Parallels vs. Boot Camp
- Thread starter reggie
- Start date
Well, Parallels has the advantage of not requiring a re-boot just to switch over to a Windows application. Using ISO images in the Parallels eternal hardware emulation is also considerably faster than having to use the actual CDs under BootCamp/WinXP.
Being that Parallels is a virtualizer, it's already very fast. I find that the mouse input is way too slow and jaggy for detail work under Parallels, so far, and that I would prefer BootCamp there. I hope Parallels can find a fix for that problem soon, because then I'd remove BootCamp for good.
Being that Parallels is a virtualizer, it's already very fast. I find that the mouse input is way too slow and jaggy for detail work under Parallels, so far, and that I would prefer BootCamp there. I hope Parallels can find a fix for that problem soon, because then I'd remove BootCamp for good.
I think both have a place.
Boot Camp is really just a dual boot with Apple provided Windows drivers. For someone who will regularly spend time in Windows, this is a good fit. For me, I prefer a VM with Windows since I only need Windows for the occasional web site (i.e. my online college) that requires Internet Explorer.
Boot Camp is really just a dual boot with Apple provided Windows drivers. For someone who will regularly spend time in Windows, this is a good fit. For me, I prefer a VM with Windows since I only need Windows for the occasional web site (i.e. my online college) that requires Internet Explorer.
Of course they both have a place. However, if Parallels offered speedier input/graphics, then applications such as Rhino could be run from directly within the VM, instead of requiring a tedious reboot. I'd prefer that over BootCamp any day, but current VM speeds don't allow me to uninstall BootCamp.
s.cresswell
Junior Member
We've trialled both Boot Camp (yesterday) and Parallel (this morning). Parallel is good to work with. The tools were impressive.
I agree with other posts that both have there place in the Mac world.
Boot camp (as far as betas go) had substantially better UI than Parallel - but again two different creatures.
The CD behavior is annoying. That you have to reboot the VM every time you want to change CD (unless I'm missing something).
Also the lack of USB support in this version was disappointing.
Support of Win 95 as a guest is pretty great. And I'm sure that Parallel will do well with no sign of Virtual PC being made for the Intel macs.
Will put a post again after we try playing Red Faction through boot camp later
I agree with other posts that both have there place in the Mac world.
Boot camp (as far as betas go) had substantially better UI than Parallel - but again two different creatures.
The CD behavior is annoying. That you have to reboot the VM every time you want to change CD (unless I'm missing something).
Also the lack of USB support in this version was disappointing.
Support of Win 95 as a guest is pretty great. And I'm sure that Parallel will do well with no sign of Virtual PC being made for the Intel macs.
Will put a post again after we try playing Red Faction through boot camp later
s.cresswell
Junior Member
Tried it, the installer didn't run- said that "your Hardware is not supported"
Scott Willsey
Hunter
jmaynard said:
Personally, I've done both and they are still jerky. It's not the responsiveness because whatever you try to do happens quickly, it's just a display issue. But it's a valid complaint, even after following the advice above.
jmaynard said:
I suspect you would not want to do this even if it worked. I have to assume that the Parallel tools are specifically written to give you speedier access to the parallel engine and in the process bypass hardware emulation (this is speculation). I'm specifically thinking of the networking driver and the video if a video driver specific to parallel is ever created.
Although I have yet to hear any official Parallels staff mentioning something related to it, lowering display acceleration does indeed speed up the display. Read this thread:
http://forum.parallels.com/thread131.html
In my observation, having 'full acceleration' results in visible tearing of menu items around the mouse cursor when I move the cursor around the menu rapidly. Lowering a notch eliminates this occurrence.
http://forum.parallels.com/thread131.html
In my observation, having 'full acceleration' results in visible tearing of menu items around the mouse cursor when I move the cursor around the menu rapidly. Lowering a notch eliminates this occurrence.
Parallels is just too slow for anything graphics intensive...Vista will be extremely graphics intensive with Aero. Don't think Parallels will be able to keep up and is it even technically possible for Parallels to increase graphics speed significantly in the futute? There's still that Rosetta-like software layer, yes? Dual boot is better IMHO
Scott Willsey
Hunter
guyfox said:
Vista won't display Aero unless the system it is installed on is capable of it. You just won't see the fancy see-through glass effects. If you want Aero, dual boot might not even be enough depending on which mac you have. I'm not sure if the Intel GMA950 can handle it or not. It probably should - but who knows yet.