[frankthetank966]

Hey ya'll my friend has a Duo Core iMac and he is running Virtual P.C. Until I used his computer I had never heard of Virtual PC. All I was aware of was Boot Camp. What is the difference betweeen Bootcamp and Virtual PC if you are going to run Windows?

[ghporter]

This belongs in the Alternative Operating Systems forum. As you're new, frank, I'm moving it for you. Pay attention to where you post from now on-keeping things where they belong makes the whole of MacNN Forums easier to use.

[Dog Like Nature]

Originally Posted by frankthetank966

Hey ya'll my friend has a Duo Core iMac and he is running Virtual P.C. Until I used his computer I had never heard of Virtual PC. All I was aware of was Boot Camp. What is the difference betweeen Bootcamp and Virtual PC if you are going to run Windows?

Virtual PC doesn't run on the Intel-based Macs, but if it did, the difference would be this:

One emulates a PC, and the other allows you to boot a copy of Windows on your Mac. I'll leave it to you to determine which one is which!

[frankthetank966]

So I am assuming that boot camp is actually more realistic and is actually windows on a mac computer while virtual pc is running on the mac OS and doesn't offer as many options as boot camp. Anyways can you run virtual pc on an ibook or powermac? Or is virtual pc meant for only duo core macs?

[Dog Like Nature]

Originally Posted by frankthetank966

So I am assuming that boot camp is actually more realistic and is actually windows on a mac computer while virtual pc is running on the mac OS and doesn't offer as many options as boot camp. Anyways can you run virtual pc on an ibook or powermac? Or is virtual pc meant for only duo core macs?

Yes, Boot Camp is a convenient way to install XP alongside your Mac OS X installation. Virtual PC (the MS product) is an application that runs inside OS X (just like any other), and at this point is not available for Intel-based Macs, but will run just fine on iBooks and PowerMacs (even G5s).

This shouldn't worry you, as Parallels Desktop does work on Intel Macs, and is a superior solution in any case.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Dog Like Nature

Virtual PC[/URL] (the MS product) is an application that runs inside OS X (just like any other), and at this point is not available for Intel-based Macs, but will run just fine on iBooks and PowerMacs (even G5s).

This shouldn't worry you, as Parallels Desktop does work on Intel Macs, and is a superior solution in any case.

Hold on. Parallels is a good solution for SOME users. Others need the Windows running on their actual hardware because Parallels doesn't really work with some things-USB, for example is still limited to USB 1.1 standards, so it's lousy for external file devices (though it works fine for keyboards and mice). This is still a free-for-all situation, and there never will be a single, "best" solution for everyone in this area.

Boot Camp allows your Intel-based Mac to boot Windows XP directly on the hardware; using this you can functionally change your Mac into a PC for the purpose of running Windows-and it's faster than most PCs out there too. This also means you need a good antivirus program for Windows-you get the bad with the good.

[dowNNshift]

Virtual PC -- Ick. Over priced, dog slow emulation. Good riddance!
Just as said above Virtual PC does not work on the Intel Mac, thank God.

However, I gotta defend Parallels. I have Parallels installed on a 1.83 iMac w/ 2 GB RAM system, configured using a fixed ("plain") sized 15GB virtual hard disk image and 1024MB dedicated RAM.

Its important to notice that Parallels focuses on virtualization instead of emulation. Virtualization works at the processor hardware level, so users can achieve a level of performance similar to a dedicated install with BootCamp.

Just like superman, Parallels has kryptonite too; utilizing virtualized generic graphics card and as previously said USB 1.1 support only.

But don't let that scare anyone off, Parallels has twice the capability Virtual PC ever had. Users can import data off of a USB Key or USB 2 device using Mac OS X, then quickly transfer it into Parallels via the shared folder tool, or map the USB2 drive into Parallels. In short, you can customize it to your liking, even create .iso disk images with the included utility that run at full hard drive bandwidth and speed.

I think Parallels is better for two reasons, 1. ability to run more and older OS'es (Linux, Unix, Windows all the way back to 3.11 and MS DOS) and 2. ultimate control over the virtualized environment -- total tweaking control and no accidentally writing over your MacHD or System Folder.

I encourage Intel Mac users to give Parallels a try, sure its $50 bucks -- but its a steal of a deal for the capability it provides!

My .02

[frankthetank966]

I dont understand what parrallels are. I think I am just going to stick with the boot camp since I will hopefully be purchasing a Macbook. Is bootcamp easy to install?

[Dog Like Nature]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Hold on. Parallels is a good solution for SOME users. Others need the Windows running on their actual hardware because Parallels doesn't really work with some things

Yes of course! What I was saying was Parallels is a better solution than Virtual PC!

[dowNNshift]

Frank -->

Parallels Desktop for Mac is software purchased from Parallels, Inc.. You can learn all about it by visiting their website at www.parallels.com. If you can install BootCamp, you can easily install Parallels, but keep in mind you need lots of memory to achieve optimal results.

I encourage you to download the Parallels Desktop for Mac user manual from Parallel's website to learn about all the features.

To reiterate Frank, Parallels is virtualization software, enabling the user to run multiple guest operating systems while running Mac OS X at the same time, importantly without having to reboot. So much more convenient.

[frankthetank966]

Which is easier to install and use Boot Camp or Parrallels?

[Dog Like Nature]

Originally Posted by frankthetank966

Which is easier to install and use Boot Camp or Parrallels?

Parallels, as it's just an application, and requires no repartitioning of your boot disk.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by frankthetank966

Which is easier to install and use Boot Camp or Parrallels?

Parallels would be easier, though bootcamp isn't hard. I prefer bootcamp only because I need a full featured PC which Parallels can't quite do yet. In particular I need the use of my graphics card. If you just wanna run Microsoft Access or something Parallels is probably better for you.

The only think missing in bootcamp is support for the built in isight webcam, which I think is odd considering many pc laptops now have them too. If you choose bootcamp, don't rush through the installation process and follow the directions to the letter. Although its a straight forward process, there are a few steps -- such as selecting which partition to install windows on--where one mistake will wipe out the OSX side of your computer.

[frankthetank966]

If you get a virus on bootcamp does it affect the mac OS?

[ghporter]

You would not be "running Boot Camp" when running Windows-Boot Camp simply sets up your computer to dual-boot. But if your Windows installation does get a virus, that virus could not affect your OS X at all. That is not to say it wouldn't hose up the whole computer; some viruses go at the hardware pretty seriously, and you could potentially have your hard drive wiped entirely.

ANY AND ALL WINDOWS INSTALLATIONS REQUIRE EFFECTIVE ANTIVIRUS SOFTWARE, NO MATTER WHAT HARDWARE THEY ARE RUNNING ON. There are inexpensive and even free AV apps that work well-Panda comes to mind right off the bat-so the only excuse for not using one is laziness, and you pay for that many times over when you fix your installation after getting infected. I have NEVER had a virus at home on my PCs. NEVER. Because I ALWAYS run an antivirus package on Windows.