iMac and Windows: Boot Camp or Parallel

[maflynn]

Flipping heck! So, if you're running a Windows Server 2012 R2, and have/need more the 8GB, you have to cough up the cash.

Or just use Vmware's Fusion. They have a pro version as well, but the non-pro flavor doesn't have the ram restriction.

 

[jeabraham]

Curious as to the advantages of VMware or parallels over the free and popular. VirtualBOX. I have virtualbox installed in a lot of places for container based Linux development and for android development, so when I need windows I just install it inside of virtualbox. Works well, although I'm not using windows 10 yet inside any virtual machines.

What works even better is Remote Desktop to a windows machine. There always seem to be plenty of windows machines lying around the office. So, I use windows inside of virtualbox for a few programs at home, and for laptops on-the-road.

 

[FreemanW]

Installing Windows on a 5400rpm drive sounds awful especially if your going to be going back and forth between OSX and Windows.

I chuckled.

I say installing Windows on any drive is awful.

Srsly, I've got Windows 7, 8.1, & 10 in a Parallels installation. It really boils down to what you're intentions are with the installation.

 

[maflynn]

Curious as to the advantages of VMware or parallels over the free and popular. VirtualBOX.

Here's my take.
1. VMware tended to be more stable then Parallels. Their release schedule was slower then Parallels, so when they did roll out a product it was less problematic.

2. Parallels was the best in performance, it offered exceedingly fast executions, especially considering its a virtualized environment. Support and pricing was always an issue, forcing customers to upgrade and generally the early adopters suffered from quite a bit of bugs.

3. VirtualBox, offers the worst in performance and the least amount of features (no bootcamp support for example).

I use VB at work and its decent, I've used Vmware at home and I think its the best of the three, but its just my opinion