“Most of the people now falling over themselves to praise Parallels have only used Microsoft’s anemic Virtual PC solution, which ran horribly slowly on PowerPC-based Macs. I’ve been using virtualization software for the PC for several years, and I’ve got VMWare Workstation, Virtual PC, and Virtual Server 2005 R2 installed on various machines here in my cluttered office. None of these solutions are perfect, and all come with various performance issues. Thus, I was curious to see whether Parallels lives up to the speed claims I’d read online,” Paul Thurrott writes for Internet Nexus.
“The truth is, it doesn’t,” Thurrott writes. “Parallels is still virtual machine technology, and that means it runs more slowly than a real PC. It also exhibits the tell-tale signs of virtualization that betray what’s really going on under the hood, even when running in full-screen mode: The mouse cursor tends to lag behind your actual movements somewhat, resulting in a vaguely disconcerting pointing experience that is suspiciously similar to that of a badly-tuned Tablet PC stylus. (Update: The mouse vagueness is partially removed by installing the bundled Parallels Tools. It’s still horrible when you drag and drop anything.)”
Thurrott writes, “That said, Parallels does perform very well for what it is, about on par with what I experience on the PC with VMWare or Virtual Server. That this is a 1.0 product is astonishing. VMWare and Microsoft/Connectix have had years to refine their offerings. For those who just need occasional Windows application compatibility, Parallels is an excellent solution, no doubt about it. But if you want to run Windows regularly, Boot Camp is absolutely the way to go. The experiences are night and day: With Boot Camp, you’re running Windows XP just like you would on a real PC. With Parallels, it’s clearly a virtual machine.”
More in the full article here.
Advertisements:
• Introducing the super-fast, blogging, podcasting, do-everything-out-of-the-box MacBook. Starting at just $1099.
• Get the new iMac with Intel Core Duo for as low as $31 A MONTH with Free shipping!
• Get the MacBook Pro with Intel Core Duo for as low as $47 A MONTH with Free Shipping!
• Apple’s new Mac mini. Intel Core, up to 4 times faster. Starting at just $599. Free shipping.
• iPod. 15,000 songs. 25,000 photos. 150 hours of video. The new iPod. 30GB and 60GB models start at just $299. Free shipping.
• Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.
• iPod Radio Remote. Listen to FM radio on your iPod and control everything with a convenient wired remote. Just $49.
Related articles:
Apple ‘Get a Mac’ web page pushes Parallels Desktop instead of Apple’s own Boot Camp – June 18, 2006
Parallels Desktop for Mac goes final; simultaneously run Mac OS, Windows, Linux on Intel-powered Mac – June 15, 2006
Which is better for running Windows programs on Macs, Boot Camp or Parallels Desktop? – May 25, 2006
Washington Times: Parallels Workstation 2.1 ran Windows XP ‘quite nicely’ on an Apple Macintosh – April 18, 2006
Just passing through,
Can someone please explain what is the big deal about re-booting.
Realist hit it on the head:
<i>Thurrott article is essentially right but very simplified as it leaves out exceptions like the one listed here.<i> (See my previous post above)
In my every day work, I am constantly switching between Mac OS X, Linux, and windows. For me, the ability to rapidly switch between these three OS’s and their respective applications is a HUGE productivity gain.
Sorry for the duplicate post.
I understand the nicety of being able to switch back and forth, but if there is a speed issue with virtualization, then you’re not really gaining any productivity over running native, We’ve tried both on our MacBook Pros, Boot Camp is still better for us, at this time. We try to stay away from Windows as much as possible.
I believe he misses in his comparison with VMWare and Parallels. VMWare is able to run some code at native speed on Intel but has to dynamically recompile operating system code which results in a performance hit. Parellels utilizes the new Intel Virtualization instructions which allow *all* of windows to run at full native speed. With good enough driver support, I don’t see why a Parallels style solution shouldn’t effectively get native speed. I have been very pleased with Parallels performance so far.
As always, he is a true proponent of Dvorak’s infrequently used method of bait the Mac community to get enough stuff to write about. He doesn’t deserve the attention that MDN pays to him.
Sure. He needs that blinding speed he can only get form a ful reboot into Windows to check his Outlook e-mail.
If you’re that bad off to be so stuck in Windows that you have to do a full re-boot, maybe you don’t need to worry about trying to run it on a Mac at all. I know it’s a nice feature for some users, but c’mon, the reality most users can now run 90% in MacOSX keep a parallels window open for that one or two legacy windows only proprietary software, and will never notice a real speed issue with it.
Thurrott is an idiot. Why is MDN so obsessed with him?
Only losers read his articles. Losers like MDN.
I think everyone is totally confused as to what BootCamp will be under Leopard. The new Intell chips will support hardware virtualization. BootCamp will be what will allow Leopard to run simultaneously next to a version of WinBlows. No rebooting needed. BootCamp is a Trojan to test the marketing waters to see how well it is received. My Macs run great but I need to run some WinBows software for work and will buy a new laptop just for that reason this fall. I am waiting for the next generation of Intel chips before I buy 2 new laptops.
Bill – Parallels is great! Why not give it a try first — I bet you’ll switch your entire office!
MW – lines, as in parallel lines?
I have Parallels and I don’t know what Paul is talking about with regard to the lag and speed issues. On my 1.83GHz MBP it is snappy. It works great, I couldn’t be happier unless I could use my Boot Camp partition with it.
I use Parallels mainly for Remote Desktop Connection. While there’s a version for Mac, it’s PPC and probably for other reasons as well, it is clearly slower than the PC version. In my company’s network, RDC is very usable and doesn’t have mouse lag, just a mild redraw lag.
So when Paul talks about mouse lag, I have to wonder what pointing device he’s using. That may have something to do with it.
To “Just passing through” and his request, “Can someone please explain what is the big deal about re-booting.”…
It’s not just the reboot/boot time that is non-productive. It’s the quitting and work-saving plus
the Application relaunching and data re-loading that’s a pain. I have anywhere from 5 to 10
active applications running at any one time. Most of those are loaded up with data that takes
time to accumulate (webpages in Safari, movie clips in iMovie, not to mention a half completed
iWeb project, etc, etc.) It’s a pain to have to save my work, or bookmark all those tabs in Safari,
then shutdown and reboot into Windoz just so I can run a quick Windoz task.
If you use both OSes, then it’s MUCH more efficient to have access to both at the same time.