Hi, sorry if this has been discussed ad nauseum but I've searched through many posts and the more I read the more confused I am. Many of the posters don't mention if they're running latest version of Parallels (2.5.3188) and OS X (10.4.9) with Boot Camp 1.2 and recent Apple hardware so I'm not sure if the problems have been resolved yet. I'm a long-time Windows user with a new MBP 2.16 C2D notebook with 2GB RAM running OS X 10.4.9. Just bought Windows XP Pro SP2 OEM CD. I'm trying to determine whether I should run Parallels via Boot Camp partition (have not setup yet) or run as new VM. I like the option of being able to use XP natively via BootCamp (easier to maintain one copy of XP and run graphics intensive video-rendering software) so I'm inclined to go this route and point Parallels at my Boot Camp partition BUT: 1. Does v.2.5.3188 work properly pointed at BC partition? Read reports of XP OS corruption and other issues. 2. Do you need to reactivate Windows XP a 2nd time in Parallels after initial Boot Camp install of WinXP? I've read various reports of Microsoft not liking people reactivating 2nd, 3rd time etc even if on same machine (and I assume I'll have to do this if XP crashes under Boot Camp or Parallels and I have to keep reinstalling) 3. How long does it take before you can logon to XP when Parallels is using Boot Camp? Some people have stated it takes over 4min which is longer than booting XP on my regular Windows machine! This would indicate an advantage to not running Parallels via Boot Camp as I understand Parallels via VM is much faster to load. 4. Any other performance related reason why it's better to not point Parallels at Boot Camp copy of WinXP? If the Parallels via Boot Camp option isn't stable then I'll have to install XP as VM. Thanks in advance for your input.
Bootcamp works. Parallels works. Many people, (but not me, yet), have got Parallels/Boot Camp to work. However, it seems to introduce another level of complexity of things that can go wrong...but this is better than having two different XP machines and installing duplicate copies of SW on them. My plan was to bite the bullet and migrate to a Parallels/Bootcamp hybrid at the same to I migrated to Vista at some point in the future. I don't need the advanced features of Vista right now, because the SW I use does not take advantage of them - but someday it will. With the recent announcement of Parallels 3.0, I am rethinking whether I would really need boot camp at all. Direct X Support was the biggest hole, and the "eye candy" is probably one of the most obvious things that future SW developers will take advantage of over time. Now there is an upgrade path that opens the door for that, although it will never be quite native performance. But HW keeps getting faster so it may not matter. The Microsoft reactivation issue can be easily handled in XP...this may not be the case for Vista. Just my opinion.
Thanks for the update, I wasn't sure whether the people who were complaining were just the minority. Seeing all those "Parallels has no customer support" postings on the internet makes me wary of purchasing the software.
