Parralels Desktop
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: Snow Leopard not showing icons
Next: günstige pflegeversicherung, berufsunfähigkeitsversicherung österreich, was kostet berufsunfähigkeitsversicherung, vergleich berufsunfähigkeitsversicherungen, dienstunfähigkeitsversicherung,
From: David Empson on 22 Feb 2010 22:46 John <jwolf6589(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > So how would you compare this environment with? Is it more like Classic > or Sheep Shaver? Sheep Shaver can run OS 9 apps but in its own window > and emulator while Classic runs the apps within OSX. Parallels Desktop sits somewhere between SheepShaver and Classic in general concept. I suggest adding Virtual PC (for Mac) as it provides another point of comparison. VMware Fusion and VirtualBox are functionally equivalent to Parallels Desktop, so I won't mention them further. At the simplest level, all four products are virtual machine software, for running one operating system as a "guest" inside another operating system (Mac OS X). The key differences are: 1. Processor emulation. SheepShaver emulates a PowerPC processor, which means it has to convert every instruction to run on a different processor (Intel). (I'm not sure what it does if running on a PowerPC Mac.) VirtualPC emulates an Intel processor and it only runs on a PowerPC Mac. It has to convert every instruction to run on a different processor. Classic and Parallels Desktop do not need to emulate the processor as the guest operating system is for the same processor as the host computer. 2. Supported guest operating systems. SheepShaver and Classic only support Mac OS 9 (or earlier in the case of SheepShaver). Virtual PC and Parallels Desktop can in principle support any operating system which runs on an Intel processor, though the degree of support varies. 3. Integration with host file system. SheepShaver, Virtual PC and Parallels Desktop use a virtual hard drive for the guest operating system - a disk image as far as the host OS is concerned. Each of them provides mechanisms to access selected files outside the virtual hard drive. Parallels can also be granted direct access to a hard drive partition for sharing with Boot Camp. Classic directly uses the host file system (and has unrestricted access to it, since Classic runs as the root user). 4. User interface integration. SheepShaver runs the guest operating system in a window. (I expect it also has a full screen mode). VirtualPC has windowed and full screen modes. Classic interleaves windows of the guest operating system with the host operating system. Parallels Desktop can operate in three modes: full screen, windowed, or interleaving. 5. Hardware access. All of these products provide a fair degree of isolation between the computer hardware and the guest operating system. Some of them offer features like direct access to USB peripherals or appearing as an independent computer via the network interface. This is under control of the user. In summary: SheepShaver: PowerPC emulator, Mac OS 9 guest, mostly isolated file system, isolated user interafce. Virtual PC: Intel emulator, any Intel OS guest, mostly isolated file system, isolated user interface. Parallels Desktop: any Intel OS guest, mostly isolated file system, user interface may be isolated or interleaved. Classic: Mac OS 9 guest, integrated file system, interleaved user interface. -- David Empson dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz
From: nospam on 22 Feb 2010 22:47 In article <jwolf6589-FF540B.22074122022010(a)nntp.charter.net>, John <jwolf6589(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > So how would you compare this environment with? Is it more like Classic > or Sheep Shaver? Sheep Shaver can run OS 9 apps but in its own window > and emulator while Classic runs the apps within OSX. parallels and vmware are like virtual pc, but for intel macs only (and virtual pc won't run on intel macs). since there is no emulation with either one, windows apps run at essentially full speed. you can run windows apps within a window, full screen, or interleaved with native os x apps (coherence and unity modes).
From: nospam on 24 Feb 2010 02:47 In article <jwolf6589-77D323.02395224022010(a)nntp.charter.net>, John <jwolf6589(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > Will Parrellels work well on a Mac with 2GB's of RAM, no it won't. you *really* want at least 4 gig. > and once it is installed can I also use BootCamp if I desire? yes
From: nospam on 24 Feb 2010 03:15 In article <jwolf6589-9BF9EB.02553424022010(a)nntp.charter.net>, John <jwolf6589(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > > > Will Parrellels work well on a Mac with 2GB's of RAM, > > > > no it won't. you *really* want at least 4 gig. > > > > > and once it is installed can I also use BootCamp if I desire? > > > > yes > > I am running XP. The website said 2GB's for Windows Vista or 7. and then add in what os x needs, as well as what parallels (or vmware) uses. if your mac has only 2 gig, it will work, but it's very likely to thrash a *lot* (been there, done that). you really want 4 gig, at a minimum. however, boot camp on a mac with 2 gig will be exactly the same as a pc with 2 gig.
From: M-M on 24 Feb 2010 05:36
In article <240220100247132411%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > > Will Parrellels work well on a Mac with 2GB's of RAM, > > no it won't. you *really* want at least 4 gig. WinXP works fine with 2GB. Win7 does not. -- m-m http://www.mhmyers.com |