Performance using Parellel on 13-inch Macbook

kolzmanzkolzmanz
Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
Hi,



I am planning to get the new Core 2 Duo 13" MacBook. My questions is that I need to run Visual Studio (for work). I am planning to use Parellel with XP, Visual Studio 2005, SQL Server 2005 etc.

Has anyone had any experience using this configuration on a Macbook with Parellel before?

I am just wondering what's the performance will be like.



I know running this configuration on a MBP shouldn't be a problem but I can't afford it \



Any advice, suggestions, comments are welcome.



Thanks in advance.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 5
    sandausandau Posts: 1,230member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KolzManz


    Hi,



    I am planning to get the new Core 2 Duo 13" MacBook. My questions is that I need to run Visual Studio (for work). I am planning to use Parellel with XP, Visual Studio 2005, SQL Server 2005 etc.

    Has anyone had any experience using this configuration on a Macbook with Parellel before?

    I am just wondering what's the performance will be like.



    I know running this configuration on a MBP shouldn't be a problem but I can't afford it \



    Any advice, suggestions, comments are welcome.



    Thanks in advance.



    yes, it works incredibly good, but you need 2gb ram to make it work the best on MBP or MB. I did a lot of development work using windows server 2003, visual studio 2003 and 2005 as well as sql server 2000 and 2005. Its an amazing solution for ease of backup, configuration, etc. This was on a core duo 1.83ghz MB. It actually and was better and faster than my current MBP, i have no idea why.



    best practice: install OS, save a copy of the image

    install vs2005/sql 2005, save a copy of the image



    then any time you need to go back to either the OS or fully configured dev environment you are set, no wasting your life pushing CD's and DVD's around.



    Then, you can also do a nightly backup of your work in process OS image...



    its also nice to use virtuadesktops for this, for fast switching from windows to os x.
  • Reply 2 of 5
    kolzmanzkolzmanz Posts: 2member
    Hi Sandau,



    Thank you for your feedback. My new MB is on the way
  • Reply 3 of 5
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    I also ordered a new MacBook with 1 gig of RAM. I'm thinking perhaps I should have gotten two. I will be using AutoCAD and ArcGIS, and Office 2003/2007, among other heavy-weight applications. Will 1 gig suffice under XP if I close everything else? Do you think I'll have to close everything else? I'll be playing around with it. I also may install Windows 2000 as I expect that would use less RAM and be faster than XP. And of course inevitably I'll play around with Vista if someone figures out how to pirate it. It's just that 1 gig of RAM was 68, two gigs was 225. Hoping I don't need two.
  • Reply 4 of 5
    mhedgesmhedges Posts: 25member
    Have 1 Gig, how much should I allocate to Parallels? Am still trying to get it to run and wonder whether it is a RAM allocation issue,
  • Reply 5 of 5
    sandausandau Posts: 1,230member
    parallels will suck with 1 gig to share. Like I said previously "you need 2gb ram to make it work the best". 1 gb will simply suck with at most 512mb for each OS. I run my parallels images at 800mb and it works great for server 2003/vs2005 development. That gives OS X 1200mb. There is no way you can give OS X 200mb and think it'll be a good system to work on. 512mb each might work ok, but it isn't gonna be very good.



    800mb seems to be the Parallels sweet spot on a 2gb machine. People with more ram 3gb + (Mac Pro) can do what they want, I'm sure its pretty impressive.
Sign In or Register to comment.