Win speed using BootCamp install?

When you use a Boot Camp partition & Windows installation through Parallels, what is the speed of operations relative to a wholly virtual Win installation?

I love Parallels and want to use it for running Windows, but, to be candid, Boot Camp as a direct boot into Windows is MUCH faster, and you can run many more programs overlapping without penalty. By contrast, my Parallels Win install seems to work fine when you don't ask it to do more than one thing at a time.

Also, are there tips and tricks for setting up and speeding up a standard Parallels Windows installation?

Thanks to all--

 

1. Set memory for Virtual Machine to less than 1 GB
2. Perform Mac and Windows side disk defragmentation http://www.xvsxp.com/system/system_tools_defrag.php
3. Set Adjust memory limit from Auto to Manual at Parallels Desktop -Preferences-Memory, and set limit a bit more higher than VM memory
4. Disable Themes in Windows XP serives.msc stop Themes service
5. If you are running in Coherence, try to switch to Single Window, or lower Mac resolution
6. Some antivirus software can load CPU when Heuristic Prediction is set, or Tamper protection (Symantec, MacAffey), adjust settings to risk you are supposed, high security settings is not always good idea, as it can also affect software running
7. Run msconfig , and disable unneeded startup items
See http://www.netsquirrel.com/msconfig/msconfig_xp.html
8. Make sure that no VNC,or remote desktop connection is established to Mac, this can slowdown Parallels Desktop

 

Thanks for the list. Have already done many of these and I will check each again. Currently have VM memory at 1024MB. I was thinking more would better for Win--not so?

Further, can you say whether using Boot Camp as a VM in Parallels is faster or slower than using a wholly virtual setup? Right now I have a Parallels VM that does NOT use Boot Camp, but I was wondering which arrangement is quicker, more powerful, more capable, etc.

 

If you are using Boot Camp on another physical Volume, in this case such VM is faster, also using Boot Camp as VM doesn't create additional virtual I/O level (virtual disk)
So, in any case Boot Cam as VM is faster

 

Sorry to be dense, but do I correctly take this answer to mean that running Parallels using Boot Camp Win XP will in most cases be quicker than running Parallels with a wholly virtual machine?

The Boot Camp Win XP would be on the same hard drive but in a different partition--does that constitute another "volume" as you've used it below?

This is on an iMac 20" 2.0GHz Core Duo with 2G of ram and a 250GB 7200RPM drive.

 

Yes, Parallels using Boot Camp will be faster

 

Thanks. May give it a try.