Apostasy
in [Mac Applications]
|
From: Erik Richard Sørensen on 23 Apr 2010 20:54 James Sidbury wrote: > Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody(a)goldmark.org> wrote: >> [...] >> Anyway, I would like to hear experiences of using Parallels or Fusion or >> alternatives. I'm on a Mac Pro (Early 2009) Quad Core Xeon 2.66 GHz and >> NVIDIA GeForce GT 120. I've got two empty disk bays to spare. Currently >> the machine has 5G memory. >> >> Is there anything I need to watch out for with this approach? > > I tried the trial version of Parallels a few years ago and had problems > with it. Their tech support on the trial was so bad that i decided that > i would rather try Fusion. I later got a copy of Parallels at a really > good discount and used it on my MBP with a bootcamp partition and it was > OK but slow. I've used both Fusion 2.x and 3.0 on my MBP and mac pro > with bootcamp partitions and both seemed to be successful. My intuition > not based on rigorous testing is that Fusion is slightly faster at least > in the apps that I tend to use. > > As others have said, with Windows you need to worry about malware. I > used to be a big proponent of Avast! (and still like it) but recently > I've converted to Microsoft Security Essentials and have been quite > satisfied with it. At the college where I work they are officially > McAfee users (and thus were victimized with the problems yesterday) but > their network security expert, a former student of mine and a mac owner > as well, is also using Security Essentials on his Windows machines. I haven't tried this package myself, though I got an offer to install it. But I know from a friend of mine, whom I helped buying a new 2,5ghz Core2Duo 17" HP laptop (she couldn't afford a MBP) - that it slowed down the new HP (Win7) in many processes - especially MSO2003 and the internet connection (10/10mbps cable) through Firefox + Thunderbird. She decided upon my advice to go back to Avast! and so she did. Avast! uninstalled the MS package and the speed on the machine increased remakably much - especially the internet connection to MSOutlook at the highschool where she's a teacher. - Elseway she's very satisfied with Win7 and it's better performance and stability towards XPHome and Vista... I too am thinking of 'upgrading' my XPPro to Win7 - i.e. to buy it and install it on another virtual disk alongside with the XPPro, so I can also test the software I'm testing on the Win7. - I'm mostly testing software for visually impaired. The greater part of these are still on XP/XPPro because of the very poor performance and ability of using specific software for visually impaired. But since now many of these specialized apps are being updated to run on Win7, they are also beginning to switch to Win7.... Cheers, Erik Richard -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Erik Richard Sørensen, Member of ADC, <mac-manNOSP(a)Mstofanet.dk> NisusWriter - The Future In Multilingual Text Processing - www.nisus.com OpenOffice.org - The Modern Productivity Solution - www.openoffice.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Howard Brazee on 23 Apr 2010 21:08 On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:46:18 -0600, Lewis <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontemailme> wrote: >The only reason to specifically use BootCamp is for gaming. Parallels >and VMWare Fusion will run apps just as fast, will integrate them into >OS X, will launch much much faster since there's not reboot cycle, and >will overall be a much superior experience to using BootCamp. I don't have BootCamp, but I know that my system is slower with Parallels. I really need to buy more RAM. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: dorayme on 23 Apr 2010 21:56 In article <g2h4t5dlkisb5242enaihr7l8snrgbders(a)4ax.com>, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: > I don't have BootCamp, but I know that my system is slower with > Parallels. I really need to buy more RAM. Did you throw Boot Camp away? -- dorayme
From: nospam on 23 Apr 2010 22:51 In article <g.kreme-751B2B.20210923042010(a)news.iad.newshosting.com>, Lewis <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontemailme> wrote: > Fusion 2.x is faster than Parallels 3.x, but Parallels 4.x is a bit > faster than Fusion 2.x > > Don't know what Parallels 5 is like, never seen it. fusion 3 is significantly faster than fusion 2.
From: Jamie Kahn Genet on 24 Apr 2010 06:55
Lewis <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontemailme> wrote: > In article <4bd1cefc$0$32175$ba624c82(a)nntp06.dk.telia.net>, > Erik Richard S�rensen <NOSPAM(a)NOSPAM.dk> wrote: > > > I myself is also running on a MacPro QuadCore 2,66ghz (sep.07) still > > only 10.5.8 and Paralles 3.x + WinXp Pro. I've been running this set up > > both with a bootable XPPro, but for the moment only a virtual install, > > cause one of my disks broke... > > In my experience with both Parallels and Fusion they are considerably > slower when being run from a Boot Camp partition. > > I don't know why, but the difference in Fusion was dramtic, and in > Parallels it was quite noticeable (at the time Parallels was quite a bit > slower than Fusion, that is not the case now). How many cores and RAM had you allocated to the VM? How much was left for OSX? -- If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate. |