Virtual PC v Boot Camp v Parallel's

[ksp]

Hello everyone,

 

I've just bought a Mac Book Pro laptop and am looking for some feedback as to

which is the best software to use for running both Windows and OS X on the Mac?

Reason being is that I have PC software (i.e. Microsoft Office, among

others)...otherwise, I would be strictly running Mac. I have done some reading

on each of the programs but would prefer first-hand knowledge from actual day-

to-day users.

 

Any feedback would be appreciated.

 

Regards,

Ken

[denisgermain]

Virtual PC does not run all softwares..

BootCamp and Parralells are good options but you need an intel based MAC.

There is another option commin' soon: VMWare Fusion

Which will not require a reboot (like BC and Par)

http://www.vmware.com/beta/fusion/

[dean.wette]

<i>VMWare Fusion Which will not require a reboot (like BC and Par)</i>

 

<p>Parallels does not require a reboot -- you can run Windows on a VM hosted in Mac OS

(i.e. run Windows and MAc simultaneously). It is virtualization software, just like VMWare

Fusion. Boot Camp is a dual booting utility -- it does require reboot to switch between

Mac OS X and Windows. BTW: you can use both Boot Camp and Parallels together on a Mac

OS X system, since Parallels can be configured to use the Windows partition/installtion you

setup with Boot Camp (I'm getting ready to change my Parallels setup to do that this

weekend). Fusion is still in beta, but will have similar functionality to Parallels.</p>

<p>Parallels 3 just came out and has support for direct video access, so you can play PC

games like Half Life 2...cool!</p>

[charles_martorelli]

I tried parallels and boot camp. Boot camp requires you to reboot but once you do you have

all the resources available to you with parallels you are sharing memory and vram it just feels

suggest to me. Buy the time you buy windows and parallels you may be able to upgrade your

software to all mac and leave windows behind.

[ksp]

Thanks for your feedback. I was leaning toward Parallel's but then read an article saying that it was a bit slow before realizing that the article was back in mid '06 (and I'm not sure which version they were referring to?). Can I assume that Parallels 3 has corrected this problem or are any of you (Dean) experiencing lag times?

[dean.wette]

I'm using Parallels v2.5. For the most part performance is quite acceptable (I've mostly been

running Java development tools and Visual C++). My only problem has been with a

proprietary VPN client I use to access a corporate MS Exchange server, but I had performance

problems with that on my Dell too. Version 3 is supposed to be faster, but I haven't gotten

my upgrade yet.

[victorvictorman]

Macbook Pro's all run Intel chipsets but if you were running a G-series chipset then

Virtual PC would be your only option. You are much better off with an Intel chip when you

want to emulate. I have used Parallels and Boot Camp and find them both to have their

strengths.

 

I think you'll find that if you have enough RAM, Parallels will be AS good as Boot camp for

most applications. The reason is because the software is utilizing resources for two

different systems at the same time and thus if you have the machine with 4+ GB of RAM, it

will run well for most types of activities. The bottleneck in the software is the processor

itself. Any type of operational functions such as accessing the drives or utilizing RAM will

run about as fast as if you were running either type of OS alone in Boot Camp.

 

If you were rendering 3D image maps I'd tell you that boot camp was your better option.

But there are very few pieces of software that you'll be running for photography that will

eat up processor power that way. Flexcolor can. Capture One less so. Photoshop sort of

depends upon what size file and what bit depth you're using.

 

For a upper eschelon consumer brand camera (the 8-12 mp range) I think you'll probably

find that it will work as good as or slightly worse than running it in boot camp. If you're

using large files where you'll be doing some data pumping, for instance, using Extract on

a 20-40 MP 16-bit digital back capture, you'll definitely want to go with boot camp.

 

I feel like you're probably going to find that 90% of the market go towards parallels

because of its utility and only the most neurotic part of the market will stick with boot

camp. Hang on though because there is still talk of Apple making an upgrade that will

compete with parallels

[dean.wette]

<i> Hang on though because there is still talk of Apple making an upgrade that will compete

with parallels</i>

<p>Where have you seen this rumored, because I missed it and I read many of the Mac RSS

feeds? Apple has announced/stated that Boot Camp will ship as part of Leopard, and they

just released Boot Camp 1.3 beta. I suspect they will not add virtualization technology to

compete with Parallels/Fusion, at least not in the near future.</p>

<p>I do agree that for most things Parallels is probably the best choice right now. Boot camp

requires running each OS separately, and Fusion is still beta and untested (although I have

used other VMWare products with great success on other machine).</p>

[oskar_ojala]

All this depends on what you intend to run. Isn't Office still available for Mac? For software which is not performance critical, something like Parallels or Virtual PC are suitable. Boot Camp is less convenient, but you should get much better performance for some tasks.

[dean.wette]

<i> Isn't Office still available for Mac</i>

 

<p>Yes it is. But if someone already has a Windows Office license, they might not want to

fork out several hundreds dollars to get a version of Office for Mac, when they can get

Parallels for $70 or less. Ditto for other Windows software licenses one might have.</p>

 

<p>I now have Windows on its own partition bootable from Boot Camp (thas was my project

for today), but I can also use it from Mac OS with Parallels. This way I can run the same

Windows install natively (BC) or virtually (Parallels).</p>

[blueviews]

In my hands at least, Parallels was abysmal because it can't support printers in any kind of

elegant way. The only real reason that I need any PC software is that our dive computers only

talk to PCs not to Macs. Under bootcamp, I can print exactly the same as from a PC, but

under Parallels it is garbage. I talked to their tech support and his answer was for me to buy a

new printer. Not cool.

Bill

[victorvictorman]

Dean,

 

There's no official word on this and if you follow Apple at all, you'll know that means that

nothing is in any way shape or form for sure unless they've publicly stated it. In fact, Apple

and Steve Jobs himself mentions Parallels a lot these days as a third party alternative to boot

camp. It's been suggested by market analysts and by programmers that this may be Apple's

next move. When I say "next" move, I'm referring to maybe 10.6, not 10.5.1. Hope that gives

you some context.

[dean.wette]

<i>It's been suggested by market analysts and by programmers that this may be Apple's

next move. </i>

<p>OK, but my question was not whether Apple has stated anything, but where you've

read the rumor/conjecture stated. I'd be interested in following it, but have seen nothing

on the RSS feeds nor blogs that I read.</p>

 

<p>I would bet Apple will continue to mature Boot Camp as a dual boot alternative, while

leaving virtualization to Parallels/Fusion. But I can also see Apple getting involved with

virtualization by making the OS level improvements/changes to allow better integration

and support for 3rd party virtualization products like Parallels and Fusion. As long as they

do it right, I just don't see Apple going after them as a competitor.</p>

[ksp]

Bill, what printer are you using? Is it an older model then my Epson Stylus 2200? I was convinced that Parallel's is the way to go (for my needs) but now you've put the 'shadow of doubt' in my head again?

[steve_bennett6]

<p>Ken -</p>

 

<p>It is pretty easy to <a href="http://www.parallels.com/en/download/workstation/">download an evaluation copy of Parallels</a> and try it out for yourself. The proof is in the pudding! The only thing that matters is if the tool gets the job done for you.</p>

 

<p>I use Parallels every day, though admittedly not for device or processor intensive tasks. For me, it works just great. I am using the 2.0 version. I haven't yet upgraded to the 3.0 version which has better support for USB and high performance graphics.</p>

 

<p>--Steve<br>

[ksp]

Thank-you Steve. You're probably right! I would imagine that no matter which program I chose, there would be likes & dislikes based on what I use it for.

 

Thanks for the feedback.

[lew_dreisinger2]

I have just purchased an Intel iMac 24 and Parallels 3.0 I would like to know if running CS2 and Lightroom on the Windows partition makes sense with raw files (50mb). The iMac will have 3gb memory. I don't want to sacrifice the reasons I am moving to Mac in the first place but the cross platform software costs are becoming difficult. Can I function and migrate applications and data later?

 

Sorry several questions here.

 

 

Thank You,

 

Lew Dreisinger

[dean.wette]

I would run ALR and CS in Mac OS X, not a virtual Windows. If you have to run the

windows versions use bootcamp. However, your Lightroom license is cross platform and

the installer disk has both Mac OS and Windows installers. As for PS CS, Adobe will

transfer your license to Mac OS X for the cost of shipping (you fill out a software

destruction affidavit) or the cost of the upgrade if you don't have the latest version. Since

you have CS2 it will be the upgrade cost. So you can get to Mac OS X versions of both for

less than $200.

 

I also switched form WIndows to Mac OS X and now have the Mac versions of both

installed. I did the software license transfer of CS3 from WIndows to Mac.