Apple supporting Parallels?

[Patch^]

I don't if this has been posted or not, or if its of any importance to anyone but I noticed that on Apples get a mac campaign it says and even has an image of the virtualization software Parallels.

http://www.apple.com/getamac/windows.html

(look at the image and the grey writing at the end of the page)

With the support and knowledge of virtualization software maybe Apple will have more support for it in the next OS?

 

[BWhaler]

I suspect this rules-out virtualization being built into Leopard. (I always thought this was a stretch anyhow.)

 

[Bern]

Well I'm happy with Bootcamp and look forward to it being a part of Leopard when it's released. I much prefer to have two separate partitions to boot into. Besides isn't Parallels still only emulation as opposed to bootcamp allowing native install?

 

[arcobb]

Well I'm happy with Bootcamp and look forward to it being a part of Leopard when it's released. I much prefer to have two separate partitions to boot into. Besides isn't Parallels still only emulation as opposed to bootcamp allowing native install?

Parallels is a virtualization solution not emulation like Virtual PC. As far as I can tell the only thing slowing down the OS is the fact that 2 operating systems are running at once (OS X and Windows). I've head numbers like 90 percent the speed of Bootcamp. I have Parallels running on my computer and I love it. One nice thing is windows runs off of it's own disk image, and I may be corrected on this one, if windows gets a virus or whatever the disk image would be hosed and not your entire OS X harddrive.

Anyway Parrallels is much, much, much faster the Virtual PC so much so I have no desire to plug in Bootcamp.

 

[Peace]

Boot Camp far surpasses Parallels....

 

[SC68Cal]

I remember an interview with the people at Parallels and they said that they had outside investment, but would not name sources.

I wonder if Apple will just purchase Parallels' developers and put them to work on integrating their product with the next OS X release, to provide the rumored Virtualization that the next OS X is to have.......

 

[brbubba]

Boot Camp far surpasses Parallels....

Did you even use parallels? The performance is very much on par with boot camp. In fact, if you grabbed an average user they probably couldn't even tell the difference.

 

[emaja]

Boot Camp far surpasses Parallels....

...because everyone would rather reboot 6 times a day instead of just flipping over to Parallels for those one or two Windows apps they use.

Of course native performance will be better than a virtualization, but not every apps needs native speeds to be usable. They both have their purpose.

 

[Peace]

I've been using Parallels since the first beta and it is not as fast as boot camp..Nor does Parallels allow for any kind of 3D graphic acceleration.Something a lot of people need in Windows..CAD etc..

I have it installed on my system now along with boot camp..

As far as using it for spreadsheets,Word etc..It's great and I'd recommend it for those purposes.But if you need that 3D graphics boot camp is the way to go..

Now if Apple were to buy these guys out and build on it it could be the way to go..

 

[bousozoku]

Boot Camp far surpasses Parallels....

...except for testing. Parallels can't run more than just Windows, so you can test on multiple operating systems concurrently without the inconvenience of re-booting.

It's quite a nice solution.

 

[Makosuke]

Boot Camp far surpasses Parallels....

"For 3D" is what you should have added.

For basic app use, not having to reboot is vastly more convienent, and an absolute must if you're using it to run IE for web development. Not to mention being able to install multiple versions of Windows if you are so inclined, and not being restricted to XP. Oh, and being able to just "freeze" Windows easily and fire it back up without ever leaving the MacOS. Oh, and the relative ease of transferring files via the shared folders.

Also you can easily back up your drive image (just drag n' drop) so if Windows gets hosed you're back up and running in no time.

Bootcamp is a necessity for certain things, but for many, many uses Parallels is drastically more convienent, efficient, and effective.

 

[matticus008]

I suspect this rules-out virtualization being built into Leopard. (I always thought this was a stretch anyhow.)

Not necessarily. Look at this odd comment from Apple's website:

"That means on such well-designed hardware, that MacBook Pro runs even some Windows software faster than PCs themselves, according to third party results. (They’re able to get these results with beta software from the next version of Mac OS X, Leopard. Apple Computer does not sell or support Microsoft Windows.)"

(http://www.apple.com/getamac/fast.html)

I'd say there's a rabbit ear poking out of Apple's hat...

 

[Makosuke]

I'd say there's a rabbit ear poking out of Apple's hat...

Actually, I'd say that's an oddly worded reference to BootCamp.

I'd say "...beta software from the next version of Mac OS X, Leopard." has a 95% chance of referring to BootCamp, which is indeed in beta now but will be part of Leopard. That why it says "beta software from" not "beta versions of".

 

[netdog]

Boot Camp far surpasses Parallels....

If you don't need to run 3-D graphics, that simply isn't true. Further, the advantages of running both OS's concurrently and being able to share data between the two is an incredible benefit.

For gamers and a select few others, Boot Camp may be the far better choice. For most of the the rest of us, however, in fact, Parallels far surpasses Boot Camp.

That said, it is nice to have the choice.

 

[mus0r]

I was at an Apple training seminar for educators and they had an hour long class about Windows on Mac, which went in fair detail on both Parallels and BootCamp.

 

[MRU]

I wonder if Apple will just purchase Parallels' developers and put them to work on integrating their product with the next OS X release, to provide the rumored Virtualization that the next OS X is to have.......

I've suspected the same for a long time. It's not like Apple dont have a habit of buying out studio/products and rebranding them. So yeah, I suspect Apple will simply buy Parallels and incorportate it into leopard and call it Apple Parallels.

 

[numlock]

How much cpu and ram does a windows os use in Parallels when its just open. No real usage. Will one really feel a drop in the performance in macos?

Also even though they do release mac versions. Some thing like Football Manager. It should run in fine in Parallels right?

 

[matticus008]

Actually, I'd say that's an oddly worded reference to BootCamp.

I'd say "...beta software from the next version of Mac OS X, Leopard." has a 95% chance of referring to BootCamp, which is indeed in beta now but will be part of Leopard. That why it says "beta software from" not "beta versions of".

No doubt it refers to some form of BC, but if you look on that page, there are zero verbatim references to Boot Camp (only Parallels). Also, it says it runs Windows software faster than PCs. That can't be Boot Camp as we know it today, since the "speed advantage" of OS X + a Mac doesn't apply to Windows running on a Mac. Under Windows via Boot Camp, a Mac is just a PC--it can't be faster unless they're comparing it to slower or older PC hardware.

The whole page is oddly worded, and the mention of Leopard is unnecessary if they're merely talking about the current Boot Camp. They're not known for casual references to future products, as we all know.