“Part of the reason many people own an Intel-based Mac is because of the possibility of running Windows. If you are like most, you are looking to understand the differences between Apple’s Boot Camp, VMware Fusion, and Parallels Desktop,” Neil Ticktin reports for MacTech.
MacDailyNews Take: Define “many.”
Ticktin continues, “Boot Camp, as you probably know, allows you to run Windows natively on your Intel Mac. Here, Mac OS X is nowhere to be seen, and if you want to switch back and forth, you have to reboot the machine. As we’ve seen from some of the recent reports, a Mac can run Windows faster than a native PC machine, and it’s a nice solution. That said, you probably bought a Mac to run Mac OS X a good chunk of time, and that’s where virtualization comes in.”
“Virtualization technology has been around since the 1960s. In general, it refers to the abstraction of computer resources. In our case, we’re talking about the ability to run Windows on a Mac at the same time that you are running Mac OS X,” Ticktin reports.
“So, which solution do you go with? Does virtualization work well? Which virtualization product is faster? Should I run XP or Vista? In short, there are different answers for different people. It all depends on what your needs are,” Ticktin reports.
“To tackle this problem, MacTech undertook a huge benchmarking project starting in September. The goal was to see how Boot Camp, VMware Fusion, and Parallels performed on different levels of Mac hardware, covering both Windows XP and Vista, and comparing that to a baseline PC running Windows,” Ticktin reports.
“Boot Camp, VMware Fusion and Parallels are all very good, each in their own way. You should make your decisions based on what your needs are as a result,” Ticktin reports.
What MacTech found:
• If you don’t want Mac integration, and just want to run Windows, go with Boot Camp. It’s faster than a PC anyway.
• If you want a virtualization product (that allows you to run Windows alongside Mac OS X), and you want the best performance for the types of things that we tested, then clearly you need to run XP and not Vista. Furthermore, in our tests, both VMware Fusion and Parallels performed well, and were a good user experience. That said, Parallels was somewhat faster in general than VMware Fusion for XP.
• If you want the best virtualization performance for Vista, then VMware Fusion is your choice.
Full comprehensive benchmarks and explanations in the full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Too Hot!” for the heads up.]
Boot Camp for games.
VMWare Fusion for business.
Parallels has gone away for me.
“Part of the reason many people own an Intel-based Mac is because of the possibility of running Windows. “
god forbid yhe thought its because all macs are intel now, no, its because of windows lol
Something that just tickles me is that Windows runs faster on a Mac. Alright, I can play any game FASTER!
This isn’t even mentioning the business implications.
Actually, running Windows faster isn’t the same as running Windows APPLICATIONS faster. That depends on the program in question and the hardware you’re comparing. There are Windows machines out there that will beat the pants off the best gaming Mac you could put together in terms of running games, at least at the moment.
“Something that just tickles me is that Windows runs faster on a Mac”
Yep, I’m stunned that a 2.66GHz Intel based machine with 4GB of RAM running Windows natively can beat a 1.86GHZ machine with 1GB of RAM running Windows natively.
There are Windows machines out there that will beat the pants off the best gaming Mac you could put together in terms of running games, at least at the moment. —neoraven
That sounds about right: PC’s for games, Macs for everything else.
@Me in LA
A word of warning – EMC the company that owns VMWare, is not known to be that Mac Friendly… Just ask anyone that uses or attempts to support the once great Retrospect… EMC bought Dantz and Mac support is practically non-existent…
EMC not Mac friendly? Gee… That is funny because VMware Fusion ACTUALLY WORKS on my Mac Pro, while Parallels for Mac DOES NOT WORK at all.
VMware Fusion runs Windows XP Professional fine, especially if you have 16 GB RAM on a Mac Pro and can allocate 4 GB RAM to the virtual environment. Runs almost as fast as it does natively. I’m impressed.
Also, VMware Fusion doesn’t have the sickening hard drive size limitation of 128 GB.
@Dave,
I understand that, but thus far, Fusion has been solid and well-supported.
I appreciate the info though – I hadn’t put 2+2 together on that.
yeah, Virtualization works pretty well, check this out:
http://macenstein.com/default/archives/986
Dave,
I am an EMC employee. EMC does not widely support OSX only because their footprint in the Enterprise space is very small. They are slowly adding more and more support, but most OSX in the Enterprise already use Apple SAN solutions. I have NEVER seen a customer use all OSX. Most of the time the Apple hardware they have has been installed and maintained by the “apple tech” or outside support for their 2 apple users. Most windows IT guys are afraid.
EMC will support OSX and Apple 100% when it makes good business for them to do it. EMC does not “hate” Apple in anyway, at least that I can see working for them.
I’ve been using VMWare Fusion for sometime now, I like it, I’ve only got 1GB RAM though ATM so it hugs my memory but that’s to be expected, I’ll be getting an iMac soon which I will be able to allocate more RAM and should run Windoze without any problems. I like all VMWares settings, and there hasn’t been anything i couldn’t run yet.
Runs only on Intel Macs.
It is NOT a virtual machine like Parallels or VMware for Mac.
THIS is the REAL THING! But not for 100% of the Windows market of software.
Try it out…
http://www.codeweavers.com/products/differences/
it maybe a solution for most people in need of MSoffice… why I don’t really know… hahahaahh I prefer iWorks – thx
Dougless
I tried a program called “CrossingOver” which allowed my Mac to contact files that have been dead for years after they wound up in Dell…..
lol I like how they said parallels runs a little faster=) I have a brand new macbook with the latest new graphic card in it (144 mb) and I can tell you right now the VM ware is much better on it than parallels. I dont even use parallels at all any more. Why would I want to use a system that is slow slow compared to VMware. My mouse stutters across the screen when I move it with parallels and VMware Fusion doesnt even give me any fits at all. Yes I do have a lot of ram so dont try to tell me I dont have enough. I have 2.5 gigs of ram
Your sick for running Windows on a PRECIOUS Mac
But with Apple\’s insistance on going ALL GODDAM GLOSSY SCREENS, I can understand perfectly in your need to begin training in Windows for your eventual shift to a huge hardware choice.
I would like a ToughBook please. Keep the kool-aid.
Any reviews about cross over mac?
Comments here are interesting stating vmware outperforms parallels if you’ve got plenty of memory. My coworker with a dual quadcore mac pro w/ 8 Gig memory started out using vmware, but switched to parallels because it is so much faster.
We need to run one windows program. We bought a used Lenovo laptop for $150. that works just fine. No windows on my MBP!
I@ emax,
I don’t understand half of your post.
Crossover – this overpriced gimmick is a waste of time IMHO.
As for you enlightened idiots saying “don’t run Windoze on your Macs” maybe if you had more to do than sync your iPod and browse porn, you’d know better.
I am John, an Product Manager within EMC that manages the feature set for Fusion. We have a lot of exciting enhancements planned for the Apple Mac Community, some of which you will hear about at MacWorld 2008. Although I can not specifically discuss features I can tell you that while Apple and OSX are not considered mainstream in the Enterprise we see Apple gaining acceptance and as such you will see EMC respond accordingly.
eMax:
Could it be
That EMC
Only sees
What it wants to see?
What you describe is the classic case of How Companies Get Left Behind. In this case it’s EMC that will be caught watching the train leave the station. More and more companies are choosing to incorporate Apple products into their datacenters. They can’t turn to EMC for help with this because EMC doesn’t support Apple. So, they have their “Apple tech” as you say, take care of business.
We have an extensive Apple SAN system where I work. We also have a five-year-old EMC SAN system that’s slated for replacement soon. Guess what it’s going to be replaced with? Not another EMC product. I work near one of the largest universities in the U.S. The presence of Apple hardware in their many datacenters in quite mind boggling. I shouldn’t have to point this out but this is how trends start in business.
EMC thinks the presence of Apple hardware in the enterprise is small only because your customer base tells you it is. But your customer base doesn’t use Apple because EMC doesn’t support it and you certainly would not encourage it. In other words you only see what you want to see. Your data is somewhat skewed so it supports a conclusion that you believe is true. It would be great to see a partnership between Apple and EMC similar to the partnership between EMC and Dell.
Finally, the real problem that EMC’s short sighted behavior causes is that people like me have long memories when it comes to purchasing new products. I remember the people who helped me get my job done and those who didn’t. When it come time to roll out virtualization products for our Macs I’ll be sure and keep EMC in mind…