Bootcamp: No or Yes?

[Dilum2444]

I tried to search this specific subject; but I didn't get a real solid answer.

I have a 17" MBP Mid 2011 (so the standard 500GB version; did install 8GB RAM) and I'm thinking about using Bootcamp so I can play a couple of PC-games.

Now, I'm hesitating because I'm afraid my MBP will slow down and I'm gonna end up with a frustratingly slow, beat-up MBP with a PC partition on it; even when I deinstall Windows.

I've read comments of people saying that their Mac slowed down, even when they deleted the Windows partition.

What are your experiences? Do you think it's a good or bad idea to use bootcamp or should I just stick with my old, slow PC and hope that I can keep using that one for gaming for a while?

BTW: I'm planing on making a 100GB partition (should it matter)

 

[simsaladimbamba]

As a Windows installation via Boot Camp is separate from the Mac OS X installation due to it being on another partition, it should not slow down the Mac OS X part, at least in my experience. The slowness some experience may be due to the Mac OS X partition being to small for temporary and swap files. But with 8 GB of RAM you should be on the safe side for swapping problems.

 

[BiggAW]

They shouldn't affect each other with Boot Camp.

With Parallels they can, since they are both running at the same time. I use Parallels, and with an old, slow HDD Parallels would cause my computer to come to it's knees. Now with a faster computer and a nice, fast SSD, that problem is no longer.

 

[LeandrodaFL]

It doesnt slow down your Mac. What may happen is that with 2 computers in one, you will fill up your HDD more quickly, and full/near to full HDD become really slow, even after erasing space.

 

[BiggAW]

It doesnt slow down your Mac. What may happen is that with 2 computers in one, you will fill up your HDD more quickly, and full/near to full HDD become really slow, even after erasing space.

You talking about Parallels? It had nothing to do with disk space, and everything to do with seeking. When you're constantly going back and forth between read/writes for the VM and the host, it brings the whole computer to it's knees. With an SSD (which all laptops over $1K should have), there is no slowdown, since there is no seek time, so it can switch back and forth between host and guest hundreds of times a second and not affect performance. Other than a little more power/heat, you don't even know the VM is running in the background if you're in a Mac app.

Long story short, all Mac users should be using an SSD anyways. They are the single most important performance factor in today's world of DDR3 and quad i7's.

 

[thermodynamic]

You talking about Parallels? It had nothing to do with disk space, and everything to do with seeking. When you're constantly going back and forth between read/writes for the VM and the host, it brings the whole computer to it's knees. With an SSD (which all laptops over $1K should have), there is no slowdown, since there is no seek time, so it can switch back and forth between host and guest hundreds of times a second and not affect performance. Other than a little more power/heat, you don't even know the VM is running in the background if you're in a Mac app.

Long story short, all Mac users should be using an SSD anyways. They are the single most important performance factor in today's world of DDR3 and quad i7's.

Once SSDs become more price-effective.

Try editing videos on a SSD... might be faster, but not at the current price ratio...

Hybrids would be nice... except Seagate's Momentus (even the 750GB version I just looked into) seem to have issues on MacBooks... ugh...

But Parallels does a great job and typically has been faster than Fusion... oh, for the day it can match or outdo bootcamp...