Pure virtual machine VS bootcamp run as a virtual machine

K

kikollan

Bit poster
I have been using a BootCamp partition run as a virtual machine in parallels for a few weeks and it is working fine.

I chose this solution to be capable of run windows directly with bootcamp if I need real native performance. However, I have been doing normal work for weeks and it has been unnecessary to do that: the performance of windows as a virtual machine is good enough.

So my question is, should I use a purely virtual machine instead of "virtualize" the bootcamp partition? which advantages will I gain (fast start, stop machine feature...)?

Thanks!
 
I normally just use a pure Virtual Machine; although BC just made it back on my system for a DirectX 9 game I am playing with at the moment.

You will gain a slight increase in performance, a little more stability, suspending, pausing, etc.
 
I would like to choose just one alternative because my hard-disc is quite small. For the moment I have BC just in case... but I miss pausing, and especially suspending and quick start/stop :-)
 
kikollan said:
I would like to choose just one alternative because my hard-disc is quite small. For the moment I have BC just in case... but I miss pausing, and especially suspending and quick start/stop :-)
Click to expand...


I'm confused?

I use a BC Parallels VM, and I can pause it - its a function I am very keen on and use a lot.
 
You are right, it is possible to pause the BC VM. Unfortunately, in the past I had some problems of reliability with parallels (crashes and hal issues) which disappear when I stop using the pause feature.

It is a good new to known that this is working fine for you... maybe I will give "pause" a second chance.
 
I'm thinking of trying the boot camp option to avoid the issue of ever growing virtual hdd's.

I've discovered that when I took snapshots I couldn't compress and that even after removing them, I still couldn't compress. I transported the system back over to regain disk space.

The compressor that runs while the virtual machine isn't doesn't do as good a job as the one that runs while the virtual machine runs, this is counter-intuitive to me. The second also takes a lot longer to run.

My system grew from 18.63 gig file to 30.66 on one drive and 191.3 megs to 7.11 gigs on another drive, all the while using the compressor that runs outside of windows. Today (one month after transporting) I got the disks down to 15.92 gigs and 2.27 gigs using the one that runs with the OS running. This took more than one hour, how much more I don't know as I fell asleep.

I have a mac pro, 2x 2.66 dual core, 3 gigs ram. this machine is 4 months old.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top