Les Klassen Hamm wrote:
> My question:
> Has anyone else done any comparing? Is parallels slower in your
> experience, or is my hardware really the issue? Could it be the linux
> config or tuning? Ideally I should install both vmware and parallels on
> the linux box (or even both machines) to do better comparisons, but I'd
> be delighted to hear any real world experiences any of you might have.
Parallels on my MacBook is exceedingly snappy because the Core Duo CPU
inside supports the Intel VXT extensions, as does Parallels. It's only
(haha, cheapest one I could buy) a 1.83 Ghz CPU compared to the 2.0 Ghz
AMD 64 in my desktop, but a guest OS like OS/2 runs as fast as I
remember it running on Sean's Pentium, while OS/2 inside VMware (which
must manually emulate many instructions) crawls.
OTOH, VMware has snapshots -- Parallels does not. Parallels requires
you manually copy around disk images and such, while VMware has a nice
interface (complete with timeline and notes) on the particular instance
of the image.
VMware currently doesn't support any of the CPU virtualization
instructions that I know of. AMD has some virtualization extensions in
their newer CPUs, but I don't know if they are the same hardware
interface (instructions, etc) as the Intel VXT extensions.
Also, VMware of Win2k, WinXP, and Win2k3 server on my Kubuntu desktop
runs pretty fast -- but I have 2gb of RAM in my workstation, and give
256-384mb to each of these guest OSes. Win2k on my laptop (which also
has 2gb of RAM) runs about as fast as on the desktop, with some
operations going faster (booting notably), and some being incredibly
unstable (I can lock up Win2k by running the Turbo C++ 1.0 installer in
a command prompt). VMware seems more mature to me, you just have to
give it some hardware to work with ;)
(And, after I upgraded my laptop, I was left with 2 256mb DDR2 667Mhz
SODIMMs -- if you're interested, email me)
Received on Tue Sep 26 19:01:04 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Sep 26 2006 - 19:01:10 CST