VMware or Parallels Desktop?

Status
Not open for further replies.
DuckRyder

DuckRyder

Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
9,545
Location
Scruffy City
I have 2 Macs, both are intel MACs and include boot camp.

I have a program that is Windows only (what it is isn't important, there is not a MAC version and nothing for a MAC that will do what I need to do).

I would like to install Windows 7 on these two MAC's, mine I wouldn't be opposed to having dual boot, but the other one I want to be able to run the program right from the MAC desktop. I'd like the whole Windows thing to be invisible.

Questions:

  • Can I do this this?
  • Is one program better than the other to do it?
  • Can the machine be both dual boot and run from MAC desktop?


I'm not at all familiar with virtual machines even in Windows so it is O.K. (maybe even preferable) to explain this to me like I am a 2 year old.
 
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/server-storage/virtualbox/overview/index.html

This is how I run windoze XP on my linux desktop; I use windoze really only to access my company websites and of course the microsoft patch page.

The entire Windows install on my linux box is just 1 file, making it easy to backup or recover from inevitable windows problems.

edit:keep in mind a lot of memory is helpful if you choose to run virtualbox; 8gb is probably a minimum for practical use.
 
Last edited:
I was also going to suggest VirtualBox. It's free and works well for me.

As mentioned, you'll want to give the virtual machine a realistic amount of memory, so you'll want your phyiscal machine to have enough memory for it AND the virtual machine. Memory is cheap... crucial.com is your friend for that.

robert
 
-If you setup a virtual machine, you can't boot into it instead of your MacOS
-The Virtual Machine can be run fullscreen like you are in Windows
-As others have mentioned, make sure you have lots of RAM
-Virtualbox is a free alternative to VMWare. I prefer VMWare but use both.
 
I'll look into the VirtualBox a bit more, I'm looking for simple and well supported.

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
-If you setup a virtual machine, you can't boot into it instead of your MacOS
-The Virtual Machine can be run fullscreen like you are in Windows
-As others have mentioned, make sure you have lots of RAM
-Virtualbox is a free alternative to VMWare. I prefer VMWare but use both.


Ah, so I can't partition the drive with boot camp and then use PD or VMW to access that installation from OSX? Somehow I thought that would be how it worked.

One of the machines is a Retina which means RAM is not cheap, in fact it is fixed at 8GB. The other machine is a conventional MBP and I had already planned to upgrade it from 8-16, it is also the one that that will use the program the most.

I found:

http://arstechnica.com/features/2012/09/parallels-desktop-8-and-vmware-fusion-5-pro-review-showdown/

Which seems to indicate PD may work better on the Retina?
 
VMWare can be setup to use a dedicated physical drive, but you still can't boot into it without booting into OSX first and then starting it from there. The installation runs on the VMWare "hardware" (which is of course virtualized) which in no way would resemble the hardware Windows would see on a native installation.

You are best served just to install VMware Workstation in OSX, and then install Windows in that environment and run it full-screen.
 
After doing further research I'm more confused than ever.

According to:

http://kb.parallels.com/4729

Step 2 see note RE boot camp

It seems like it might be possible to use the same installation, but I don't know if it is still possible to configure the integration "like a MAC"?

This thread:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=14018660&postcount=3

Seems to indicate that it is the same installation?

Edit:
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: flanso
PD used to offer a free trial; may still.


VMWare does too FWIW.


Yes, they both do, I'd like to pick well the first time and only do it once.

Also price isn't a major concern.
 
Last edited:
Lot of hacking to get emulation right, will always be performance and potential emulation/app compatibility issues. Can you afford a cheap PC? Tons of business dell optiplex's coming off lease on eBay for $150. You can save the cheap PC for non-compatible windows apps via remote console. What I do. Sure, you may have to hold your nose using a windows box, but life is a whole lot easier.
 
I have settled on VMWare Fusion for Mac. The ability to boot directly to Windows on the Mac computer is overrated.

VBox is nice, but Fusion is better IMO. version 5 works well and runs Win7 VMs on SSD drives in a very very fast manner.

No need to boot directly to a Windows-specific partition. Just create a virtual disk-based VM and enjoy it. And it's portable, just copy it to another disk for backup purposes. Simple, easy, doesn't cost too much. VMware products are rock solid.

Can't say that about Parallels. While on v2 and v3, saw complete hard disks wiped due to PD errors. Completely unrecoverable. Only solution was to reinstall the main/host OS from scratch. Frustrating to say the least. Never used them in production again.

VMware fusion is my vote time & time again.
 
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
I have Windows computers.


OK. Agree with others VMWare is the way to go for a one box solution. But if you decide to run the app stand-alone on a locally networked windows box: I use teamviewer VPN (free) to connect my systems at home or on the road. Its even on my phone. If I'm on the road with the linux laptop and need something from a windows desktop at home I just ust fire up teamviewer VPN, do what I need to do. Copy the file locally, print via Google Cloud Print, locally from email, etc. Allows me to utilize the power of multipe systems wherever they are through a remote console. Different way of doing it, but networks are fast and reliable now, even at the house.
 
Quote:

Lot of hacking to get emulation right, will always be performance and potential emulation/app compatibility issues.


WRT Virtualbox et al, there is no "emulation" going on; apps run natively on hardware within a complete installation of the OS. This is why only x86 and x64 OS are supported by Virtualbox. Is there overhead, yes, but it is a far cry from the software emulators of years past.

My Windows XP VM boots in 5 seconds.

Virtualization is an accepted enterprise technology; these are just dollar store implementations of it.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
After doing further research I'm more confused than ever.

According to:

http://kb.parallels.com/4729

Step 2 see note RE boot camp

It seems like it might be possible to use the same installation, but I don't know if it is still possible to configure the integration "like a MAC"?

This thread:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=14018660&postcount=3

Seems to indicate that it is the same installation?

Edit:
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: flanso
PD used to offer a free trial; may still.


VMWare does too FWIW.


Yes, they both do, I'd like to pick well the first time and only do it once.

Also price isn't a major concern.


The install from Boot Camp option is similar (perhaps identical) to the physical to virtual conversion wizard for VMWare and Hyper-V. Essentially, it makes a virtual machine out of your Boot Camp install. It doesn't turn your Boot Camp install into something that is accessible through both methods.

The Like a Mac vs Windows Desktop windowing options are basically just how it is presented to you, IE, making Windows "part" of your Mac experience, or allowing it to exist as a wholly separate entity.
 
Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
Quote:

Lot of hacking to get emulation right, will always be performance and potential emulation/app compatibility issues.


WRT Virtualbox et al, there is no "emulation" going on; apps run natively on hardware within a complete installation of the OS. This is why only x86 and x64 OS are supported by Virtualbox. Is there overhead, yes, but it is a far cry from the software emulators of years past.

My Windows XP VM boots in 5 seconds.

Virtualization is an accepted enterprise technology; these are just dollar store implementations of it.



Bingo. Server virtualization is fully mainstream and allows for more complete utilization of the resources in the boxes. I use it myself extensively.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
Quote:

Lot of hacking to get emulation right, will always be performance and potential emulation/app compatibility issues.


WRT Virtualbox et al, there is no "emulation" going on; apps run natively on hardware within a complete installation of the OS. This is why only x86 and x64 OS are supported by Virtualbox. Is there overhead, yes, but it is a far cry from the software emulators of years past.

My Windows XP VM boots in 5 seconds.

Virtualization is an accepted enterprise technology; these are just dollar store implementations of it.



Bingo. Server virtualization is fully mainstream and allows for more complete utilization of the resources in the boxes. I use it myself extensively.
I don't know why I substituted virtualization with emulation. But I did. I'm turning 50 in a few days. Its alzheimers or I'm losing memory.
shocked2.gif
 
I have the same scenario... I run mac, have some mac specific SW, but then have a few things that I can only do in windows.

I have been running Parallels since 2008 on my MBP, which I am typing this from.

Its really a great setup, I can boot into full-fledged windows, through boot camp, or if I just need to access some capability in Windows on a temporary basis, I just boot it up through the Paralllels VM, and Im running whatever I need. I can select which interfaces go to what (e.g. a USB stick doesnt mount in OSX, but goes to the VM for windows to deal with), etc.

It works fine. I used to run XP on an older parallels version, but when I changed my 2008 C2D MBP to an SSD last winter, I went to a new version of parallels and Windows 7, and have been quite happy.
 
Been using Parallels 7(Win7 Pro) on MBP for over a year with no issues at all. 8 GB of ram is plenty to support both OS' on a MBP unless you are running huge spreadsheets or photo editing software.
 
Last edited:
I run Virtual Box with XP on a Mini. Only have 4GB of ram right now and have no issues but I don't use it heavily. I really only use it for my DVR access and printing. Easy to setup when you install it ask for the disc which I had as a ISO it mounted installed and did all the drivers. Easy peezy.. not sure on Windows 7 though. I have Windows 7 just want to waste harddrive and memory when XP works.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

sloinker
Best option for CD transferring and burning....
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
Nick1994
earlyre
remote desktop question
2 3
Replies
44
Views
1K
OVERKILL
B
Bought a "Trash Can"
Replies
8
Views
2K
bunnspecial
B
Google Voice Not Recognize Mic
Replies
3
Views
265
andrew_j
doitmyself
Old Geezer Desktop Choices Help
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
Leo99
Back
Top