-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Parallels - Alternative OS's
- Thread starter corkyg
- Start date
It's pretty much EXACTLY like vmware. The key difference is that it's for MacOS on intel, were Vmware doesn't have a product for that platform.
And, of course, since it's for Mac it's very very very cool compared to other stuff. 😛
It makes doing virtualization on the Mac pretty simple and that's what it's good for. Run XP or any Linux/BSD thing you'd want.
Skitzer
Diamond Member
Hmmmm ....... I got all excited about this, (Parallels), until I went to their site and read that you have to have a Mac with an "Intel processor". I have been thinking about buying an Intel Mac but my eMac G4 1.42GHz is only 6 months old and I just can't justify it. I have a Windows XP machine that I use for gaming so I guess there would really be no reason to have XP on my Mac other than for the novelty.
Does anyone with a Mac running XP on it have any problems playing games, (In XP that is)? I would definately go to one machine that could run both OS's if I could still play my games, (Doom 3, Quake 4, WOW and COD 2). I don't really care about any Windows apps ...... I can do anything on my Mac that I can do in XP except play games.
Does anyone with a Mac running XP on it have any problems playing games, (In XP that is)? I would definately go to one machine that could run both OS's if I could still play my games, (Doom 3, Quake 4, WOW and COD 2). I don't really care about any Windows apps ...... I can do anything on my Mac that I can do in XP except play games.
Playing games or doing anything processor or graphics card intensive inside Parallels VM is not a good idea. It's still emulation and it's still slow. Now if you install bootcamp and dual boot XP, that's a different story. I run Oblivion, F.E.A.R. and Call Of Duty 2 (XP version) just fine.
Short answer to your gaming question: you will want to dual boot Mac OS X / Windows XP if you want to use your Intel Mac for gaming.
Long answer: Apple's Bootcamp utility will help you get WinXP installed, it resizes your existing partition to make room for a new WinXP partition and even burns a CD of drivers for you. Most importantly, you will get full native WinXP performance and full native ATI drivers for your Intel Mac's X1600 or GMA950 graphics.
Parallels, on the other hand, emulates the graphics hardware and will be very slow for anything requiring 3D. Parallels does have very fast CPU performance, thanks to the Intel VT-x instructions, so it's great for most applications, but it's slow on the graphics/display side of things.
Long answer: Apple's Bootcamp utility will help you get WinXP installed, it resizes your existing partition to make room for a new WinXP partition and even burns a CD of drivers for you. Most importantly, you will get full native WinXP performance and full native ATI drivers for your Intel Mac's X1600 or GMA950 graphics.
Parallels, on the other hand, emulates the graphics hardware and will be very slow for anything requiring 3D. Parallels does have very fast CPU performance, thanks to the Intel VT-x instructions, so it's great for most applications, but it's slow on the graphics/display side of things.
I thought Parallels VM was using the Virtualization features of Intel's Core Duo processors, and thus had near full performance in everything, except games since it doesn't support directx.
Am2 Athlons have the same feature I believe, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it show up in the Opterons as well.
Benchmarks suggest about 33% performance drop (ie 66% of the performance of the real thing, like BootCamp...)
http://www.macworld.com/2006/06/reviews/parallels/index.php
http://www.macworld.com/2006/06/reviews/parallels/index.php
I've seen reviews of Parallels that show it at equal or less performance, depending on the task, but it generally outperformed VMWare by quite a bit.
Oh, and bootcamp is full speed since it's a real install of XP, however the Apple X1600 graphics chips are lower clocked than the PC variants and thus don't perform as well.
I wrote that poorly.
Rephrased, it is: Benchmarks suggest about 33% performance drop compared with Bootcamp, which runs at essentially the same speed as XP does on similar generic PC hardware.
In other words, the performance of the real thing is essentially similar to Bootcamp's speed. Parallel's is 66% as fast as Bootcamp, and 66% as fast as the real thing.
Clear as mud? 🙂
Rephrased, it is: Benchmarks suggest about 33% performance drop compared with Bootcamp, which runs at essentially the same speed as XP does on similar generic PC hardware.
In other words, the performance of the real thing is essentially similar to Bootcamp's speed. Parallel's is 66% as fast as Bootcamp, and 66% as fast as the real thing.
Clear as mud? 🙂
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
