Inside CNET Labs: Windows virtual machine performance on the Mac
Note: This post was updated on August 17, 2007, to make a correction.
With VMware's official release of Fusion 1.0 less than two weeks ago, there are now no less than four different ways to run Windows applications on Intel-based Macs. Fusion, as well as SWsoft's Parallels Desktop 3.0 for Mac use virtualization technology to allow you to simultaneously run the Windows operating system as a virtual machine alongside the Mac OS. CrossOver Mac 6.0 from CodeWeavers uses a different virtualization approach by building on the open-source API, Wine, which allows you to run individual Windows applications in the Mac OS without needing to install or run the Windows operating system.
(Credit:
VMware)
Perhaps the easiest and most common way to run Windows on a Mac today is with Apple's own Boot Camp Public Beta. While Boot Camp is currently the only way to run Windows natively on a Mac, it requires booting directly into the Windows OS, during which the Mac OS is not accessible (until you reboot the computer back into the Mac OS, leaving the Windows OS).
With all these different options for running Windows applications on Intel Macs, we wanted to see how they compare against each other in terms of performance; so CNET Labs applied its systems testing methodology to an eight-core, 2.66GHz Mac Pro running the Mac OS X 10.4.10. We used Boot Camp 1.3 Beta, CrossOver Mac 6.1.0, Parallels Desktop 3.0 for Mac (4560), and Fusion 1.0 (51348). Windows Vista Ultimate was used as the operating system for Boot Camp, Fusion, and Parallels. Fusion and Parallels were both set to 1,024MB of system memory, a 32GB hard disk, and the maximum amount of graphics memory they each supported (Fusion: 128MB, Parallels: 64MB).
(Shorter bars indicate better performance)
The Multimedia multitasking test is the most taxing of our tests. It encodes QuickTime video in the foreground, while iTunes simultaneously encodes audio in the background. While Fusion's performance on this test was significantly slower than we saw with Windows running natively under Boot Camp, Fusion was still more than 3.5-times faster than Parallels. One of the primary reasons why Fusion is faster here is that it supports up to two CPU cores, while Parallels supports only one CPU core. This test benefits greatly from multiple CPU cores, as is evidenced by the Mac OS and Boot Camp performance, each with eight cores available.
(Shorter bars indicate better performance)
Our Photoshop CS3 test results repeat what we saw with the Multimedia multitasking test: Fusion is faster than Parallels, but neither is as speedy as Windows running in Boot Camp. While the Photoshop CS3, Multimedia multitasking, and Cinebench (see below) tests alone are not enough to make an absolute conclusion of how Mac performance compares to Windows, the performance here does at least show that Intel Macs can be very competitive with Windows systems, and at times even faster.
(Longer bars indicate better performance)
 |
Rendering Multiple CPUs | |
Rendering Single CPU |
N/A
N/A
Maxon's Cinebench R10 test is a CPU-intensive test that renders a 3D photo-realistic scene. The same scene is rendered twice--once using only a single CPU core, the second time using all available processor cores. As Fusion is the only virtualization application here with support for more than processing core, it was the only virtualization application able to complete the multiple CPU-based render. As for single-core performance, Fusion and Parallels put in nearly identical performance. Interestingly, this was the only one of our tests that CrossOver Mac could run. Its single-core performance on this test was marginally better than the other two virtualization applications.
(Longer bars indicate better performance)
The only virtualization software we could get to run Quake 4 was Parallels. We used somewhat conservative settings by today' standards (1,024x768, High Quality, 4x antialiasing, 8x anisotropic filtering) and saw frame rates that were barely playable. Lower quality settings should show higher, more playable frame rates, but wouldn't look as good. However, we were pleasantly surprised to find that we could get a Windows-based game to run at all in virtualization software! The developers of the virtualization apps promise improved compatibility with Windows games in the near future.
From a pure performance perspective, Fusion proves to be a faster performing platform than Parallels. Additionally, in our anecdotal hands-on testing we found Fusion to be somewhat more stable than Parallels--which is not necessarily a fair comparison, as we've spent more time using the shipping version of Parallels than we have Fusion. Usability between Fusion and Parallels also differs slightly, and personal preference will likely depend on individual tastes--I find Parallels a bit more intuitive than Fusion, but this could also be a function of my having spent more time with Parallels. CrossOver still has a lot of catching up to do, but the folks over at CodeWeavers appear to be making progress all the time. To date, mainstream gaming on the Mac still has only one significant outlet: using a native Windows install via Boot Camp. All that said, if you all you need to do is run more pedestrian Windows applications on your Mac, such as Outlook or Excel, you are not likely to notice significant performance differences between any of the virtualization options mentioned here--for less resource-intensive applications, the performance of any of these virtulization applications is probably fast enough.
Find out more about how we test systems.
System configuration:
Apple Mac Pro
2x 2.66GHz Intel Xeon 5355 CPUs (8 total cores); 2.048MB DDR2 FB-SDRAM 667MHz memory; 512MB ATI Radeon X1900 graphics card; 500GB Seagate 7,200rpm SATA/150 hard drive
While Apple has done an admirable job of making BootCamp "Applish", and it is remarkably easy to install and use, I'd say using one of the virtualization products is truly easier to both begin using and to actually use day to day for the average new user. They don't require you to reboot, and don't require you to "leave the Mac". Filesharing between OS's for example can be quite painful with BootCamp, versus ridiculously easy with both emulation apps. Fusion, which I've used for months, is amazingly simple to begin using (admittedly, I'm a Windows/VMware Workstation user for quite some time) and makes interactions between OS X and Windows remarkably simple (copy and paste, dragging files in/out, etc).
I do use BootCamp as well - but primarily only to play Flight Simulator X on Vista - since no emulator has robust enough DirectX 10 (or even 9) support to do much gaming while in OS X and virtualized.
it, clearly you don't.
People dislike windows and Microsoft for a myriad of reasons, finding
something you hate and not being able to do anything about it is frustrating.
90% of all personal computers are windows, closer to 97% of all desktop pcs
in the workplace are windows. What if I told you that the Chrysler K car is all
the car you need and ridicule you for wanting anything better, newer, richer
in functionality, works, etc. You want to talk choices, there is not alot out
there because Microsoft operates as a monopoly, because you are blind to it,
is a reason for pity not joking.
For those that are fed up there are now options, obviously native well written
OSX code is preferable, but MS has a direction to obfuscate, ensuring incompatibilities between releases and between competition for the sole
purpose of maintaining market dominance. If you still drink the kool-aid
take a look at the Microsoft's "open" xml file formats.
Mac has become a Universal Machine - the holy grail of computing. It makes UNIX cool.
have Photoshop on my Mac. I only use virtualization for Windows apps like
QuickBooks Premier 2007, which doesn't have a mac version.
run quite fine under Parallels. With DirectX it's a different story. I'd have liked
to see more single CPU comparisions between Fusion and Parallels (which will
probably catch up with multi CPU sooner or later) to get a better picture of
memory, disk and network throughput regardless of raw CPU power. That
would also be more conclusive for the average user who doesn't have 8
cores...
I did some synthetic benchmarks in SiSoft's Sandra and Parallels was about 3
times faster than Fusion there... that musn't apply to "real life", but it's
inteesting.
Also apart from the quote *claiming* that fusion has less overhead: what's
really interesting is, how the performance impact is on OS X while using the
VM, after all you want to use both at the same time.
For my taste your comparison is too shallow.
Most modern CPUs are multi-core. So enabling the dual-core capabilities of Fusion is fair game. If and when Parallels enables multi-core support, we will revisit its performance. Regardless of the total # of cores in our test system, Fusion can take advantage of only up to a total of two of them.
We would have loved to have done much more testing here, but there was only so much we could do in a limited amount of time. As it is, the testing reflected here represents almost a week's worth of testing! And we did even more testing than is mentioned above. Odysseuscm's suggestion to test how the virtualization apps impact the system's overall performance (i.e., how much they slow down the Mac OS) is a good one and one we hope to revisit soon.
rest of my hard drive. When one of the 100 or 200 Thousand viruses to which
Windows is heir invades that partition, I can just wipe it and start over. Or
better yet: Just say no to Windows!
Machine??? System incompatibility aside: Especially as the virtual HD is just an
image file that can be located on an external HD and deleted in an instant. With
a seperate partition Windows is in fact much closer to your OS X partition (could
possibly even damage it if you try hard enough) and erasing a partition is always
more dangerous to HD integrity than just deleting a file. Whereas when OS X
runs Windows more or less as a program it has far more control over what that
program does and may do. Why is it that "apple guys" so often know so little
about computers but have so much opinion?
damage that running Windows can do. Not only that, you can easily boot into
different configurations for security or other reasons.
Not only that, but if you want to minimize the headaches of running
Windows, then why use BootCamp? With virtualization, you can run the
specific Windows application you might need, while still having full access to
the MacOS. Windows apps merely show up as another application in your
dock.
With BootCamp, you have to exist solely in that horrible Windows world.
Which of course increases risks even further - because you will be tempted to
use Windows to access the internet.
I can run Windows apps in virtualization, buit never have to use a web
browser or other software that uses the internet - because I can simply switch
to my Mac web browser, which I prefer. The Windows partition ONLY runs
software that I don't have for the Mac - so it is a very uncluttered, perfectly
clean Windows install.
Running Windows virtually on a Mac is actually much better than running
Windows natively on a PC.
applications I'd like to compare.
about showing how important it is for somewhat time-consuming Win apps to
have access while the one- or two-CPU Mac is handling ordinary functions (e.g.,
networking, listening to Sirius, ...) in the background?
It looks like you chose to test on an 8-core box to maximize the differences
between the two VM systems, which maximizes a VMWare feature, and very little
else. How about choosing the tests to maximize the relevance to users?
Your comment is poorly thought out. If Windows was so great, no one would be buying Macs. If Windows was so great, Apple wouldn't be /gaining/ market share.
People aren't buying Mac so that they can run Windows. People are buying Macs because they are superior. However, they may need to run some applications that are unavailable for OSX.
test, are crazy to perform on a Mac under Windows virtualisation..If I have a Mac
it won't even come to mind to do Quicktime rendering in Windows? Why use
Photoshop under Windows when it comes for Mac. What idiot compares a
scewdriver and a saw in a test where the task is to hammer a nail...
calibrations"
Ahem. Not true. Where have you been living? Under a rock?
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?
command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9023959
"Why use Photoshop under Windows when it comes for Mac." These products are aimed at switchers. Those of us who have Photoshop for windows might not be willing to shell out big bucks for a slightly newer version of photoshop to run on our Macs. For us, this comparison is extremely useful. Unless you're willing to buy all us switchers Adobe CS3 bundles, I think showing consumers how to spend $80 to get the best performance out of what they have in not "stupid" at all.
together very successfully convince most web sites that you're running IE6 on
a Windows PC. (Darwine provides an environment in which the IE6 emulator
can run its instructions.)
Some caveats: you need an Intel-based Mac (the software won't run on
PowerPC Macs), and I've had no luck getting Windows Media files to play.
Thus, certain multimedia sites will not display content.
If your problem resists the Dartwine/ies4osx combination, you may have to
resort to running Explorer under the Windows OS, in a full-blown virtual
Windows environment like VMware Fusion. A bit expensive, especially if you
don't own a Windows installation disc.
Unfortunately, there are still a fair number of sites that suffer from
lazy/incompetent/clueless programming, with a smirking assist from
Microsoft. All you can do is ***** to the webmasters; with the Mac market
share growing, they'll eventually get the message.
other Windows programs as well (though I've heard that game compatibility
will vary). I use Parallels Desktop to run Office 2007 and the performance is
great on my MacBook Pro.
As a very simple alternative to your IE-only web site problem, you can try this
tip that lets you use the Mac's Safari browser but makes web sites think you
are using Internet Explorer:
http://www.ciamug.com/content/Safari_Debug_Menu.html
This tip will let you access IE-only web sites with no problem, but the pages
may not load correctly (since you're actually not using IE. You're only telling
Safari to disguise itself as Internet Explorer).
As a side comment, IE-only web sites are a result of poor web programming
and have become few and far between these past few years, so don't be
worried about having this problem very often (if ever) as you surf around the
internet on your Mac.
on a mac. I am thinking participation in Active Directory, with certs,
kerbreos, GPOs,vpn, etc. This provides me with a work pc that I can snapshot
at anytime to back out any funky change resulting in a less downtime when I
have an outage. Using parallels instead of bootcamp allows me to move files
between windows and OSX, so that I can use mac based office for document
creation and editing but for accessing the work network I am using a
windows based machine with Internet Explorer, vpn, and all the other good
things (solitaire) that comes with windows.
Bootcamp turns your mac into a full blown PC. I understand it is the best
windows Vista machine on the market. hehe.
- Some people need to stay with the PC
- by jscott418 November 22, 2007 5:17 AM PST
- I am not sure why all these people who need Windows don't just stay with a PC?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- Why people need to use Winblows on a mac
- by salacius January 14, 2008 3:10 PM PST
- Anyone who has a mac would rather use an OSX application then have to use
- Like this
-
- by chuckewe November 15, 2008 7:36 PM PST
- I've been with Windows since 3.1, 95 was okay, 98 better, but the blue screens of death became too much of a distraction, and often caused loss of hours of work. Additionally there were memory limitations and to free up "resources" you would have to continue to reboot, sometimes a couple of times a day. XP was a great improvement, once all of the patches and security fixes came out.
- Like this
-
- by ru4real2 May 27, 2009 7:35 AM PDT
- I have apps that I need to use that are Mac only, AND I have apps that I need to use that are PC only. What would you recommend for me, that I buy two computers?!? Being able to run Windows apps on my mac is a MUCH better solution, thank-you very much.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (40 Comments)Why make more work for yourself trying to halfway convert to a Mac?
Virtual software used to run Windows is just that. Virtual. Almost like the real
thing. Key work is Almost. Their is nothing like running software natively.
I agree, that if you want to convert to Mac do it 100%. Make sure the programs
you need are Mac compatible. If they are not then why not just stay with PC.
After all Mac hardware is really no different then PC hardware. Oh it prettier and
that's about it.
a virtualized copy of windows. As it is, people only use windoze, because the
choices are scarce.
Consider this scenario, you have your favorite drill and need to do some
grinding, you can get the grinder or put an attachment on your drill. Except
imagine that your drill is the most treasured tool in your stash, and the
grinder if you were to buy it, breaks down, takes 2 minutes to startup, does a
lousy job and looks like an eye sore.
Aside from the design aesthetics, OS X is a much better OS, with foundations
in BSD.
Keep also in mind that the fastest processors now are faster with more
processing cores then a couple of years ago, back then I am sure you felt
windows was as fast as it could be, that is how fast it is with virtualization
today.
During all of this time, I've spent thousands of dollars on software, building databases, Wordperfect Docs which can't be run on an Intel mac. DVD making software just stinks on Windows, becoming more and more resource hogs, as they continue to bloat the software.
After years of having to do reinstalls, I'd had enough. I bought a used Macbook Pro. The learning curve has been tolerable.
However, as I work in the legal field, I have to run Wordperfect as all of our macros, templates and those of other offices are running Wordperfect. Corel has indicated they will not be porting it to a Mac version.
So I only use the Windows in VMFUSION ware for that purpose. Besides, if I ever want to purchase a newer faster lighter or more feature rich windows machine, Microsoft has told me I have to give up Windows XP and use VISTA, which is incompatible with many existing programs and hardware. We already went through that with the switch to XP, when does it stop?
Now that I've switched to the Mac, I'll never go back. Besides, running XP in VMWARE, is the most stable Windows machine I've ever run.