parallels is a very capable virtual machine application and is very easy to setup and use. As someone who has used a dual-boot system as his primary machine, I can tell you (IMHO) the Parallels product kicks dual booting in the ass! Dual boot is fine if you're only going to use the one partition for gaming. If you're talking about a work environment where you need to switch back and forth fairly regularly, dual-booting sucks! Again, IMHO.

    1. Re:Neither product claims to support gaming by ZackSchil · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, Boot Camp is geared towards gamers. Apple worked with ATI to release a 3D accelerated Windows driver for the ATI cards included with Macs. The standard Windows drivers would have been enough to use office apps, etc and 3D hardware acceleration would not have been needed had they not intended the driver package to be used by gamers.

      It would be silly to think Apple didn't see "Run Windows games on a Mac" for the runaway money train it truly is.

    2. Re:Neither product claims to support gaming by Cyrano4747 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm really getting tired of reading all these comments to the effect that "Bootcamp sucks, it won't run games, it isn't designed for a gamer crowd, etc."

      I have no idea if it was built for gamers or not. All I know is that I own a Macbook Pro, have bootcamp installed on it, and find that it works absolutly fine for gaming.

      Does it run every last game at tip-top resolutions and graphics levels? No, it's a laptop with an X1600 mobile card in it. It runs newer games (Oblivion is a prime example) WELL, even with all of the default drivers and such that Apple gives you with the bootcamp disk, but it isn't a desktop uber-rig, and never will be.

      The ONLY real difference that I've noticed with XP on my mac is that some of the mac-specific hardware (the built in camera, for example) dosn't respond the way it should, and the Windows clock is wonky as all hell (it never holds a time if it's not connected to the net - I think this has something to do with the lack of a true BIOS, since I've had friends with older Macs that did the same thing when a battery on their motherboard died on them).

      Can you tweek it to get even better performance (new drivers, software overclocking software, remapping keys to better emulate a "windows standard" keyboard, etc.)? Yes, and I believe that the majority of gamers who would bother installing bootcamp to play games are fully capable of such relativly minor optimizations. Even so, even assuming the person booting into windows is the most casual of casual gamers and utterly incapable of even installing a driver, the experiance you get using windows on a Macbook isn't radically different from what you would get on any other machine with equivilant hardware.

      I really don't see why people can't just take the Bootcamp software for what it is. Between the Mac forum zealots claiming that it will destroy your computer for the sole reason that Windows is an abomination in the eyes of the Holy Prophet Jobs and the Windows nutjobs claiming that it will never be a "true gaming rig" (I suspect that these same people don't consdier it a true gaming rig unless it has the newest gear as of last weekend) I really sometimes wonder why have to wonder. . .

      Ah well, you can all go on complaining about it and talking about how much it sucks, and I'll keep on playing Oblivion while on my lunchbreak at work.

  13. Misleading story by solistus · · Score: 3, Informative

    TFA says NOTHING about Parallels being better than Boot Camp; the only reason he cites for wanting to use Parallels instead is to save room on the main disk. Since Parallels fails entirely on his external drive, it doesn't even accomplish that modest goal.

    Aside from some fairly vague comments about the VMs being "fairly snappy," there's no indication of performance. From what I've heard, Parallels doesn't even come close to Boot Camp on that front, probably because Apple ported its own drivers specifically for Boot Camp so that all the hardware would work at full speed.

    Also, Parallels costs $49.99. Boot Camp is free.

    Oh, and the author says that setting up the VMs is time-consuming and complex; Boot Camp, by most reports, is easier to set up than installing Windows on a 'regular' PC.

    The only advantage Parallels has over Boot Camp is that it can be used for more than just Windows. However, that's not a reason to prefer it if what you want is Windows. Boot Camp is free, faster and easier to set up. There may be some other advantages to Parallels, but this (decidedly mediocre) article doesn't mention any of them.

    1. Re:Misleading story by chris234 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The main advantage to Parallels for me (I've been trying it since it initial release, btw) is the simple fact that I don't have to reboot to run Windows. Bootcamp doesn't cut it, if I need to exit my computing environment just to work on a Visio document or some other Windows app. I don't want to lose access to the rest of my online world in those cases.

    2. Re:Misleading story by FredFnord · · Score: 2, Informative
      From what I've heard, Parallels doesn't even come close to Boot Camp on that front, probably because Apple ported its own drivers specifically for Boot Camp so that all the hardware would work at full speed.

      From what I've heard, Parallels runs between 4% slower and 1% faster than XP on a MacBook Pro. The only problem area is graphics. Perhaps you mean 'doesn't even come close to Boot Camp for games? Believe it or not, that's not its target market.

      -fred

      --
      Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
    3. Re:Misleading story by solistus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      GPU performance is important for a lot more than games, and will continue to become even more vital in the future. Heard of Vista Premium? A lot of people also want to be able to run graphics-intensive CAD, Photoshop, etc. style apps. I never said every component ran slower, but buying a machine with a decent graphics card and then using Parallels to lose that performance benefit might make sense to some users who value not having to reboot over having the full power of their machine, but there are plenty of people who'd rather not deal with that limitation, especially on a piece of software that isn't free.

  14. Saving lives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    5 minutes in savings
    12 of those in an hour
    288 in a day
    about 300,000 in 3 years
    about 3 million in 30 years

    You have to save in the neighborhood of 5-10 million people five minutes each to save one lifetime's worth of time.

    you < Superman

  15. Runs fine on my Intel Mac mini by kherr · · Score: 2

    I've got Parallels running WinXP just fine on my Mac mini, and it's pretty nice. I'm forced to run certain things (robot programming) under Windows. Now that I have a good environment to play with I can play with linux distros and find better robot tools.

    I didn't even know about the virtualization problem, I just got the warning from Parallels but it ran fine. Now I have to look into some fixes and speed that sucker up. Or maybe I can upgrade to a Core 2 Duo.

  16. easier, slower by m874t232 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Using Parallels is an easy way of installing Linux or Windows. In terms of raw CPU, it works efficiently, with little overhead. However, OSX has a hell of a time with paging and big processes, so get a lot of memory and still be prepared to watch the spinning cursor for a while while switching to/from Parallels.

  17. it goes the other way, probably more often by r00t · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Windows setup gets slow for some unknown reason. It gains unwanted features like Sony DRM and the CoolWebSearch toolbar. Pretty soon the Windows partition is just a big waste of space.

    For me, it was when my NT4 setup got hacked over the local network. Probably the C$ administrative share had something to do with it. (WTF was that for anyway? I never asked for that. I disabled it many times, but Windows would helpfully restore the damn thing.) Fortunately I had NT4 on D:, making the c:autoexec.bat vandalism harmless. After that though, I would always physically disconnect the network cable before booting Windows. Pretty soon I took to leaving Mozilla running for weeks in Linux.

    1. Re:it goes the other way, probably more often by drsmithy · · Score: 2, Informative
      Probably the C$ administrative share had something to do with it. (WTF was that for anyway? I never asked for that. I disabled it many times, but Windows would helpfully restore the damn thing.)

      History.

      You probably got pwned by a weak Administrator password.

  18. Yes, do get another gig of RAM! by LKM · · Score: 2, Informative
    I do plan to upgrade to 2GB of RAM on the MacBook Pro, though.

    Do yourself a favor. Run, don't walk, to the nearest computer hardware store and get the additional gig of RAM. It's a world of a difference.

    My MacBook Pro felt slow with only one gig. Worse, when running lots of applications, or single applications which didn't behave too well, it would slow to a crawl, sometimes not accepting mouse clicks for seconds. With the second gigabyte, it's fast, snappy, responsive.

    Don't run a MacBook Pro with only one gig, especially if you want to run stuff like Parallels.

  19. Parallels v.s. Boot Camp by JohnDProctor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A rather superficial review. As a long time user of VPC on my G4 PB(s) and now using a MacBook Pro 15" (2 GB Ram) I can honestly say Parallels is good for a first off product. While it supports DirectX 2D it does not support DirectX 3D (no I'm not a gamer!) I have a Windows marine navigation application which uses DirectX 3D and it does not run on Parallels. I suspect that support will be forthcoming but it probably will target DirectX Version 10 (Vista). I've been able to access USB peripherals (LaCie DL DVD writer, Keyspan USB to Serial addapter). Fidelity is good, stability is good, performance is excellent and this is with the released product for which I have a permanent key. I also have Boot Camp installed and it works well and does support fully DirectX 3D. My navigation application works well under boot camp. The only hassle is the separate disk partition and the reboot. Windows XP runs well in this environment and wireless networking came up without a hitch! The peripherals which don't have Apple supported drivers yet (USB camera, ambient light sensor etc.) are really not a problem for me. So for full fidelity Boot Camp is the go. For everything else Parallels wins hands down!

  20. Parallels is a godsend by raddan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've been using Parallels Workstation for the Mac (or whatever they call it now) for a couple of months now. I admin a respectably-sized Active Directory and radmind'ed Mac network. We also have a dozen or so OpenBSD servers in our closet, so having a machine that can work with Windows, Macs, and has all of my fun UNIX tools is great. For years I've had two or three boxes connected via a KVM, but this is superior. I have a dual-display set up with my Intel iMac, with Parallels (WinXP) in one display, and the MacOS in the other. I can share files between the two, and I don't need to fiddle with a KVM switch, which never really seems to handle USB device removal/insertion very well.

    This is the ultimate test of Parallels in my mind: I am running the Exchange 5.5 Administrator tool on my Mac (we have a legacy 5.5 install that we're migration away from). Do any of you realize what a perversion this is? It runs great!

    Oh, and the Parallels team is super-responsive to bug reports. I am quite happy with this product.

  21. Re:Running Windows XP from a USB/Firewire Drive by Dragonfly · · Score: 2, Informative

    I was under the impression that Windows XP can not be run from an external drive, be it USB or FireWire?

    Any thoughts about that?

    XP may, but Parallels can't use a VM file stored on an external USB drive according to the article. Other posters have indicated that running a VM stored on a FireWire drive does work.

  22. thank god / buddha / muhammed for Parallels by Pliep · · Score: 4, Informative

    Parallels lets me run any Windows version + apps inside a window on my OS X desktop.

    Being a web designer, I can now do all my work on Mac OS X and switch back and forth to Windows + Internet Explorer in seconds (to check how barfingly ugly my work will look to MSIE visitors). Well worth it's money, even though gaming is not supported.

    Boot Camp is just total nonsense in my situation. I'm just NOT willing to reboot for anything.

    Lastly, Parallels with Windows XP Home Edition with no running apps takes up 6-7% CPU on my 1,66 GHz Core Duo Mac mini.

  23. Taking lives? by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Funny

    So if you waste 5 minutes each from 5 or 10 million people, can we just say you're guilty of murder and execute you?

    Because if so, there are a whole lot of people on American Idol that I want to make sure are first up against the wall. Then we'll start on spammers and the guy who wrote the Llama Song.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."