Parallels Desktop Lite has the same basic features as Parallels Desktop Standard: it enables you to run Windows, Linux and their applications on your Mac without rebooting. You can run these Windows and Linux applications side-by-side with Mac applications.
- Boot Camp vs Parallels Desktop Comparison It’s not specifically a virtual machine, but you cannot avoid talking about Boot Camp when it comes to running Windows on a Mac. Boot Camp is Apple’s own answer to consumer demand, and as a part of macOS represents a huge advantage as it eliminates the need to download any third-party apps.
- This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.
- Windows 10 on Mac: Boot Camp vs Parallels. Your Mac will perform under Windows 10 just like a similar desktop or laptop. Boot Camp presents an understandable advantage when used on an entry.
I've been wanting to get Windows on my retina MacBook Pro for a while now but there are so many softwares that I simply gave up. I recently found out that VMware Fusion, Parallels, and Boot Camp are the best ways to get Windows running well.
I want to use windows mainly for Steam related games, and some other applications not available on OS X.
The question is: which one is the best and most reliable? I really want something that is easy to use, install, and uninstall (if needed).
I'm running Mountain Lion, if it makes a difference.
CajunLuke2 Answers
I recommend Parallels 7. I have run any number of games (Both Steam-based and not) this way. Call of Duty: Black Ops and Modern Warfare 3, Blacklight: Retribution, World of Tanks, Diablo III, World of Warcraft and others all run with no problems. It's not going to be as fast as running native code, but it's about as good as you can get. Run the VM in fullscreen (and make sure you're using the discrete graphics card if you're using gfxCardStatus!) for best results. Boot Camp obviously will give you the best performance, but I hate dual booting and refuse to do it. I have no experience with VMware Fusion.
Bootcamp is my choice, Windows 7 64 in Bootcamp outperforms my Alienware by a mile!
RenderWe're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer; explain why your answer is right, ideally with citations. Answers that don't include explanations may be removed.
You must log in to answer this question.
Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged windowsbootcampvmwaremacbookparallels-desktop .
Windows on Mac Q&A - Updated December 3, 2006
To be notified of new Q&As, sign up for EveryMac.com's bimonthly email list.
If you find this page useful, please Bookmark & Share it. Thank you.
How fast is a Mac running Windows XP using Parallels compared to Boot Camp?
Please note that this answer specifically refers to the first version of Parallels Desktop for Mac, and the company has released improved versions since this answer was written. Nevertheless, in general terms, one can expect the performance of 'virtualized' software, such as Parallels Desktop for Mac or VMWare Fusion, to be less than that of a native operating system running via Boot Camp. However, virtualized software can be considerably more convenient for tasks that do not require maximum performance.
Also see: How does the performance of Parallels Desktop for Mac 5 compare to VMWare Fusion 3? How does the performance compare for productivity applications? How does it compare for games?
Parallels says that the Desktop for Mac software provides 'near-native performance', rather than the full speed of a 'dual-boot' configuration.
A ZDNet article published the day that Desktop for Mac was released in its final version quoted a systems administrator at Canada's University of Waterloo who said that 'the performance in Parallels was within 1 to 2 percent of [Boot Camp].'
Real-world tests released more recently from C|Net and MacWorld show that Parallels Desktop for Mac is not quite that fast, but nevertheless remarkable compared to the performance of emulation software.
C|Net tested the performance of Windows XP running via Parallels and Boot Camp on a MacBook Pro 'Core Duo' 2.16 17-Inch with 2 GB of RAM. The reviewer setup a 10 GB partition for Windows XP with Boot Camp and a 20 GB virtual disk with Parallels.
In an unspecified series of Photoshop CS 2 'image processing tests', C|Net reported that Parallels performed the tasks in 604 seconds, compared to 501 seconds for the same tests running in MacOS X via 'Rosetta' and 278 seconds running natively in Windows XP with Boot Camp. For Microsoft Office 2003, which is only available for Windows (Office 2004 is available for MacOS X, although it is not 'native' for Intel-based systems), the reviewer remarked that 'Boot Camp ran the test almost 2.4 times faster than Parallels'.
Oddly, given that Parallels does not support DirectX for gaming, after crashing the system first, the reviewer tried running Quake 4 at 1024x768 within Parallels and reported that 'Quake 4 actually produced noticeably faster frame rates on our test than with Boot Camp.'
C|Net concluded that for 'the mundane tasks that probably make up most of your computing time (such as word processing, e-mail, and browsing the Internet), you're not likely to notice Parallels' performance degradation.'
In a well-written review that should be read in its entirety, MacWorld provides some background information, basic setup and installation instructions, and in-depth benchmarks for Windows XP using Parallels and Boot Camp running on an iMac 'Core Duo' 2.0 20-Inch and MacBook Pro 'Core Duo' 2.16 15-Inch, each with 1 GB of RAM installed.
The reviewer acknowledges 'if you don’t require 3-D accelerated graphics or full hardware support, then Parallels delivers solid results' and regarding its speed states that:
Using Parallels on the Macs, the overall WorldBench test score is about two-thirds of what it is for the same machine booted natively into Windows via Boot Camp. Some portions of our testing, such as multitasking, show a big divide in performance. Other portions show only slight differences. In our Office 2002 test, for example, Parallels was only about 10 percent slower than in native mode. Overall, our results indicate that, using Parallels, you'll get about two-thirds of the speed you’ll get using Boot Camp.
Ultimately, it's probably not the solution for gamers, who want to wring every last bit of performance out of a system, need DirectX support, and have no need to run multiple programs at the same time or 'copy and paste' between them. For day-to-day use, however, the Parallels virtualization solution provides an impressively fast way to run other operating systems 'within' MacOS X.
Permalink | E-mail a Friend | Bookmark & Share | Report an Error/Typo
Parallels Desktop For Mac Free Trial
Suggest a New Q&A | Sign Up for Bimonthly Site Update Notices
<< Windows on Mac Q&A (Main)
Parallels Desktop For Mac Vs Boot Camp
EveryMac.com is provided 'as is' without warranty of any kind whatsoever. EveryMac.com, and the author thereof, shall not be held responsible or liable, under any circumstances, for any damages resulting from the use or inability to use the information within. For complete disclaimer and copyright information please read and understand the Terms of Use and the Privacy Policy before using EveryMac.com. Use of any content or images without expressed permission is not allowed, although links to any page are welcomed and appreciated.