Page 1 of 1
Boot Camp or Parallels?
Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:02 pm
by golfmore
I've read that Boot Camp actually outperforms Para. The only other issue is that Boot Camp is already there (On the Lepard disk.) Anyone have any thoughts on this? I really don't want Win on this machine, but it looks like it will have to be there. Thanks for any insights.
Re: Boot Camp or Parallels?
Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:12 pm
by Jive
I personally like Bootcamp because its free, dont have to worry about slow down due to emulation, and Windows is basically native under it.
Re: Boot Camp or Parallels?
Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:16 pm
by derFunkenstein
Right, but if you don't want to reboot, you should do a VM. And if you're not gaming, that's really the way to go. Parallels uses Intel's VT stuff, so it's most likely faster, but there are demos of both and both can mount your Boot Camp partition.
Re: Boot Camp or Parallels?
Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:36 pm
by Thresher
Parallels is NOT faster than Boot Camp. Parallels is a virtualized environment. While it's very good, it's still not running natively.
BootCamp runs Windows natively. There is no emulation.
Re: Boot Camp or Parallels?
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:15 am
by derFunkenstein
i missed some words. I meant faster of the two VM solutions - faster than VMWare.
Re: Boot Camp or Parallels?
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:24 am
by SNM
Thresher wrote:Parallels is NOT faster than Boot Camp. Parallels is a virtualized environment. While it's very good, it's still not running natively.
BootCamp runs Windows natively. There is no emulation.
Ummm. My understanding is that in virtualization it
does run natively; it's just that the OS doesn't get the precedence level that it normally does. The whole point of hardware virtualization is that it doesn't require emulation.
Re: Boot Camp or Parallels?
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 10:55 am
by golfmore
Is it true that Para does not utilize the dual core, while Boot Camp with XP Pro does?
Re: Boot Camp or Parallels?
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 11:06 am
by derFunkenstein
Parallels can use two virtual processors (dual core) but not more than 2.
Re: Boot Camp or Parallels?
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 1:26 pm
by Buub
As others have alluded to, you are comparing Apples to Oranges (pardon the pun).
Boot Camp is a way to boot a single operating system, at a time, on your Mac, being able to switch between them. Parallels is a virtual machine environment allowing you to run Windows (and Linux and FreeBSD and...) on your Mac WHILE running your Mac.
You might also check into VMWare Fusion. It has 64-bit guest support, which I believe Parallels does not yet have. It works very well.
Re: Boot Camp or Parallels?
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 1:27 pm
by Buub
SNM wrote:Thresher wrote:Parallels is NOT faster than Boot Camp. Parallels is a virtualized environment. While it's very good, it's still not running natively.
BootCamp runs Windows natively. There is no emulation.
Ummm. My understanding is that in virtualization it
does run natively; it's just that the OS doesn't get the precedence level that it normally does. The whole point of hardware virtualization is that it doesn't require emulation.
To put it differently, it virtualizes the devices and the BIOS, but it does not virtualize the processor itself. I.e. it runs at native speed (unlike software processor virtualization which has to emulate a different processor than the one the software is running on).
Re: Boot Camp or Parallels?
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 3:46 pm
by riviera74
Regardless of whether you run Parallels or VMWare, feed your Mac more RAM. Below 2GB is not enough, especially with Parallels. If you are using a version of XP or especially Vista, 3-4GB should suffice.
Re: Boot Camp or Parallels?
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 5:35 pm
by golfmore
I have 2 in it now. I think 3 is the max for a MacBook, not sure.
Re: Boot Camp or Parallels?
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 10:22 pm
by derFunkenstein
if it's the current-selling version (and not a refurb with the old chipset) the max is 4GB, but if it's the older ones on the 667MHz bus, the official max is 2GB (since it'd be symmetrical) but it can do 3GB.
Re: Boot Camp or Parallels?
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 11:21 pm
by golfmore
Re: Boot Camp or Parallels?
Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 10:49 pm
by golfmore
Now I get to play.
Re: Boot Camp or Parallels?
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 11:17 am
by golfmore
A problem arises. It sees a network and thinks it is secure. It isn't. It sees my network which is secure as secure (my Linksys) and works fine. The one that is not secured is at a business. It is a Netgear router. I have gone into the Netgear to check it's settings. All OK. Some other patrons can get on, but I can't. I have rebooted the Netgear router, and still can't get in. With my Toshiba, I can get in. (Access to internet).
Apple says they will replace the laptop. I have replaced the RAM with 2 X 1 gig sticks. I sold the 2 X 512's. Apple says that I have to send it back with orig RAM in it. If it has other than orig, they will just return it. I did make them aware of the RAM change before we got to the shipping label stage. Then they called and gave me the good news. So now I have a MAcBok that supposedly has a defective wireless function, (sometimes, some networks.), but can't get it fixed. without loosing stuff. It works great on my Linksys network, not on the Netgear. I may take my Linksys and replace the Netgear to see what happens.
Re: Boot Camp or Parallels?
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:26 pm
by golfmore
Took my Linksys over and replaced the Netgear. It works perfect. Now I have a MB that really didn't have any problems.
Now to read "The Missing Manual".
Re: Boot Camp or Parallels?
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:30 pm
by Usacomp2k3
Does it work on the Boot Camp partition? OSX wireless support is notoriously bad.
Re: Boot Camp or Parallels?
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 2:02 pm
by golfmore
I don't have Para or Boot Camp installed. I really want to stay away from Win.
Re: Boot Camp or Parallels?
Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:38 am
by SNM
Usacomp2k3 wrote:Does it work on the Boot Camp partition? OSX wireless support is notoriously bad.
Err, since when?
Re: Boot Camp or Parallels?
Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:40 am
by Usacomp2k3
I've experienced this, and I know that
others have as well. It doesn't always 'just work'.
Yeah, I guess notorious is a little strong of a word. "Not always functional" is better.
Re: Boot Camp or Parallels?
Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 8:16 am
by derFunkenstein
Usacomp2k3, your link is to another thread with the same problem from the same person who posted this thread in the first place. So far, it's two links for the same person's problem. The other people in that thread got it to work.
Re: Boot Camp or Parallels?
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 1:27 am
by Usacomp2k3
derFunkenstein wrote:Usacomp2k3, your link is to another thread with the same problem from the same person who posted this thread in the first place. So far, it's two links for the same person's problem. The other people in that thread got it to work.
But if you read the following posts from Snake, FireGryphon you'll see that it's not just golfmore and I.
Re: Boot Camp or Parallels?
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 7:37 am
by derFunkenstein
I wrote:The other people in that thread got it to work.
Re: Boot Camp or Parallels?
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 2:25 pm
by riviera74
I have a better question: if one needs to install XP or Vista (64-bit) on a Mac (eg a Mac Pro, iMac, MacBook Pro), is Boot Camp necessarily better than Parallels or VMware Fusion? Are there different optimal answers for XP vs Vista?
Re: Boot Camp or Parallels?
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 3:10 pm
by leor
I say why not have the best of all worlds? Install boot camp, then grab parallels or vmware fusion so you can run your boot camp partition in OSX, and reboot over into the pure windows environment whenever you feel like gaming or something.
Re: Boot Camp or Parallels?
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 4:22 pm
by End User
riviera74 wrote:I have a better question: if one needs to install XP or Vista (64-bit) on a Mac (eg a Mac Pro, iMac, MacBook Pro), is Boot Camp necessarily better than Parallels or VMware Fusion? Are there different optimal answers for XP vs Vista?
If you require 64-bit support then your only options is VMware Fusion as neither Boot Camp nor Parallels support 64-bit OS's at this time.
golfmore wrote:I've read that Boot Camp actually outperforms Para. The only other issue is that Boot Camp is already there (On the Lepard disk.) Anyone have any thoughts on this? I really don't want Win on this machine, but it looks like it will have to be there. Thanks for any insights.
If you are doing CPU/GPU intensive tasks that require Windows then I would use Boot Camp as Boot Camp devotes 100% of the hardware to Windows. If you need to run Windows based apps that don't tax the GPU/CPU then I would run Parallels/VMware - VM's run natively but you are sharing the resources with the parent OS.
I use Parallels in Coherence mode when I need to run Windows apps. I have instant access to those apps yet OS X is always there. I do have Vista running via Boot Camp so that I can get my Team Fortress 2 fix when I am on the road.
Usacomp2k3 wrote:OSX wireless support is notoriously bad.
I have had no issues with my previous MB nor with my current MBP on any of the wireless networks I use nor have I had any issues with OS X users on my employers wireless network. I have not heard any complaints from anyone I know that have MB/MBP's. Have you had problems with your MB/MBP?
Re: Boot Camp or Parallels?
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:25 am
by riviera74
leor wrote:I say why not have the best of all worlds? Install boot camp, then grab parallels or vmware fusion so you can run your boot camp partition in OSX, and reboot over into the pure windows environment whenever you feel like gaming or something.
Why would anyone run Mac OSX in a virtual machine unless it is a non-Apple PC
? As far as I can tell, Psystar's Open Mac (and Open Mac Pro) essentially do that. I suspect that a lot of people who either run Windows XP or Vista now or soon on their Macs do so only because certain applications do not run on OSX
and/or have no functional Mac equivalents
.
Re: Boot Camp or Parallels?
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:56 am
by derFunkenstein
No, Psystar's OpenMac does not run anything in a virtual machine - it runs three things in this order:
1.) Darwin's x86's boot loader
2.) an EFI emulator
3.) a somewhat (though not all that much) cracked version of OS X Leopard