PDA

View Full Version : BootCamp v Parallels




MacRumorUser
Apr 6, 2006, 01:47 PM
Simple differences, not saying ones better than the other (though one is ;) )

BootCamp.

+ Simple to install. Fully functioning, drivers for all components and runs great. Completely native speed.

- Requires you to dual boot, meaning you have to reboot. Could be a pain to some.

Parallels

+ Simple to install, runs much faster than virtual PC, Amazing boot times for windows (10-15 secs) within osX

- NOT FULLY FUNCTIONING. No sound, No Airport. USB support questionable. Graphics still emulated. Still not full Native speed, as it will always be running on top of somthing else meaning things like Memory is limited (you can only assign certain amounts)... Software is going to be hit and miss, forget gaming and until sound works, anything to do with audio is out of the question.


Basically BootCamp allows you to have a full PC working on your machine with all the software running correctly, but you have to come out of OSX :)

Parallels whilst a move in the right direction is TOO limited in its current status and needs a lot of optimisations yet, but is promising. But at the end of the day your going to be limited to what you can do with it until drivers etc are sorted. And then they will still be emulated :o



If you want to game, run all windows software NOW then bootcamp is the way to go. If you want to experiement and dont require anything with graphics, sound or software therefore dependant on those, it's good.



trickstern
Apr 14, 2006, 07:15 PM
thanks -this is the first comparison i have seen -

i do a lot of photoshop work, so from what you are saying boot camp seems the way to go, no?

MacRumorsReader
Apr 15, 2006, 02:44 AM
I gotta say, for my time and effort, it is Boot Camp all the way.

PuNkErX
Apr 15, 2006, 11:15 AM
If you are using Photoshop or any higher end programs like that then go with the bootcamp option.

But for me I test software and websites, etc Parallel's works perfect for that. I can watch videos under it too, so I think for a beta software it is pretty good.

So if you are goin gaming, just boot into XP, I don't think there will be any virtualization software good enough to be able to play newer games, Video editing, etc.

trainguy77
Apr 15, 2006, 11:25 AM
What I want to happen is a virtualization software that can use the same install as bootcamp. So when I need to check something in IE for windows, or check some info from a windows only program all I would have to do is start up virtualization. Then when I want more power for gaming I would re-boot. This is what I want. I hope its around by the time I get my intel mac.:D

trickstern
Apr 15, 2006, 03:50 PM
thanks guys/gals - much appreciated - boot camp it will be

bousozoku
Apr 15, 2006, 04:16 PM
By the time they're both done and VMWare is available, any of the choices should be good for most work. Parallels already supports OS/2 and Linux.

BootCamp would be better for games or other extremely processor-intensive software.

ManchesterTrix
Apr 15, 2006, 04:21 PM
What I want to happen is a virtualization software that can use the same install as bootcamp. So when I need to check something in IE for windows, or check some info from a windows only program all I would have to do is start up virtualization. Then when I want more power for gaming I would re-boot. This is what I want. I hope its around by the time I get my intel mac.:D

The biggest difficulty is that Windows would see it as two different machines, not to mention the whole video driver issue.

balamw
Apr 15, 2006, 05:12 PM
The biggest difficulty is that Windows would see it as two different machines, not to mention the whole video driver issue.
This, IMHO, could be the real "secret weapon" apple has up it's sleeve for whatever Boot Camp turns into for Leopard.

Think about it. Unlike other hardware manufacturers or virtualization software companies, they actually have a very limited set of video and other hardware to support. What if they made their XP drivers compatible with both the direct hardware, or the virtualization environment. So that the XP drivers can detect if they are running in a VM and write to the hardware or not depending on what it's running on. This could be handled in the drivers themselves, or using XP's hardware configurations settings (usually used for docked/undocked laptops).

B

MacRumorUser
Apr 15, 2006, 08:00 PM
This, IMHO, could be the real "secret weapon" apple has up it's sleeve for whatever Boot Camp turns into for Leopard.

Think about it. Unlike other hardware manufacturers or virtualization software companies, they actually have a very limited set of video and other hardware to support. What if they made their XP drivers compatible with both the direct hardware, or the virtualization environment. So that the XP drivers can detect if they are running in a VM and write to the hardware or not depending on what it's running on. This could be handled in the drivers themselves, or using XP's hardware configurations settings (usually used for docked/undocked laptops).

B

Nice idea but wouldnt work, after all they are still going to have to rely on a WINDOWS operating system working flawlessly and just how they want it to... That's too much to ask any Windows OS :D Funny but ultimatly True.. I detect a blue screen coming up

barddzen
May 16, 2006, 10:15 AM
Hello,

Browsing this thread and for me, my main requirements would be to run IE, Office, MS Project, Visio, etc. for work and school.

Things that typically don't have a Mac version or equiv.

Right now I lug two laptops around.

Parallels seems fine for the work aspect of things, but when I'd have to VPN into our corporate network, my guess, from the descriptions here, I'd have to use Boot Camp?

Just rtying to flush out the limitations here. I really don't see myself using the machine for gaming (that's what I'm laying down the cash for a PS3), but definitely for business, development, architecture work as well as my home photos, movies, etc.

balamw
May 16, 2006, 11:50 AM
Parallels seems fine for the work aspect of things, but when I'd have to VPN into our corporate network, my guess, from the descriptions here, I'd have to use Boot Camp?
Depends entirely on your company's VPN. The built-in OS X VPN client supports lots of concentrators. I routinely VPN in to the Cisco VPN work from my iBook G4 using the built-in VPN client, and even use Remote Desktop to run things on my XP desktop. Haven't tried Microsoft's Remote Desktop Client on the iMac, but since it'll run in Rosetta I'm not sure it would be much use...

B

Killian
May 16, 2006, 11:58 AM
What I want to happen is a virtualization software that can use the same install as bootcamp. So when I need to check something in IE for windows, or check some info from a windows only program all I would have to do is start up virtualization. Then when I want more power for gaming I would re-boot. This is what I want. I hope its around by the time I get my intel mac.:D


Why don't you just install BootCamp and Paralels? Then if you want to just check something out you can use Paralels, if you want to play games etc, reboot to XP?

mkrishnan
May 16, 2006, 12:13 PM
What I'd like to see Apple do, at a minimum, which should actually be very easy to implement, is to allow the system to safe sleep both OSes, so that it could hibernate OS X and defrost XP, and vice versa, and have both operating systems retain state (rather than rebooting).

This still wouldn't be perfect, but it would be full implementation (no emulating), without needing to shut down either OS, and it would only take ... what... 20-30 seconds ... to switch between already booted, apps running, versions of both OSes.

And it seems like this would be very easy to implement, since OS X and XP both already have hibernation functionality....

trainguy77
May 20, 2006, 12:07 PM
Why don't you just install BootCamp and Paralels? Then if you want to just check something out you can use Paralels, if you want to play games etc, reboot to XP?
But if I install bootcamp first can parallel access the XP partition? If so this is what I want. I don't want two copies of XP.

jjcc543
May 31, 2006, 01:48 PM
It's true. And most other programs are as well. Check it. -> http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2740&p=14

MatBook
Jun 27, 2006, 09:08 PM
NOT FULLY FUNCTIONING. No sound, No Airport. USB support questionable. Graphics still emulated. Still not full Native speed, as it will always be running on top of somthing else meaning things like Memory is limited (you can only assign certain amounts)... Software is going to be hit and miss, forget gaming and until sound works, anything to do with audio is out of the question.


I'm about to get a software program for a DJ unit. The software is only compatible on XP (connecting via USB). I will get sound from the actual unit, through and amp/headphones, but you say sound on (parallels) XP is not going to happen.....but bootcamp will do it all fine??

fedra
Feb 26, 2007, 06:20 AM
Hi guys!
I need to run a very cool software that is made only for Windows and I have a Mac.

Can you try for me this software and tell me if it works under BootCamp or Parallels?
If yes, then I will install BootCamp/Parallels in my Mac.


The program is called DNA Baser, is 1.3MB and it is located here:
http://www.dnabaser.com/download/download.html
or here: http://www.dnabaser.com/download/DNA%20Baser%20Setup.exe

I will take only 10 seconds to download it and 5-10 seconds to install it. It does not ask to many questions at install, only the destination folder.

Thanks allot.

EvilDoc
Feb 26, 2007, 09:17 AM
yes it works in parrallels on an intel iMac 20inch ;)

elppa
Feb 26, 2007, 10:22 AM
Looks ok on Parallels Build 3120 (which I think is the latest beta).

See attached.

himansk
Feb 26, 2007, 12:54 PM
build 3170 is the latest rc3

fedra
Feb 26, 2007, 06:13 PM
build 3170 is the latest rc3

Thank you VERY VERY VERY VERY much.

I asked for the same help earlier on Parallels official forum and they treated my like a garbage. I didn't expected to be hated by a moderator just because I asked for somebody that already have the Parallel installed to test a very small program for me.
Nice way to treat their possible clients. Of course I will try BootCamp now, instead of Parallels.

Thank you very much AGAIN, dear Elppa.

amin
Feb 27, 2007, 08:13 AM
Simple differences, not saying ones better than the other (though one is ;) )...

Parallels whilst a move in the right direction is TOO limited in its current status and needs a lot of optimisations yet, but is promising. But at the end of the day your going to be limited to what you can do with it until drivers etc are sorted. And then they will still be emulated :o ...

If you want to game, run all windows software NOW then bootcamp is the way to go...

Hmm, wonder which one you prefer :D. My solution is to run Vista in Boot Camp (it really needs all the RAM it can get - sharing RAM is suboptimal for Vista) and keep a lightweight version of XP in Parallels.

elppa
Feb 27, 2007, 10:25 AM
Hmm, wonder which one you prefer :D. My solution is to run Vista in Boot Camp (it really needs all the RAM it can get - sharing RAM is suboptimal for Vista) and keep a lightweight version of XP in Parallels.

Or, better still, use one installation of XP for bootcamp and parallels.

At the moment, I don't think there is anything Vista can run that XP can't.