[X4U] Re: Parallels vs. Boot Camp

[PoolMouse]

Eugene <list-themacintoshguy at fsck.net> wrote:

>On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 02:05:59PM CDT, PoolMouse 
><poolmouse_nyc at mac.com> wrote:
>
>: 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"?

sorry...see my many rebuttals...i definitely didn't word my post 
correctly. boot camp is great if you have time to boot into it and if 
you don't care about getting to your data (fat isn't as stable as 
ntfs but it's the only option if you need to get to osx data while 
booted into windows). parallels (virtualization) is the s**t, or it 
will be once it matures. beta v4 is looking good and they're fixing 
the kernel panics as they get panic reports...one post on another 
admin lists pleads with the makers of parallels to stop whipping 
their programmers and let them go to sleep - they're working hard on 
getting parallels up to speed for public release. my openvms buddies 
say virtualization in osx via intel is going to shake up the market. 
we can finally offer our clients a way to use both os's without 
losing speed/stability (um, we WILL be able to once parallels 
matures).

ps, as i just posted in a previous rebuttal, if apple uses windows 
api's to get windows apps to run without windows, how cool will that 
be?

:)
don

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


-- 

don montalvo, nyc
curmudgeon at large