Newsgroup: it.comp.macintosh
Titolo: [Virtualizzatori] Bootcamp vs Parallels Vs Fusion

<
http://www.mactech.com/articles/mactech/Vol.24/24.02/VirtualizationBenc
hmark/>
Conclusion:
Boot Camp, VMware Fusion and Parallels are all very good, each in their
own way. You should make your decisions based on what your needs are as
a result.
        If you don't want Mac integration, and just want to run Windows,
go with Boot Camp. It's faster than a PC anyway.
        If you want a virtualization product (that allows you to run
Windows alongside Mac OS X), and you want the best performance for the
types of things that we tested, then clearly you need to run XP and not
Vista. Furthermore, in our tests, both VMware Fusion and Parallels
performed well, and were a good user experience. That said, Parallels
was somewhat faster in general than VMware Fusion for XP.
        If you want the best virtualization performance for Vista, then
VMware Fusion is your choice. And, if you want to keep your Mac OS X and
Windows environments completely separate, VMware Fusion's design may be
your better choice. (And, although we didn't test it, we would expect
VMware Fusion to have better multi-processor support if you really have
an application that is designed to take advantage of it.) If your goal
is tight integration between one or more Windows applications and Mac OS
X, Parallels is the clear winner when running either XP or Vista. And,
as we said before, if you want the best XP performance with the types of
applications tested here, Parallels is not only faster than VMware
Fusion, but it's faster than Boot Camp on average for the applications
that we tested.
-- 
I've always been more concerned with users. )\._.,--....,'``.
Programmers do their work but once, while  /,   _.. \   _\  (`._._,
users are saddled with it ever thereafter. `_.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

  hmark/>
Avrei detto www.parallels.com... :-\
-- 
maurizio - 
http://web.mac.com/maurizio_marra
   lc8 adv "big orange" exc 450 "orangina"
           cb 750 four ss "'76er"
the more I think (different), the less I do

 Conclusion:
If you want a virtualization product (compatible with a wider range of
operating systems than any competing product), and you want the best
support for 64-bit operating systems and virtual machines with up to 8
GB of memory, then clearly you need VMware Fusion.
:P

 If you want
If you want to use windows on a mac you surely have some strange 
mental-health problem.
So, you have better buying a pee-cee.


 GB of memory, then clearly you need VMware Fusion.
If you want make me cry, well, you're done
monster


 Conclusion:
Per adesso Windows no grazie, ho già dato :)
-- 
VeMa
http://s.b.t.myminicity.com/
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 a result.
Ciao, io ho optato per VMware Fusion: in seguito a esperienze positive
con l'ESX Infrastructure e  Converter, ho deciso per l'acquisto e devo
dire che ne sono pienamente soddisfatto.
Non avendo tempo da perdere con futili guerre di religione, e avendo
bisogno di lavorarci con il mio notebook, posso dire che ora con il
mio Mac posso fare TUTTO nel migliore dei modi.
Secondo me anche i più integralisti dovrebbero dare un'occhiata...e
trovare il coraggio di dire la verità! :-P
CIAO!

 that we tested.
Leopard ci ha un kernel talmente fico che raddrizza pure Windows.
-- 
blog:  
http://www.akropolix.net/rik0/blogs
 | Uccidete i filosofi,
site:  
http://www.akropolix.net/rik0/
      | tenetevi riso e
forum: 
http://www.akropolix.net/forum/
     | bacchette per voi.

 So, you have better buying a pee-cee.
I don't have to pee to run windows.
