 |
 |
Is Paralells the way to go?
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sudbury, ON
Status:
Offline
|
|
...or do most people prefer Bootcamp?
Do both work with Windows 7?
|
.................................................. .................................................. ..................................www.DNCH.com
.................................................. .................................................. .......................www.daniel.poirier.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator  Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status:
Offline
|
|
it really depends on what you want to do/accomplish.
There's also VMWare's Fusion which is a competitor to Parallels that does the same thing (runs Windows inside OS X).
I typically will use Parallels for viewing web sites in IE to confirm they're rendering correctly and other light tasks. If I need to move more quickly, I find booting into windows via Boot Camp seems to be faster. Although it seems the later versions of both Parallels and Fusion have done some good work in speeding up the virtualization.
All three work with Windows 7.
Again, it depends on how you work and what you're trying to do in Windows.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
I run Quicken 2010 on Fusion.
I found that Win XP is actually a bit faster than Win 7 on Fusion, so that's what I use to run Quicken.
On Bootcamp, I have Win 7, which runs nicely. Use it mainly for playing Civilization IV.
-t
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status:
Offline
|
|
Ars Technica reviewed both options a while back. They seem to prefer Fusion 3.
|
|
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back in the Good Ole US of A
Status:
Offline
|
|
MacTech did a head-to-head between Parallels and Fusion recently. I'm a Fusion user myself but was surprised to find that Parallels was faster (sometimes significantly so) in virtually every test they performed.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by dzp111 
...or do most people prefer Bootcamp?
Do both. You can install Windows on a Boot Camp partition and then use that partition as the VM with Parallels or Fusion.
Steve
|
|
Celebrating 10 years and 4000 posts on MacNN!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The deep backwoods of the PNW
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by dzp111
...or do most people prefer Bootcamp?
Do both work with Windows 7?
Well, there's a huge difference between the two - Parallels is a hardware virtualizer, while Boot Camp allows you to install Windows natively on your Mac hardware. If you want or need to work on things that require full access and use of the actual hardware - gaming, for instance, requires CPU and GPU power that you're not going to get from a virtualized environment - then Boot Camp is the way to go.
You can then, as ibook_steve pointed out, boot your Windows partition as a virtual machine from VMWare Fusion or Parallels. If you want to just try Windows, you can also check out Sun VirtualBox, which is a free alternative to both Fusion and Parallels. It's not quite as polished, but it's got the whole free thing working in its favor.
|
|
Sell or send me your vintage Mac things if you don't want them.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status:
Offline
|
|
For simple tasks, yes. Parallels (or VMWare Fusion, which I prefer) is great and very capable/fast.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top