Parallels 5 boasts huge speed improvement
Parallels on Wednesday released Parallels Desktop 5 for Mac, a new version of its virtualization software that allows Intel-based Macs to run Windows and Linux alongside Mac OS X.
According to Parallels, the new version of its software is up to 300 percent faster than the previous version, Parallels Desktop 4. The company also hired Crimson Consulting Group to do performance testing on Parallels 5 and said it was 22 percent faster than its nearest virtualization competitor when running Windows 7 64-bit on a MacBook Pro.
While the competitor wasn't named by Parallels, it is widely thought the virtualization market is ruled by Parallels and VMWare's Fusion for Mac.
Speaking with CNET, Parallels CEO Serguei Beloussov said company had three main goals when making Parallels 5 for Mac: make it faster; make it smarter and easier; and make it more powerful.
Beloussov said the company achieved those goals by adding support for gestures, supporting a broader range of 3D features, and optimizing Parallels to handle virtual hardware and drivers more efficiently.
Parallels 5 also adds a new viewing mode called Crystal, which is similar to Coherence, where Windows completely disappears from your desktop. However, Crystal adds the Windows taskbar items on the top of the Mac OS X menu, allowing easy access.
Apple also offers a way to run Windows on an Intel-based Mac. It's called Boot Camp, but it requires the user restart the computer and run Windows separately from the Mac OS. While that may be inconvenient for many users, the native speed of running on the hardware was always seen as a major advantage. Parallels says they can now beat that.
"Parallels is faster than Boot Camp," Beloussov said. "Most slow downs with Windows is not because of computational problems, it's handling drivers. We offer optimized virtualized hardware and drivers, making it faster."
Parallels Desktop 5 for Mac is available for $79.99 or $49.99 for an upgrade.
Jim Dalrymple has followed Apple and the Mac industry for the last 15 years, first as part of MacCentral and then in various positions at Macworld. Jim also writes about the professional audio market, examining the best ways to record music using a Macintosh. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. He currently runs The Loop. You can follow him on Twitter @jdalrymple. 
Win4Lin (a long time ago) was able to boost Windows VM usage above what Windows itself could do running on native hardware, mostly because it stripped a lot of the crap out of Windows itself when you installed it into the VM.
I'm thinking that Parallels does something similar here - you put in Parallels, then you put in Windows - and Parallels likely strips the Windows install of all the garbage that would normally bog down a native default install - enough that the diff could easily fit the hypervisor's overhead. After all, there's a lot that you can remove and still run the thing.
Even though the Mac has been around for 25 years, it never got more than a 5% market share before Apple left those "fabulous" Motorola chips they use to rave about and went with Intel. Since then it has broken, though barely that 5% wall in a couple of reporting quarters. If Mac came with Windows, and they cut their price to a realistic level, like 30-40% off, they might reach a 10-12% market share.
Proof Please.
Your first paragraph made sense. The second paragraph was complete garbage.
I also have Vista in Boot Camp and use Fusion to run it in OS X. At the moment, though, I can't afford to upgrade to Windows 7 - but I look forward to doing so and leaving Vista behind.
Oh, and dowell100 is wrong about Adobe's release schedule. They used to release Windows versions first but have in recent years released the Windows and Mac versions at the same time - as in CS3 and CS4. Clearly he hasn't bothered to update his prejudices to match the "reality" he insists we face about the need for Windows.
i mean buy a pc and stop paying for a cool logo but ****** OS
Somebody has been drinking ballmer coolaid again ;)
if you take a look at apple store .. and check the best iBook they offer for $2000
here's the link
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/imac?mco=MTMzNzQ4NzA
now go to newegg and check the prices of the same hardwares presented in iBook with Quad-core.
specs..
1- 2.66GHz Intel Core i5 ----> you can buy it for $200 from newegg or get i7 processor for $290
2- 4GB memory 1066 MHz -----> Kingston HyperX 4GB 1333 MHz = $108
3- 1TB Serial ATA Drive -----> get Western Digital Caviar Green WD10EADS 1TB SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive for $85
4- ATI Radeon HD 4850 -----> ATI Radeon HD 4850 by MSI price $114
5- 27" LCD ----> Get LG W2753V-PF Black 27" 2ms(GTG) HDMI Full HD 1080P Widescreen LCD Monitor for $ 400
so the cost is less than $1000 add $100 for the best keyboard+mouse and case
net cost $1100 for actually better hardware that what you get for $2000
so now who's drinking ballmer coolaid ?? and paying + $900 for a logo and for $teve Job$ sake .
1.First of all, they are extremely reliable. They last way longer than windows. If you look at any school, my point is proven because many school still run 20th century iMacs.
2. The OS is much better. It allows for better interoperability between files, and integration between programs. For example, my colleagues agree that they can animate/edit films faster with macs because of the operating system. For example, the indexing feature in windows 7 is not enabled by default, and from my experience, it is difficult to sustain. I have never gotten windows search to work completely, so it is unreliable. In addition, it is prove to malware and viruses, something macs are not. You cannot deny that there are virtually no viruses for the mac platform.
3. Macs have very specific form factor. The iMac is an all in one, and you are trying to compare it to a tower, a machine that has half the mobility, half the integration, and features. There is no windows all-in-one that features as much power-for-price as the iMac. If you want to compare towers to macs, compare it to a mac pro, which has similarly priced hardware in comparison to windows machines. And FYI, I would rather spend $1000 more because it is much more stable, and more reliable than any windows computer. And I should know, I have a 3 week old alienware m15x with a 64-bit version of windows 7, and it has driver issues, and crappy battery life.
4. Your computer comes without all-in-one support. I can service my computer at my local mac store for a very small fee, while you need to mail in your parts, and contact different vendors.
Windows PCs are cheaper than macs, no sh*t sherlock, but we but macs for different reasons than you buy your computers.
Finally, only ballmer zealots would ever use an argument such as "You pay $500 for a logo". This argument is flawed in so many ways, and it doesn't take a genius to prove it wrong.
@ Yelonde , thanks for the reply i really appreciate it . but what i mean is , why get iBook for $2000 when you can build it with the same hardware and install Hackintoch ?
why for example when you want to upgrade the processor in iBook from i5 to i7 , why you have to add 200$ when you can get i7 processor for extra $80 ? are you telling me this price is fair ?
about support , well i've never had to service my PC at any store.. i do it myself.. thats the point with PC you dont have to be a PC Geek to fix whatever problem you may face , but with MAC its kinda hard even for MAC experts to fix it..and thats what happend at the company i work for when they baught a MAC server and wanted to configure it so they can host websites and sell domains online.. it took MAC guys 3 visits and had to reformat it twice to finally get it working .
about viruses, it really depends on the user..last time i installed antiviruse was in 2003 .. and recently i installed Microsoft security essentials for the sake of testing it, and reinstalled it afterwards.. i've never gotten a viruse.. i dont even have firewall..and the built in firewall is disabled.
if you dont open email attachments from people you dont know or trust .. i dont see how a viruse could get into any PC ..
i do have ubuntu on my machine and i do have Snow Leopard , every OS has its pros , MAC isnt bad so is windows and ubuntu , but MAC is really overpriced.. and whenever i need to use SnowLeopard i'd just get online..buy the best hardware available in market and build my own PC that can run win7- SL -Ubunto and it'd cost me less than $1000 to build a PC that's much better, much faster and as reliable if not more than what apple could ever offer .
i hope you see what i mean now..its not like i am a windows fanboy.. i even fight IE :D but what i mean is.. i do work online now as a graphic designer, coder, and w'd use any OS that serves me better but paying $2000 on a machine that i can build for $1000 is what i cant take .
kind regards .
with $270, I'd spend $230 more to get a brand new laptop and load with Ubuntu and Windows; 2-in1
There're a whole bunch of FREE open-source apps out there. OpenOffice is one of them.
Anyways, buy what you want to buy and be happy with it.
http://www.virtualbox.org/
Yes, if Apple shipped Macs with Windows on them and cut prices 30-40% they would be struggling just as much as PC manufacturers right now. Market share does not equal profit and profit does not equal market share.
Jeez, Daniel -
...and market share and profit have nothing to do with whether Parallels 5.0 is good, bad or somewhere in between, which is what this article is about. Trolling is a waste of everybody's time.
- by partners December 9, 2009 11:53 AM PST
- Please help - my CPU usage is approaching as much as 100% with Bootcamp - will Parallels 5 really help this? Ros Nelson
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(34 Comments)