4 Replies Latest reply on Oct 15, 2007 2:07 PM by fbx

    Fusion or Parallels for use with Bootcamp installation?

    fbx Enthusiast

      I've given up using either Parallels or Fusion full time with Windows and I have rebuilt a Bootcamp partition and install.

       

      Both Parallels and Fusion are just way too slow and untrustworthy on my white iMac 2.0GHz with 2G of ram.

       

      However, I would like to hook up by Bootcamp setup via one or the other in OSX, and I'm wondering which of the two would be safer? Not really intereted in speed here, as when I've got substantial work to do in Windows I'll do it in the Bootcamp install.

       

      I've read that Parallels replaces certain Windows files when setup with Bootcamp. Is this true? THis seems like a good reason to go with Fusion.

       

      Posting this note on both msg boards, of course.

       

      Thanks for any help and advice--

        • 1. Re: Fusion or Parallels for use with Bootcamp installation?
          Guru

          Fusion ... just way too slow and untrustworthy on my white iMac 2.0GHz with 2G of ram.

           

          Sorry to hear that. Is this the keyboard/mouse problems you reported (but never followed up on), or something else? Can you be more specific about what is slow/untrustworthy?

           

          I've read that Parallels replaces certain Windows files when setup with Bootcamp. Is this true? THis seems like a good reason to go with Fusion.

           

          Last I checked, yes. Parallels does not support ACPI, so to get Boot Camp to work they have to replace the HAL (i.e. hal.dll) with a non-ACPI one. Their 3D acceleration depends on replacing some other dlls. In contrast, we don't have to do this.

          1 person found this helpful
          • 2. Re: Fusion or Parallels for use with Bootcamp installation?
            fbx Enthusiast

             

            No, I got both Parallels and Fusion working fine as independent VMs. My root problem is that both are significantly slower operationally than the same setup in Bootcamp.I knew this from a theoretical POV going in, but experiencing it is something else. Everything just slows down--starting programs, saving within programs, switching programs, moving stuff, changes places within programs, etc.  It's sort of like taking a step or two backward in hardware, and then, when you boot up Bootcamp again, everything runs like lightning.

             

             

            On top of that, I had troubles with both Fusion and Parallels.  As I reported in another thread, I tried Parallels with my prior Bootcamp installation, and it some how screwed the Bootcamp install.  So much so that eventually I had to reinstall OSX (because after I'd removed my Bootcamp partition and gone back to an all OSX hard drive, DiskUtility returned an minor error that seemed to stem from Parallel mess. Eventually I corrected the error by booting off a backup, but Bootcamp would not repartition the drive because of some error, even though Diskutility reported the error as having been fixed.

             

             

            With Fusion, I started getting strange messages about problems it was having booting. But then I restarted OSX and it worked fine again, so I don't know what the problem was.

             

             

            Eventually I decided that I did not want to run the risk of having either Fusion or Parallels go south on me, so I went back to Bootcamp, which I'd previously used for a year and a half without incident.

             

             

            Now I'm thinking about just having an OSX connection to my Bootcamp partition for those times when I'm in OSX but just need to jump into Win for a couple minutes or so, and would prefer not to reboot.

             

             

            • 3. Re: Fusion or Parallels for use with Bootcamp installation?
              Guru
              fbx wrote:

               

              Everything just slows down--starting programs, saving within programs, switching programs, moving stuff, changes places within programs, etc.

               

              Do you have any hard numbers about the slowdown? Anything in particular (CPU/RAM/disk) getting stressed? For casual use, I don't think a virtual machine should be significantly slower than native.

               

              With Fusion, I started getting strange messages about problems it was having booting. But then I restarted OSX and it worked fine again, so I don't know what the problem was.

               

              We'd like to hear about any problems. I don't suppose you remember any more detail?

               

              Also, since I'm the one who's probably kept telling you about Parallel's Boot Camp shenanagins, you might want third-party verification. See for example:

               

              http://www.algorithm.com.au/blog/files/vmware-fusion-beta-3-vs-parallels.php (hal.dll, ntoskrnl.exe. boot.ini)

              http://forums.parallels.com/nextnewesttothread12446.html (ddraw.dll, d3d8.dll, d3d9.dll)

               

              And you can also search Parallel's forum for more information on these files.

              • 4. Re: Fusion or Parallels for use with Bootcamp installation?
                fbx Enthusiast

                I did no measurements. My evidence is all anecdotal, thus trustworthy. "Significantly slower" is here a term of art meaning noticed.

                 

                 

                 

                The problems I had with Fusion booting and not booting came at a time when I was at the end of the decision tree and had already determined that I was going back to Bootcamp, and thus I have no record of what they were--I would boot the Fusion machine and then the Win black screen w/ logo would come up and then a panel would slide down from above alerting me to the problem. Happened a couple of times with at least two different problems cited. At which point I gave up the idea of using a VM instead of Bootcamp.

                 

                 

                As I said elsewhere, if one is using Windows a lot then it doesn't make sense to use a VM as the primary site, since a VM (any VM) adds a full layer of prospective failure to the already vexed business of computer and software.

                 

                 

                Just my 2 cents.