Should I install Parallels or Boot Camp

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 70
    well, looks like we're up to beta 6 now. anyone download it yet?
  • Reply 22 of 70
    One reason I am hesitant on Parallels is it's dependence on the Mach architecture. Which in itself is not bad but there have been rumors that Apple is thinking about moving away from Mach.
  • Reply 23 of 70
    kishankishan Posts: 732member
    I have a very specific question about Boot Camp and Parallels. Rather than start a new thread, I thought I would try here first.



    For work, I will be using a pocketPC or a Palm with software that is only available for WinXP. How good is the driver support in bootcamp and in parallels for external devices like PDAs, printers, etc?



    edit: I looked a bit on Parallel's website but could not find a comprehensive list of devices that are supported. All I saw was a sentence that read something like "Now, more USB devices supported!"
  • Reply 24 of 70
    well, I think in the final release of Parallels, they plan on supporting ALL USB devices. I think that now in these betas the USB suupport is limited but increasing w/ each release. if you want a specific answer, you could try the forum; that's where I've been having luck http://forum.parallels.com



    good luck
  • Reply 25 of 70
    kishankishan Posts: 732member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by builttospill

    well, I think in the final release of Parallels, they plan on supporting ALL USB devices. I think that now in these betas the USB suupport is limited but increasing w/ each release. if you want a specific answer, you could try the forum; that's where I've been having luck http://forum.parallels.com



    good luck




    The whole PDA sync issue seems very complicated under parallels. Unfortunately, this is about the only thing I need windows for anymore. I guess bootcamp might be the way to go then since I would essentially be booting up a second computer altogether.



    Am I correct in assuming that in BootCamp, the Windows installation talks to the computer hardware natively without any emulation? So anything plugged into the USB ports should be able to speak directly to Windows. This might be the better solution for me.



    PS: 300th post!
  • Reply 26 of 70
    tednditedndi Posts: 1,921member
    I like boot camp. It totally supports windows for those times when you really need it (like gaming) Half life 2 works like a dream on my mac book pro.





  • Reply 27 of 70
    i think boot camp can definitely be a solution if you only need windows for a single application. if you are intersted in using it for various programs, etc, I believe Parallels is the way to go.
  • Reply 28 of 70
    4metta4metta Posts: 365member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by TednDi

    I like boot camp. It totally supports windows for those times when you really need it (like gaming) Half life 2 works like a dream on my mac book pro.











    REALLY?! Wow, I'm so sold on BootCamp on a MBP!!! I love Half Life2 as well as Day Of Defeat and was holding out on another Apple because I couldn't play them. I'll be getting a nice 15" soon!
  • Reply 29 of 70
    do you guys think bootcamp is going to be embedded in the next version of OS X?
  • Reply 30 of 70
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,779moderator
    Quote:

    Originally posted by lundy

    The GPU isn't "emulated", but it can't just be taken over by the guest OS either.



    So how does classic take control of the GPU? It runs 3D games at almost full speed and yet it must be using the OpenGL drivers in the OS 9 system extensions folder.



    I'm pretty sure Apple can do something like that for Windows virtualization although maybe they need to know more about how Windows works. With OS 9, at least they had the source code.
  • Reply 31 of 70
    ss3 gokouxss3 gokoux Posts: 62member
    Plus Classic had to be updated before the first use (and had been updated several times). Classic could have been patched to use the Mac OS X routines instead of looking in the Extensions folder. I don't think Apple could do that with Windows, not without the source code at least.
  • Reply 32 of 70
    Being still on the lookout for a solution that allows Video chatting between Mac and PC (AIM - iChat just doesn't cut it), I'd be curious to find out wether the built-in iSight of a MBP is recognized from within BootCamp or Parallels Workstation. If it does, I could have a cheap solution to finally video-chat with my far away family.



    [spoon]
  • Reply 33 of 70
    Quote:

    Originally posted by builttospill

    do you guys think bootcamp is going to be embedded in the next version of OS X?



    Yes, it's all but guaranteed. I'm pretty sure that this was explicitly mentioned as part of the Boot Camp announcement by His Steveness.
  • Reply 34 of 70
    i'm say isight has a better chance of being recognized by boot camp.



    as far as bootcamp being embedded in leopard...Mac sales are gonna go WAY up.
  • Reply 35 of 70
    trowatrowa Posts: 176member
    keep in mind. Parallels currently doesn't have a simple uninstall option. If you don't like parallels VM software, you will need to go into the CL and uninstall it. Their website has a forum with details on what you need to remove. But it may be a bit overwhelming for people who aren't used to removing files in terminal.



    Boot camp has an option to delete the partition you created for Windows.



    Not going to repeat what was said here, but I find boot camp to be a better option than parallels. I doubt they will get video acceleration without cooperation from Nvidia and ATI.
  • Reply 36 of 70
    jwink3101jwink3101 Posts: 739member
    How do BootCamp and Parrells work with Airport. I know that when run a LiveCD on my PPC, it won't find the airport. Is that the same for these?



    And more specifically, with just bootcamp, how do you manage the airport? I will need to be able to select between available base stations and i will need some authorizations. Honestly, i am not sure exactly how the authorization works at the college i'll be going to next year but i want to know that i will be ale to control airport like any windows computer can control its own wireless card.



    Finally, unrelated to my above question. is Parrells the only solution for Windows emulation? Do you think there will be more in the future
  • Reply 37 of 70
    as far as I know, Parallels is the only game in town right now. I assume it's possible that VMware may put something out in the future, and apparently Microsoft is working on a version of VPC for intel macs, but who knows how they'll compare to parallels.
  • Reply 38 of 70
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Dave K.

    Sorry for starting a new topic. I figured it would be quicker to answer my questions by doing so.



    That's so nice, now let's just hope the 26k+ other forum members aren't as selfish.



    Dave
  • Reply 39 of 70
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ThinkingDifferent

    One reason I am hesitant on Parallels is it's dependence on the Mach architecture. Which in itself is not bad but there have been rumors that Apple is thinking about moving away from Mach.



    I'm not positive your thinking is sound on this one....



    While I'm sure some 'low level part' of Parallels is tied closely to the Mach kernel (for Parallels on OS X anyway) Parallels is also running on Linux (not Mach) and even Windows (pretty sure not mach too ) and a number of other UN*X types (many of which aren't mach either IIRC)



    I'd be shocked if Parallels wasn't designed and written in such a way where it was 'fairly easy' (for them) to move it from one 'kernel' to another fairly easily. In fact, since Parallels was moved to OS X (Intel) this quickly I pretty sure I'm right.



    Dave
  • Reply 40 of 70
    xdanielxdaniel Posts: 29member
    quote:

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Originally posted by ThinkingDifferent

    One reason I am hesitant on Parallels is it's dependence on the Mach architecture. Which in itself is not bad but there have been rumors that Apple is thinking about moving away from Mach.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------







    I'm not positive your thinking is sound on this one....



    While I'm sure some 'low level part' of Parallels is tied closely to the Mach kernel (for Parallels on OS X anyway) Parallels is also running on Linux (not Mach) and even Windows (pretty sure not mach too ) and a number of other UN*X types (many of which aren't mach either IIRC)



    I'd be shocked if Parallels wasn't designed and written in such a way where it was 'fairly easy' (for them) to move it from one 'kernel' to another fairly easily. In fact, since Parallels was moved to OS X (Intel) this quickly I pretty sure I'm right.



    Dave



    ----



    I don't think he means that Parallels is tied to Mach in that way. I beleive he means, in a virtual machine setting, those calls still have to go through the Source OS (OS X -- mach). Hmm.. on a re-read.. maybe you were right after all... ooops.
Sign In or Register to comment.