Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

MikeD · Aug 23, 2006, 07:57 PM

Well, first off, is there a BIG performance hit when using parallels over bootcamp? This macbook starts up pretty fast!

Also, whenever boot camp is updated through apple, do you have to re-initiallize your WHOLE system or just the windows half of your system. I put a lot of programs on my computer as well as have a lot of files and would hate to restore EVERYTHING from scratch. Essentially, I'm not sure how this whole thing works. All I know for certain, is that I should buy a copy of win xp pro (that should work okay on the macbook right?) to use.

Can anyone give me any tips?

Thanks,
Mike

ghporter · Aug 23, 2006, 08:53 PM

There may not be much performance hit with Parallels, but you cannot beat running the OS natively. I'd go with BC because of this.

And since they just updated Boot Camp, I can say with authority that NO you don't have to redo anything except maybe install updated drivers. Frankly, all BC does is handle the partitioning and provide drivers-the boot issue is handled by firmware.

XP Pro should work magnificently on teh MacBook. I like it over the Home edition because some of Home's networking is not as simple to manage as Pro's-it's like some of the tools are crippled. I stick with Pro, even though it costs more.

MikeD · Aug 23, 2006, 11:16 PM

Thanks for the advice. Now for bootcamp, the software sets everything up right? I don't have to worry about my data or erase my HD and start from scractch? Also, when apple released the 1.1 version, did you have to erase your hd to reinstall everything or does boot camp update just like any other app?

Thanks,
Mike

Camali · Aug 24, 2006, 12:11 AM

I got a question regarding bootcamp...

I'm seriosly considering buy a Mac mini (Duo) and using it through a gigabit network, however as a headless computer, to be controlled from my G5.

But what do I use? Apple's Remote Desktop, or MS's free Remote Desktop program?

Either I run Windows XP (mainly for Expression: Graphic Designer, looks like a good alternative to Illustrator) as BootCamp or through Parallels?

MikeD · Aug 26, 2006, 07:30 PM

Also, I'm just using it for a couple of programs for work. How much HD Space do I need just for the base installation prior to adding my own apps?

Mike

ghporter · Aug 26, 2006, 08:23 PM

Mike, that depends on what the programs are. Windows XP requires AT LEAST "1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space" whether you're running the Home version or Pro. In my experience that number is WAY too small. I'd give it at least 5GB just for Windows, and then however much disk space each piece of software you plan to install takes up, PLUS MORE for your data files.

MikeD · Aug 26, 2006, 11:23 PM

Thanks GHPorter. So you're pretty confident that Bootcamp is a good solution over parallels? Have you tried parallels? I'm just so worried since of course, boot camp is beta and I'm just worried about one day, not being able to get back to the mac side (has that ever happened to anyone)? I could see it now, Windows XP taking over permanently... NOOOOO!!!!

Mike

Big Mac · Aug 26, 2006, 11:55 PM

No, Mike, that could not happen. The worst thing Boot Camp could do would be to wipe your drive.

Chuckit · Aug 27, 2006, 01:18 AM

I would go the other way from Glenn. I prefer Parallels because I actually use the computer as a Mac and just need a couple of Windows programs occasionally. Thus, it's less trouble for me to use Parallels (no interrupting everything else I'm doing), and the speed difference isn't really noticeable since I don't use anything intense on the Windows side.

MikeD · Aug 27, 2006, 02:54 AM

That's what I was thinking too Chuck. Maybe I could buy windows cheap off ebay, then use the money saved to get parallels! I went to Fry's and Windows XP Pro sp2 was 199.99 plus tax!!

kennedy · Aug 27, 2006, 09:13 AM

Unless you are doing gaming or other stuff that is hardware device intensive, I'd use Parallels over BC. Parallels is fast and allows you to use the superior Mac apps as much as possible... since there is no switchover effort.

I develop Windows software using Visual Studio 2005, Visual Source Safe, SQL Server 2005, Office Pro 2003, and Visio 2003... all inside Parallels... and its actually faster and just as stable as my previous Windows laptop.

Just make sure you have plenty of RAM for both to be running. 2GB is my recommendation.

ghporter · Aug 27, 2006, 10:54 AM

Actually I didn't side with either Boot Camp or Parallels. I just said how much disk space I'd allow in the scenario MikeD painted.

Chuckit's point is exceptionally clear-if all you need to do is run specific Windows programs and don't want the hassle of rebooting to change which OS you're using (and if those programs don't need direct, exclusive access to the hardware), then Parallels is probably the better option. On the other hand, if you don't know what Windows apps you might need, or if you want to run something that objects if it can't control the hardware directly by itself (Windows apps are sometimes like that) then Boot Camp is the better option.

And kennedy's vouching for how fast Parallels with those development tools (which are very CPU intensive sometimes) is another vote for Parallels in a limited-use situation.

besson3c · Aug 27, 2006, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by Camali

I got a question regarding bootcamp...

I'm seriosly considering buy a Mac mini (Duo) and using it through a gigabit network, however as a headless computer, to be controlled from my G5.

But what do I use? Apple's Remote Desktop, or MS's free Remote Desktop program?

Either I run Windows XP (mainly for Expression: Graphic Designer, looks like a good alternative to Illustrator) as BootCamp or through Parallels?

You can use either ARD or RDP. However, if you want to use ARD, you'll have to install a VNC server on the Windows side, and you won't get all of Apple's remote control features such as installing packages or sending Unix commands.

MikeD · Aug 27, 2006, 09:19 PM

Thanks everyone for your input!! I figure this, I'm saving a bunch on Windows by getting it at about $130... I'll figure I'll put my savings into parallels! I'll let you know how I make out in a week when everything comes in...

Mike

ibmjones · Aug 28, 2006, 11:37 AM

I run Parrallels on my Macbook and so far, I have no issues. However, I do not run Windows XP - just 2000. That allows me to have a lower memory footprint (256 megs as opposed to 512) on my macbook (I have about 1 Gig on mine).

If I do ever upgrade to 2 Gigs of RAM, I'll put on Windows XP.

ghporter · Aug 28, 2006, 03:42 PM

Aside from the "smaller memory footprint" Win2K needs, there are a lot of negatives about it. It's harder to configure efficiently in my experience-especially compared to XP Pro-and it has other issues as well. I don't know if application speed is better while running inside Parallels, but typically 2K runs most apps I've used slower than XP does on a PC. While it may force you to upgrade your Mac's RAM, I think running XP (either under Parallels or through Boot Camp) is worth it. And the extra RAM will help improve OS X's performance as well!

Macola · Aug 28, 2006, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by ibmjones

I run Parrallels on my Macbook and so far, I have no issues. However, I do not run Windows XP - just 2000. That allows me to have a lower memory footprint (256 megs as opposed to 512) on my macbook (I have about 1 Gig on mine).

If I do ever upgrade to 2 Gigs of RAM, I'll put on Windows XP.

Actually, XP runs perfectly well on my MacBook with 1 GB RAM, 256 MB allocated to Parallels. If you allocate 512 MB to Parallels, OTOH, it slows everything to a crawl. I'd like to bump my physical RAM up to 2 GB, but I'm waiting for prices to drop...they're pretty ridiculous at the moment.