Boot Camp vs. Parallels

dkoralek

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Sep 12, 2006
268
0
i just ordered a new MacPro. I was wondering what people's "real world" experiences with Boot Camp vs. Parallels were? I have a Windows only package I have to run some of the time and am trying to decide if it is worth dedicating part of my hard drive (or buying a second drive) for XP, or if Parallels will be usable.

Thanks!
 

Chundles

macrumors G4
Jul 4, 2005
11,979
428
i just ordered a new MacPro. I was wondering what people's "real world" experiences with Boot Camp vs. Parallels were? I have a Windows only package I have to run some of the time and am trying to decide if it is worth dedicating part of my hard drive (or buying a second drive) for XP, or if Parallels will be usable.

Thanks!
If the software you need to use doesn't require 3D graphics or DVD burning (though that should change soon) and you only need to use it once in a while then Parallels should be perfect.

Boot Camp is good if you need full access to all hardware and you'd be using Windows for a while at a time.
 

tyr2

macrumors 6502a
May 6, 2006
808
106
Leeds, UK
One niggle with BootCamp on a MacPro is that if you have a RAID boot volume, this volume does not show as a bootable volume in the 'Startup Disk' control panel on Windows.

Not a major problem unless you only have the BT keyboard, which can't be used to bring up the boot selector at boot up.
 

crazycat

macrumors 65816
Dec 5, 2005
1,319
0
I like bootcamp more, but if you want quick access to windows then Parallels is a better option. If i had to pick one and only one i would go with bootcamp.
 

orangezorki

macrumors 6502a
Aug 30, 2006
618
17
Just a quick question: I've got a BootCamp install of XP on a seperate drive on my Mac Pro: can I use this in Parallels as well, or do I still need a different install?

David
 

MRU

Suspended
Aug 23, 2005
25,318
8,810
Other
Just a quick question: I've got a BootCamp install of XP on a seperate drive on my Mac Pro: can I use this in Parallels as well, or do I still need a different install?

David
No you need a seperate install. Parallels creates a virtual hard disk and does not require a seperate partiton etc...
 

freezerburrn

macrumors member
Aug 20, 2006
79
0
La Habra, CA
Does anyone know if Parallels still has the problem of limiting system memory to 2 GBs? I downloaded a demo a couple of weeks back and while installing it, the software had a popup message saying there was a problem using Paralles with over 2 GBs of memory.

If I wanted to continue with the installation I had to allow Parallels to limite my system memory to 2 GB.
 

slughead

macrumors 68040
Apr 28, 2004
3,104
236
Does anyone know if Parallels still has the problem of limiting system memory to 2 GBs? I downloaded a demo a couple of weeks back and while installing it, the software had a popup message saying there was a problem using Paralles with over 2 GBs of memory.

If I wanted to continue with the installation I had to allow Parallels to limite my system memory to 2 GB.
Parallels reserves all the RAM it uses as the program starts. Even if you could set it to use as much as you want, it'll use ALL of it at once.

Therefore, even if you can get it to use more than 2 gigs of RAM, it will take it from all other running programs.

Also, I should point out that Parallels emulates some hardware, so even if you COULD figure out how to boot off the same volume as Boot Camp, windows would self-destruct every time you reboot.
 

crazycat

macrumors 65816
Dec 5, 2005
1,319
0
Bootcamp runs a bit faster as well, so if you are looking for speed bootcamp will be faster. I only tested Battlefield 2 on it but i am sure you can run other games like half-life 2.
 

orangezorki

macrumors 6502a
Aug 30, 2006
618
17
Does anyone know if Parallels still has the problem of limiting system memory to 2 GBs? I downloaded a demo a couple of weeks back and while installing it, the software had a popup message saying there was a problem using Paralles with over 2 GBs of memory.

If I wanted to continue with the installation I had to allow Parallels to limite my system memory to 2 GB.
I checked the Parallels website today after seeing this thread - apparently the current version has solved that problem.

David
 

Chone

macrumors 65816
Aug 11, 2006
1,222
0
Bootcamp runs a bit faster as well, so if you are looking for speed bootcamp will be faster. I only tested Battlefield 2 on it but i am sure you can run other games like half-life 2.
It not a matter of "I'm sure" its a friggin fact, a mac running windows xp through bootcamp is 100% a PC and stop beings a mac at that moment, its basically a PC with a mac enclosure (cause honestly, hardware wise there is very little if anything that all thats "mac").

So yeah, a Mac on Windows XP with a 2.13 core duo and a X1600 will perform EXACTLY as a PC on Windows XP with a 2.13 core duo and a X1600.
 

dkoralek

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Sep 12, 2006
268
0
It not a matter of "I'm sure" its a friggin fact, a mac running windows xp through bootcamp is 100% a PC and stop beings a mac at that moment, its basically a PC with a mac enclosure (cause honestly, hardware wise there is very little if anything that all thats "mac").

So yeah, a Mac on Windows XP with a 2.13 core duo and a X1600 will perform EXACTLY as a PC on Windows XP with a 2.13 core duo and a X1600.
The question really is how much slower, not whether it is slower. Thanks for everyones' responses. I'm not planning on running any games (this is a work computer). Mainly running SAS ocassionally (Stata is my main analysis software) and possibly (dare I say it?) Access. Word and Excel under Rosetta should be plenty fast. I'll probably run it all in Parallels and see how it goes.

Cheers.
 

dkoralek

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Sep 12, 2006
268
0
partition vs. new hard disk

Sorry for having a couple of other questions. Do the drivers for boot camp allow XP to read and write the HFS partitions on the Mac, or will I have to have enough room in my windows partitions to store data for those apps (and, therefore also format to fat32 in order to read and write from os x)? If I can use a small partition on the windows side (i.e. enough for windows, the couple of windows apps I need, and a few docs), then I can get away with using my single internal for windows. Otherwise, I'm going to have to go out and get a new drive (not the end of the world, but i'm trying to minimize my costs (ha ha consiering i just ordered this machine, but i'm not paying for the initial order :) right now).

Cheers.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.