Been very happy with Parallels on a MacBook with 4GB of memory. Runs XP and Win7 and I have software on and off it all the time.
Rob ----------------- Rob Beattie Freelance writer and book author www.robbeattie.com 07769 902820 Twitter: @robbeattie On 7 April 2011 15:57, Paul Howard <[email protected]> wrote: > With Virtualbox being pretty much useless right now on the new macbook pros > [1] I find myself in need of paid for virtualisation. > Is there any consensus on which of the two is better? > Will be using it mainly for a Windows VM (just for testing software) and > running a couple of Linux machines. I used Parallels a few years ago and it > seemed pretty decent but have used neither of the mac based products for > ages. > Not really bothered about coherence mode or any of that, just need the > fastest most stable one really. > > [1] http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/8474 > > -- > Paul Howard > > web: phoward.com | twitter: @phowardcom > > tel (UK): +44 (0)1293 738158 | mobile (UK): +44 (0)7903 505153 | tel > (US) : +1 251 243 0058 > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Sussex Mac User Group" group. > To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/smug?hl=en-GB. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sussex Mac User Group" group. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/smug?hl=en-GB.
