Don’t go to Boot Camp, get Parallels instead


Apple generated a lot of surprised excitement with the announcement of the Boot Camp Public Beta that lets Intel Mac owners dual boot between OS X and Windows XP. Boot Camp facilitates the creation of a separate Windows partition on the Intel Mac so owners can install the Windows OS and choose which to boot at start time. It is the first time that Mac owners have ever been able to run native Windows on their computers.

Peter Wright has gone another route recently made possible and installed Parallel”s Workstation on his MacBook and this statement says it all:

My first impressions: WOW!

This thing is fast. It’s faster in a virtual machine than my aging Dell laptop at the office, and it feels faster than my Motion LE 1600 tablet. If you have an Intel based Mac, forget Apples BootCamp – install Parallel’s Workstation instead and run Windows on your Mac’s terms, not the other way around.

The virtual machine route lets Mac owners run the Windows apps right on the Mac desktop and if the performance is good enough then, as Peter says, it’s the best way to go.



I started out with Parallels but recently decided to give Boot Camp a try. I was able to install XP Home from an upgrade CD. I just attached my USB CD/DVD that I bought for the Q1 to hold my Windows ME disk so that it could check for the upgrade during the install. Worked great! Man, this boot camp is way faster than parallel. Running my mac with 2 OSes is like a “mullet” (southern hair cut) “Business in the front, party in the back”


I agree with Peter. Dual booting SUCKS. My users here all would prefer the paralell solution.


You have to look closely at what Peter is saying in his article. If the performance running under a virtual machine is good enough for the usage you have planned then Peter is saying having the WinXP on the Mac desktop is preferable. We all know that running natively will be better performing than a virtual machine.


i’m sorry, but i’m going to have to call this one out. B/c its beyond misleading. Obviously if you’re using a machine that starts @ 1.86ghz DUAL core and you’re comparing it to a 1.0ghz ULV Celeron or even the 1.5ghz ULV Centrino, there is no comparison the dual core would run rings around any of those machines. A statement that Windows loads faster on the macbook pro, running the virtualization software is pretty mute. Thats what a dual core is supposed to do.

Jim Amorin


Please stop posting all this stuff about dual booting and parallelling an Intel Mac. I’m trying to wait for an OQO, CPC or Origami and I keep getting the I want’s when I see posts about the Intel Macs ; ) Seriously keep up the great work.

Comments are closed.