Choosing Parallels Over BootCamp for OS X 138
juusan writes "Sysadmin Jeremy Randall outlines his installation and impressions of Parallels for Mac OS X. Is it better than BootCamp? Does it run succesfully on a Mac Mini? Does it pass the scrutiny of a fairly picky system administrator? Yes indeed, on all counts."
Back in Time (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Back in Time (Score:2)
Re:Back in Time (Score:2)
Re:Back in Time (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh.. were you talking about parallels itself?
Summary: It's OK (Score:5, Informative)
(Don't get me wrong - that's an indicator that Parallels is fairly good. He doesn't even have to care if some things work or not. But that's certainly not "in-depth")
Re:Summary: It's OK (Score:2)
Re:Summary: It's OK (Score:5, Informative)
I run WinXP Pro on my VM and have 512MB of RAM assigned to it (out of a total of 2 gigs in the iMac) and performance is quite acceptable for running Office apps and testing web sites with different versions of IE. Naturally, the more RAM the better, and in an ideal world my iMac would have 4gigs of RAM with 1 gig given to the VM, but that's mostly because I often have Safari, Firefox, Photoshop, Illustrator, and Dreamweaver running under OS X and that doesn't leave a lot of room for Parallels without a lot of swapping.
I know that Parallels is planning to improve USB device support in future releases, but for now connecting to devices over the network works for me.
I'll save you time (Score:5, Informative)
1. It works pretty good for a version-1 app.
2. It doesn't work well with external USB drives.
3. You get the occasional "beach ball" if you are running other apps on the OS X desktop and have only 1 GB of RAM.
4. The author is "platform agnostic" and really, really wants you to know that.
5. Rumors are flying that Apple might buy them and incorporate this into 10.5, but then again, maybe not.
Everybody who read my summary instead of clicking the link just saved 5 minutes. If a few million of you did so, I just saved a whole bunch of of entire lives!
Re:I'll save you time (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'll save you time (Score:5, Informative)
It's a seriously cool product and right now with XP running Word 2003 with one document open, AVG, and the generic Windows XP crap top is showing anywhere from 11.7 to 13.0 percent cpu. That's on a 17" MBP with 2G RAM.
Saving lives? (Score:2, Funny)
12 of those in an hour
288 in a day
about 300,000 in 3 years
about 3 million in 30 years
You have to save in the neighborhood of 5-10 million people five minutes each to save one lifetime's worth of time.
you < Superman
Taking lives? (Score:3, Funny)
Because if so, there are a whole lot of people on American Idol that I want to make sure are first up against the wall. Then we'll start on spammers and the guy who wrote the Llama Song.
Re:I'll save you time (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'll save you time (Score:2)
Go you!
Doesn't "do" graphics (Score:5, Insightful)
No. For starters, it can't directly access the graphics hardware, which makes it useless for almost any 3D gaming. It also uses an enormous amount of CPU time sitting around doing absolutely nothing. Seriously- XP, sitting doing nothing, nothing open- uses 20% of my Macbook's CPU. In Qemu (or rather, the Q Project build of QEMU), it's under 5%...and QEMU is emulating, whereas Parallels supposedly is using virtualization technology. What the hell?
If only Boot Camp and XP supported external drives (you have to hack XP considerably, unless you're using eSATA, I think)...
Re:Doesn't "do" graphics (Score:5, Interesting)
My macbook only needs about 5% of CPU time using parallels. But that is running windows 2000. Maybe its not parallels fault that XP is doing stuff when its supposed to be idle?
Michael
Re:Doesn't "do" graphics (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Doesn't "do" graphics (Score:2, Funny)
virtualized pwnage!!!
You can Pause the VM to reduce CPU usage. (Score:2)
Re:Doesn't "do" graphics (Score:5, Informative)
Welcome to the Windows world. XP, sitting doing nothing, on a native PC install, uses between 4% and 11% of the CPU on an Athlon 64 3000.
it's under 5%...and QEMU is emulating
QEMU (and most any emulator) actually optimizes out XP's OCD-like behavior, resulting in lower idle CPU use than the real thing. Add a moderate load, though, and watch the difference reverse itself drastically. Virtualization should see that 20% vanish into the actual load, while an emulator will grind to a crawl under load.
Re:Doesn't "do" graphics (Score:3, Interesting)
3% of that is Winamp, which I did not bother to pause. 1% of that is VNC, which I am running in the background. 2% is "System" - I don't know what this consists of, but considering that I have three windows updating frequently, I don't mind too much. 1% appears to be getting lost in rounding error. Note that this is an Intel system which predates hyperthreading. It is not exactly a powerhouse.
I suggest fi
What? (Score:2)
If through this app XP takes up 20% cpu just sitting there then the app is buggy.
Re:Doesn't "do" graphics (Score:2, Informative)
Just erase any unnecessary softwares out... seriously it's the best way to make your Windows run stable and fast.
I simply get 0% cpu cycle on my WinXP watching task manager's graph drawing a horizontal line at the bottom with about 300MB of unused RAM on a 512MB ram machine.
It's not the Windows... it's you that's abbusing the system resource.
Re:Doesn't "do" graphics (Score:3, Informative)
Life isn't as bad as all that. First off, remove all unnecessary services [clankiller.com] to reduce both your memory footprint and your idle CPU consumption. You'll have to tweak that list a little, but my XP system at home runs in about 100MB of RAM with 1-2% CPU. It also only has 6 services running, and
Re:Doesn't "do" graphics (Score:3, Informative)
Well, as the most obvious question - Do you get your numbers from Windows Task Manager, or from something a bit more accurate such as Sysinternals' Process Explorer? I used the latter, with an update speed of 5s (for both the longer sampling window and to reduce its own CPU use). And I find that it does indeed disagree with Task manager. I'll trust procexp over taskman any day, though.
Now you've got me
Re:Doesn't "do" graphics (Score:2)
Re:Doesn't "do" graphics (Score:4, Insightful)
> No.
*sigh.* Once again, kids: there's no single criterion with which you can determine a universal correct answer to the question of 'better.' What I use Windows for doesn't require graphics acceleration. So, let's look at this another way:
Is Boot Camp better than Parallels?
No. It forces you to reboot.
See?
You'd use it in the same place you'd use VMware (Score:5, Interesting)
Like Boot Camp, I think Parallels it getting more hype than it mertis just because it happens ot run on OS-X. Yep, it virtualizes a computer and lets you run Linux or Windows at a reasonable speed. Ok great, same thing as VMWare on a Linux or Windows host. Certianly not worthless, but nothing that's really news.
Use a native install (Boot Camp) if it's speed and access to hardware that are the prime requirements and you are willing to spend time booting back and forth. Use a virtualizer if you just need incidental access to the other OS and can take teh speed hit.
Re:You'd use it in the same place you'd use VMware (Score:3, Informative)
Except Virtual PC on the Mac is actually an emulator and not a virtualizer. With VPC the CPU is emulated so it is mind-numbingly slow. Parallels on the Mac will virtualise the CPU if your CPU supports VT-x (although everything else is emulated).
Re:You'd use it in the same place you'd use VMware (Score:3, Informative)
It shouldn't but it does.
The MacBook Pro, for one.
You are wrong. Shush now.
Re:You'd use it in the same place you'd use VMware (Score:3, Interesting)
I installed Parallels also (Score:4, Interesting)
The key advantages to me, over using something like BootCamp, is that I don't have to reboot my machine to access my Windows only stuff, and I minimize my risk of cross contamination. I'm less likely to hose my OSX install if I destroy my Win2K install (which I am prone to doing).
Re:I installed Parallels also (Score:1)
Re:I installed Parallels also (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, do get another gig of RAM! (Score:3, Informative)
Do yourself a favor. Run, don't walk, to the nearest computer hardware store and get the additional gig of RAM. It's a world of a difference.
My MacBook Pro felt slow with only one gig. Worse, when running lots of applications, or single applications which didn't behave too well, it would slow to a crawl, sometimes not accepting mouse clicks for seconds. With the second gigabyte, it's fast, snappy, responsive.
Don't run a MacBook Pro with only
Re:Yes, do get another gig of RAM! (Score:2)
and for the great grand-parent, you should find that parallels running on a MBP will outperform the Pentium M you have in the Dell, provided you aren't simultaneously soaking the processor in OS X
Windows Addicts (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Windows Addicts (Score:5, Insightful)
SHOCKING!!
Re:Windows Addicts (Score:4, Insightful)
This is being typed in Safari on OS X.
Re:Windows Addicts (Score:2)
Re:Windows Addicts (Score:1)
I suppose the next thing you'll do is call them wimps and sissies because they can't handle linux. Wanting to use certain a
Re:Windows Addicts (Score:2)
As for voting in the US - I regularly vote third-party, but it's almost always a protest vote... I don't actual
Re:Windows Addicts (Score:2)
Addiction would be if they cant give up using the OS because it has some trifling little feature no other has... like say mac os x's Expose than i most sinceearly wish to have on every machine i touch *sigh*
Re:Windows Addicts (Score:2)
I notice that you're being forced to post on slashdot because about:blank doesn't support posting messages.
Eugh.
it goes the other way, probably more often (Score:4, Interesting)
For me, it was when my NT4 setup got hacked over the local network. Probably the C$ administrative share had something to do with it. (WTF was that for anyway? I never asked for that. I disabled it many times, but Windows would helpfully restore the damn thing.) Fortunately I had NT4 on D:, making the c:autoexec.bat vandalism harmless. After that though, I would always physically disconnect the network cable before booting Windows. Pretty soon I took to leaving Mozilla running for weeks in Linux.
Re:it goes the other way, probably more often (Score:3, Informative)
History. [msdn.com]
You probably got pwned by a weak Administrator password.
Re:it goes the other way, probably more often (Score:2)
Since I never asked to serve my filesystem, I certainly shouldn't need a password at all. I never chose to be a server. I didn't enable anything.
The link you provided is quite disturbing. I feel like I must be reading it wrongly. That just can't be real. A plain old NT4 install would share all drives to the world without passwords? Oh my God. This wasn't headline news? About t
Re:it goes the other way, probably more often (Score:2)
The link you provided is quite disturbing. I feel like I must be reading it wrongly. That just can't be real. A plain old NT4 install would share all drives to the world without passwords?
You're reading it wrong. It will share it to Administrator level users (ie: you need an Administrator user/pass), for administrative purposes.
Re:it goes the other way, probably more often (Score:2)
OK, that should only be me. This was a dorm network, back when everyone else was running Windows 95. I certainly wasn't in any sort of realm or NT domain.
Having not installed anything like telnet/rsh/ftp services, I shouldn't need a password.
I guess that's not the way it is, because of the stupid admin shares and the well-known SID for the Administrator? (in other words, what I said: shared to the world w/o a password, because having a password sure wasn't enforced nor was any
Re:it goes the other way, probably more often (Score:2)
Computers aren't psychic. They have no way of knowing whether "you" really is "you" or someone pretending to be "you". All they can determine is whether or not some attempt to access resources has the right credentials.
Having not installed anything like telnet/rsh/ftp services, I shouldn't need a password.
Default configuration included file sharing.
Re:it goes the other way, probably more often (Score:2)
Windows is a desktop and gaming OS. It doesn't normally provide UNIX-style services. I can't telnet in. Of course I don't expect to need a password.
Re:it goes the other way, probably more often (Score:2)
As would anyone using Windows NT4 and Windows 2000.
You need a password.
As you did with Windows NT4 and Windows 2000.
(note: the filesystem root is NOT exported by default)
You could typically *telnet as root* into unix machines that old by default. More recent ones you can typically "only" SSH in as root.
Now, which do you consider to be more exposure - the ability get a root shell or the abili
Re:Windows Addicts (Score:2)
And?
Oh, I forgo
Re:Windows Addicts (Score:2)
If you're trying to give up drinking you don't take an occasional belt from your hip flask, even if everyone else around you is still drunk off their ass.
So you're comparing Windows to an addiction? I think your analogy is flawed. These are tools we're talking about. Here's a different analogy. When working in the garden using a roto-tiller, sometimes it is tempting to use a shovel for certain tasks. This is wrong, because soon you'll find that using a shovel is easier in some cases.
People should use wh
has anyone tried parallels for linux? (Score:1)
Re:has anyone tried parallels for linux? (Score:1)
Two things missing: (Score:4, Interesting)
Parallels (Score:2)
Plus I would add a third: bring the price back down to $49.99 as it was originally.
From their website, it still is $49.99:
* Limited time offer! Buy through 15th of July only for $49.99 and get $30 OFF! [parallels.com]
That, I'm glad to read. I don't have a MacTel yet but am hoping to get a Macbook Pro within a week or two. That'll give me at least a couple of weeks for testing before buying it.
Falcon FalconRe:Two things missing: (Score:2)
Even if you tried doing it with windows 2000/98/95, it would have to somehow cope with the hardware changing on every boot, which is something windows just doesn't cope well with.
Re:Two things missing: (Score:3, Informative)
It's coming in a future release. [blogspot.com]
Lots of more info at the official Parallels blog. [blogspot.com]
Does it run succesfully on a Mac Mini? (Score:5, Informative)
Why is this even a real question? The Mac Mini is nothing but an Intel Yonah (Core Solo / Duo) CPU system with an Intel 945 Express chipset (and integrated Intel GMA950 GPU), and EFI instead of a BIOS. Hardware wise, it's an exceptionally common Intel system.
Re: Does it run succesfully on a Mac Mini? (Score:2)
Because, if you do research you will find that not all the MacMini's support the virtualization required.
Seems intel had a run of chips that didn't support it and Apple didn't care either way, it wasn't a selling point of the machine at the time.
Re: Does it run succesfully on a Mac Mini? (Score:2)
The real question: why does the person who submitted the story think the Mini question is answered in the review? The word "mini" doesn't even appear in the blog post anywhere.
Runs fine on my Intel Mac mini (Score:3)
I didn't even know about the virtualization problem, I just got the warning from Parallels but it ran fine. Now I have to look into some fixes and speed that sucker up. Or maybe I can upgrade to a Core 2 Duo [macenstein.com].
Apple agrees! (Score:3, Interesting)
(From http://www.apple.com/getamac/windows.html [apple.com])
The funny thing is, they mention "starting up your Mac in Windows XP"--sounds like some of the copy writers need a crash-course in the difference between multibooting and virtualization.
Re:Apple agrees! (Score:2, Insightful)
Beyond that, there's a certain quiet genius in the ad. They're pushing Parallels because it helps the publisher make money, but it also achieves an OS X marketing advantage. Not only does it cost more to buy Windows+Parallels, but it doesn't run exceptionally well--OS X will always be faster. Both of these re
Why must we choose... (Score:2)
Re:Why must we choose... (Score:2)
Windows Activation (Score:2)
Coming from the Mac, I have a question about this: Doesn't this clash with Windows' Activation? If you boot the same installation from within Parallels and from the Mac itself, wouldn't Windows see that as two different computers, which would trigger a new activation?
Re:Windows Activation (Score:2)
1. Parallels, in the future, includes some kind of FAT32 disk format/resizing(like Boot Camp does) capability. The reason it needs FAT32 is OS X can read/write to a FAT32 partiton, but not a NTFS partition(which will be a problem with Vista). This would make a much easier transition, since it already knows how to write to a virtual Windows disk.
2. You haven't already installed the copy of Windows XP on the virtual disk. If you've done that, I'm sure it would be treated as i
Why choose? (Score:4, Informative)
Parallels is for people who need to run OS X and Windows at the same time.
Boot Camp is for people who need to occassionally run Windows separately from Mac OS X. For example: games, secure environments, people who just want to use Apple hardware with Windows, and have nothing to do with OS X whatsoever.
Neither product claims to support gaming (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither product claims to be able to play games, nor offers much in the way of support for gaming. Although, Boot Camp and running Windows XP natively on the hardware will certainly give you a better chance of doing so.
These applications are for people (like me) who work in an office that is Windows abundant so they can run stupid, lousy, poorly written pieces of software like Outlook and can get on the Exchange server to do what they're already doing BETTER with an open source product running someplace else. It's also for those of us that need access to applications like AutoCAD from time-to-time or some other application that only runs under Windows.
Yes, for some, the desire to play Windows-based games is driving them to these products, but they're no where near ready for that crowd. Parallels Desktop is RC2 and even though it has a version number of 2.1, it's really the first revision for the Intel-based Macs. Boot Camp, well, it's clearly labeled on the web page as "Public BETA", i.e., use at your own peril.
Please stop bashing a product simply because it doesn't do what you want it to do even though it wasn't designed (or intended) to do that task. Parallels is a very capable virtual machine application and is very easy to setup and use. As someone who has used a dual-boot system as his primary machine, I can tell you (IMHO) the Parallels product kicks dual booting in the ass! Dual boot is fine if you're only going to use the one partition for gaming. If you're talking about a work environment where you need to switch back and forth fairly regularly, dual-booting sucks! Again, IMHO.
Re:Neither product claims to support gaming (Score:4, Insightful)
It would be silly to think Apple didn't see "Run Windows games on a Mac" for the runaway money train it truly is.
AutoCAD (Score:2)
It's also for those of us that need access to applications like AutoCAD from time-to-time or some other application that only runs under Windows.
I didn't see that Autodesk had AutoCAD for Macs, it does have AutoCAD LT [autodesk.com] ported to Macs though. Also there are other CAD packages for Macs, Architosh [architosh.com] is a community of Mac based architects and other CAD users. There may be a specific requirement to use AutoCAD but there are CAD programs for Macs if there isn't a requirement. Otherwise I agree with your post.
I much prefer Microstation as a CAD package (Score:2)
I'd heard Microstation was real good. What do you think of Catia? Years ago I knew a machinist who wanted to setup a shop to custom make metal products and Catia was the only CADD he would use, he'd say it could do things others couldn't.
Falcondual monitior (Score:2)
I could have the main window and menus on one monitor and all my tool windows on the second one. Windows didn't easily (or at all) support multiple monitors with a continuous desktop until, what?, 1997, or was it Windows 98 that really got that nearly right?
Windows 95 could do dual monitors but not well. Windows 98 was much better at it. Since '98 I haven't used or setup dual monitors so I don't know how newer versions of Windows behaves with them. However I'm hoping to get a Macbook Pro by the end of
Re:Neither product claims to support gaming (Score:3, Informative)
I have no idea if it was built for gamers or not. All I know is that I own a Macbook Pro, have bootcamp installed on it, and find that it works absolutly fine for gaming.
Does it run every last game at tip-top resolutions and graphics levels? No, it's a laptop with an X1600 mobile card in it. It runs newer games (Oblivion is a prime example) WELL, even wi
Re:Neither product claims to support gaming (Score:2)
Re:Neither product claims to support gaming (Score:2)
The parent in question is explicitly talking about boot camp, not Parallels, running Oblivion well.
This agrees well with other reports and with common sense. An x1600, even underclocked, ought to be able to run Oblivion well. While it might not be the uber screaming chip for the macho teenagers using their computers as a measure of penis size, it is pretty decent. For example, it is better than any of the graphics chips I happen to have in any of my Windows boxes (one
Re:Neither product claims to support gaming (Score:2)
Misleading story (Score:3, Informative)
Aside from some fairly vague comments about the VMs being "fairly snappy," there's no indication of performance. From what I've heard, Parallels doesn't even come close to Boot Camp on that front, probably because Apple ported its own drivers specifically for Boot Camp so that all the hardware would work at full speed.
Also, Parallels costs $49.99. Boot Camp is free.
Oh, and the author says that setting up the VMs is time-consuming and complex; Boot Camp, by most reports, is easier to set up than installing Windows on a 'regular' PC.
The only advantage Parallels has over Boot Camp is that it can be used for more than just Windows. However, that's not a reason to prefer it if what you want is Windows. Boot Camp is free, faster and easier to set up. There may be some other advantages to Parallels, but this (decidedly mediocre) article doesn't mention any of them.
Re:Misleading story (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Misleading story (Score:1)
What do you think "virtual machine" means? (Score:2)
Re:Misleading story (Score:3, Informative)
From what I've heard, Parallels runs between 4% slower and 1% faster than XP on a MacBook Pro. The only problem area is graphics. Perhaps you mean 'doesn't even come close to Boot Camp for games? Believe it or not, that's not its target market.
-fred
Re:Misleading story (Score:2, Insightful)
Parallels isn't in the same sport as Boot Camp. (Score:2)
Not only is Parallels not in the same league as boot camp, it's not even playing the same game!
The only advantage Parallels has over Boot Camp is that it can be used for more than just Windows.
If you want to boot any other OS on your Mac you don't need a hack like "Boot Camp". The only reason you need Boot Camp at all is because Windows doesn't support EFI natively. If you want to run UNIX on your Mac you have your choice of a variety of free UNIXes or Apple's native opera
Re:Misleading story (Score:1)
easier, slower (Score:4, Informative)
Re:easier, slower (Score:2)
Parallels v.s. Boot Camp (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Parallels v.s. Boot Camp (Score:2)
Parallels is a godsend (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the ultimate test of Parallels in my mind: I am running the Exchange 5.5 Administrator tool on my Mac (we have a legacy 5.5 install that we're migration away from). Do any of you realize what a perversion this is? It runs great!
Oh, and the Parallels team is super-responsive to bug reports. I am quite happy with this product.
thank god / buddha / muhammed for Parallels (Score:5, Informative)
Being a web designer, I can now do all my work on Mac OS X and switch back and forth to Windows + Internet Explorer in seconds (to check how barfingly ugly my work will look to MSIE visitors). Well worth it's money, even though gaming is not supported.
Boot Camp is just total nonsense in my situation. I'm just NOT willing to reboot for anything.
Lastly, Parallels with Windows XP Home Edition with no running apps takes up 6-7% CPU on my 1,66 GHz Core Duo Mac mini.
Two huge questions (Score:2)
To anyone who actually KNOWS.... (Score:2)
Does Parallels run and entire Windows OS in the window (with start button, etc) or does it just run the App?
I love my Mac at home and would like to work from home but I have to use IIS, Visual Studio, and SQL Server to do that. I know Boot Camp can handle the task, but I'd really love to do my coding and have my iTunes, Mail, iChat, etc all running in OS X to
Re:kernel code? (Score:2)
Re:kernel code? (Score:2)
Virtualization demands that you be able to run arbitrary code at the most highly privilaged level. (for the pedants, QEMU is an emulator and does not do this; KQEMU is a virtualizer and does have this access). VMware uses the same mechanism - look at the device drivers it installs (the source code is shipped on Linux) and you'll find very similar code. That said, any device driver you install can
Re:kernel code? (Score:2)
The fact that some KDE fan chose a name that's already in use just creates confusion. Ah, the joys of the open source world.
Re:Running Windows XP from a USB/Firewire Drive (Score:3, Informative)
Any thoughts about that?
XP may, but Parallels can't use a VM file stored on an external USB drive according to the article. Other posters have indicated that running a VM stored on a FireWire drive does work.