[X4U] Re: Parallels vs. Boot Camp

[Eugene]

On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 02:05:59PM CDT, PoolMouse <poolmouse_nyc at mac.com> wrote:
: At 6:28 AM -0700 4/17/06, Jim Robertson wrote:
: >On 4/15/06 10:35 AM, "PoolMouse" <poolmouse_nyc at mac.com> wrote:
: >
: >> parallels is going to make heros of alot of sysadmins who
: >> provide/support it for their mac clients who need to run windows
: >> applications...um, unless citrix is available at the company. ;)
: >
: >I could here the bullet whiz by, but it didn't hit me. Could you rephrase
: >your zinger so those of us struggling to use Windows frequently for the
: >first time get your meaning? Especially the part about Citrix (I'm dealing
: >with two cross-platform struggles that involve Citrix servers now).
: 
: boot camp is worthless for users who need to run windows 
: applications.

Really?  Can you be less specific?

: citrix is a great solution (as long as the server farm 
: is robust and clinet is configured correctly). virtualization (right 
: now parallels) gives us the ability to furnish users with a 
: fast/solid windows system from which they can run windows apps. my 
: gripe is that parallels uses an image instead of our boot camp 
: partition.

So not being able to run Parallels from your Boot Camp partition
makes it "worthless for users"?

: virtual pc may be rewritten to use virtualization - but why should ms 
: bother if parallels runs fine for $49? i'm sure microsoft will find a 
: way to market a "better" vpc but i certainly don't see a need.

Sony owned the consumer gaming market until M$ decided to bother
and dumped over US$1 billion to enter the market with the XBox.

: boot camp is good for gaming or anything else that's worth rebooting for.

The key is that there is now a choice where there once wasn't.
Given the choice, Mac users choose OS X over Windoze any day.
Now traditional PC users are being given the choice between
staying with Windoze or trying out OS X.



-- 
Eugene
http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/