Bob,
What you say(parallels *faster* than boot camp) runs against the
following speed comparisons:
http://www.macwindows.com/bcreview.html#5
http://www.macuser.com/xp-on-mac/parallels_workstation_vs_boot.php
http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7-6546370.html
http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/49950.html
Note that in some of the graphs, shorter bars are faster. The cnet
review probably has the best objective benchmarks of the above.
And also with my personal observations on an imac and macbook.
Surely this makes sense - parallels is effectively running two OSes
at once, bootcamp is just running windows. Parallels is emulating
video in software, bootcamp is using the video card natively. It
doesn't make sense for parallels' windows to run *faster* than
windows without any overhead, as it does in bootcamp. Unless of
course apple cripples bootcamp.
I couldn't find your reference to parallels being faster than
bootcamp on macintouch. I did find this on macintouch:
------------------------------------
May. 5, 2006
Don Heavener
Same program and process. Coded for dual processors using a physics
program, it took these times to run:
1. Dual 2 gHz G5 303 seconds. Native G5 code.
2. Mac Mini, Parallels, 452 seconds. XPSp2 native X86 code.
3. Mac Mini, Boot Camp, 253 seconds. XPSp2 native x86 code.
Mini and G5 have 2 Gig ram. Parallels was set to use 1,016 Megabytes.
(close to maximum recommended)
I don't know which of the X86 or the G5 code were more optimized.
Product is Comsol Multiphysics, processing a muffler simulation. I
was using a time limited trial, which is now over, so I can't do any
more testing.
---------------------------------
I would be very interested you find out *your* links to whatever you
read on macintouch that is in contrary to the above.
However, parallels is definitely more versatile, and naturally boots
faster once you have booted it once and "suspended" parallels rather
than shut it down. The same cannot be said for performance,
especially for video intensive tasks.
Dave Choy
On 28/06/2006, at 5:04 AM, WAMUG Mailing List wrote:
Heh Dave,
As I am on the side and looking on
I do a fair bit of reading on Macintouch and the like.
Their summary seems to be that Parallel's IS faster ...
Which gels with the mails on this list ..
So one wonders what is different with your installation ????
Not that I have any desire to run Windows and break glass , but the
day might come....
hence the interest .
Bob
