advice for running parallels or vmware on mac pro

hello,
I'm looking to buy a mac pro very soon. I'd get it with at least 8gb
of ram.

What i'm wondering about is how well it would handle running vista on
vmware or parallels. After reading some previous posts in this group,
it looks like vista support is spotty. I have to run windows OS
sometimes for work. I wouldn't be running this all the time. But
when I do run it I need it to work well. It's either this or getting
a good quality HP workstation like the HP xw9400. I really prefer to
get a mac since I already have mac laptop.

Thanks,

Oskar

 

Vista Business can be virtualized as per the EULA and it seems to be
working on my machine although it was only installed over the weekend.
My machine is 2.66 gh with 5gb ram.

dick

 

Page 10 of the current Parallels owners manual, downloadable from their
web site, says "Extended Boot Camp Support If you already have Boot Camp
with Windows XP or Windows Vista partition, you don't have to re-install
Windows in a virtual machine. A virtual machine that will use the Boot
Camp partition will be created automatically during Parallels Desktop
installation. You can use the Boot Camp partition both from this virtual
machine and the Boot Camp. For details see Using Boot Camp Windows
Partition (page 250)."

Searching the manual for "boot camp partition" yields 22 occurrences.

Here is something that would most likely interest you, from page 252:

"Limitations for Parallels virtual machines using Boot Camp partition
Parallels virtual machine using Boot Camp Windows partition either as a
bootable volume or as a data disk has a number of limitations:

"1 It cannot be suspended or paused.

"2 Such a virtual machine cannot have snapshots, and the Undo disks
feature cannot be enabled for it.

"3 Compression or compacting cannot be performed for the Windows on the
Boot Camp partition."

 

If the Windows partition is FAT (whichever version of FAT that Boot Camp
formats it as), there should be no problem transferring in either
direction. If it's NTFS, I believe that you should still be able to
transfer from the Windows partition to the Mac partition.

Of course; it's a text file. There is no reason that you couldn't open
it. Same for a GIF file, a BMP file, a JPG file, a FileMaker Pro file
etc. If there is a Macintosh application that can read and write that
file format, you'll be able to open the file and edit the contents

There is no such thing as "boot directly into the Windows partition"; it
does not make sense any more than "Colorless green ideas sleep
furiously." makes sense.

What you mean is "boot the Windows operating system", or in the
vernacular, "boot Windows."

 

How recently is recently? Parallels 3.0 has been out for more than a
month.

Unfortunately, the documentation for earlier versions is not on line at
their site, so I can't search that documentation to see whether it
addresses Boot Camp.

 

No, the most recent version is 3.0; that is easily determined from
reading their web site's home page.

 

I hate it when you destroy my illusions; now I have to cancel the order
for the 10000 t-shirts that said just that.

 

If you'd actually gone to the web site when I first posted its
address, you'd have seen that the current version is 3.0, and perhaps
you might have realised that one reason why you're having problems
which others do not have is that you're using an obsolete version of
the app.[/QUOTE]

Further, I believe that using Boot Camp partitions with Parallels
Desktop was introduced with version 2.0 of Parallels Desktop, and 2.0
was a free upgrade, unlike the for-pay 3.0.

 

[when replying to Tom Stiller's preceding posting in this thread]

The most recent version of Parallels Desktop is 3.0 (Build 4128) released on
June 9th of this year. The accompanying manual 06WFM-01, has 246 pages, and
the index makes numerous references to Boot Camp.

My understanding is that an increment in the version number, say from 3.0 to
3.1 is applied when a new feature is added, a feature which can be downloaded
at no cost, and that a change in the decimal part of the version number
indicates that it is a "major" upgrade and will be charged for. The build
number increases as bugs and such are fixed.

 

I'm pretty sure that it was 2.5 that introduced using Boot Camp
partitions, but that was also a free upgrade.[/QUOTE]

The important point is that Conrad once again showed that he knows not
of which he speaks (or types).

If he put in half as much time on learning basics as he does with his
esoteric off the wall stuff that he gets wrong anyway, he would have no
more than one tenth of the problems he has.

 

One half the time? I'd say more like just one tenth the time.[/QUOTE]

He's a slow learner.

 

Mark,

Yesterday I posted a reply to your posting in which you commented on the lack
of information in the Parallels Desktop documentation regarding Boot Camp
support. I can honestly say that the reply was strictly factual in content
and that there was no sarcasm or such. I find it difficult to think that the
Boot Camp release number was mistakenly used instead of the Parallels release
number when the information included in your note also included the Parallels
Desktop documentation ID. Here again is the entirety of that reply....

========================================

[when replying to Tom Stiller's preceding posting in this thread]

The most recent version of Parallels Desktop is 3.0 (Build 4128) released on
June 9th of this year. The accompanying manual 06WFM-01, has 246 pages, and
the index makes numerous references to Boot Camp.

My understanding is that an increment in the version number, say from 3.0 to
3.1 is applied when a new feature is added, a feature which can be downloaded
at no cost, and that a change in the decimal part of the version number
indicates that it is a "major" upgrade and will be charged for. The build
number increases as bugs and such are fixed.

========================================

 

Well, at 64, I find that I learn as fast as I did when I was in my 30s,
so I'm not too worried. I'm more concerned about making it to 78.

How were we supposed to know that, especially considering that you were
using an outdated manual?

Most likely because it had not occurred to us that you had done that,
but that you were using Parallels 1.3, as evidenced by your using an
outdated manual.

We don't wonder why you do that; we know you do that because you're an
asshole.

You irritate us because you are, and act like, an asshole. We irritate
you because we keep showing you that you don't know what you're talking
about.

 

Everyone responded in a civil manner initially, but your uncivil
approach frays people's civility right off them. You are reaping what
you sowed, but like the ego centric person you are, you are unable to
accept responsibility for the results of your own actions.

Mark, you are not "the rest of us"; you are a minority of one.

And that is what had been done, but after umpteen times of your
deliberate hostility to being corrected, people started treating you in
the manner that you begged for.

The damage is done by you, Mark; not by them (or us, if you consider me
to be one of "them").

Without making any effort to determine whether those beliefs have any
basis in reality.

Unfortunately, this world is in a mess because all too many people do
just that--blurt out whatever they believe, without any reasoned thought
behind it.

Until they demonstrate otherwise, as you have done. Then they lose
respect and the right to being treated civilly.

 

Bite me.

 

You mean like the guy who keeps saying, "Hit me; I dare you to hit me.
Are you too chicken to hit me?" and keeps getting in everyone else's
face is never the one to loose his cool first?

Thing is that we don't give you anything to get frustrated about, but
you give us plenty to get frustrated about.

It's not a matter of disagreement; it's a matter of deliberate
provocation.

 

You mean the well-meaning, helpful and knowledgeable
people who keep *correcting* your dangerously wrong
and misleading posts? Those people are the scum?
The people who keep trying to make sure that folks
who don't know better avoid following your generally
wrong and bad advice? Those kind people? *They*
are the scum?

We generally all started that way with you, but when
you keep ignoring the right answers, arguing, and
telling *us* that we're wrong, well, we find out
who the trolls and scum really are, don't we.

Yet, after all these years, I don't remember you
ever - not once - actually helping anyone or providing
useful or correct advice. Good thing you're here
to help us navigate amongst the "scum".

You've made yours quite explicit. I'll leave it to
the kind folks who have recently added some of your
admissions of trolling and guilt to the FAQ.

This newsgroup really would be a much more pleasant
place without you, but with due credit, you are
sometimes somewhat entertaining. Kind of like watching
car crashes and explosions in bad movies.

 

Hee! That's the funniest thing I've seen all day.
You comparing yourself to Galileo. Okay, I mean,
sure, its' still somewhat early and other funny
things might happen today, but I'll be really
impressed if anything else comes close.

Here's one small clue to the differences: Galileo was right.