Parallels and Bootcamp Thread

Question

Id like to start a thread involving the 2. I am would like to get users of both to state their observations and personal opinions. Please take a few moments to add a comment.
This is to help me and others when trying to decide which to use. I have no choice, I need XP on here, but I HATE the thought of it being inside my clean, pure Mac! lol
Lets see if I have it correct:
Bootcamp:
-Software to bootup Windows. You cannot simply switch over from OS X.
-You must partition the drive and install Windows on the partition
-Allows you to use 100% of the Mac's resources
-easliy "unpartition" drive if Windows is to be removed in the future
Parallels:
-Software allowing one to switch back and forth from OSX and Windows and also allows one to use both at the same time
-Must still partition the drive, but can specify the amount
-Apps. running in Windows must share resources with OSX, so this may cause Windows apps to run slower.
-does not offer an "unpartiton" option. You must wipe the entire drive
Have I got the basics? I will edit this if not. Thank you!

Answer 1

I'll post to this because while I support the "search first" concept often the information is scattered in multiple threads interlaced with other comments and it takes a ton of time to decipher it all.
Also in this case I believe both Parallels and Bootcamp have changed the personal computing world enough that I believe we need to examine them together in detail:
First off: I purchased a MacBookPro and a MacMini based on Intel BECAUSE of these two technologies.
My work requires programming in Windows XP under Delphi. Yet I prefer Unix and OS X is Unix with a killer GUI. For many years I wanted a notebook that would give me everything in one nice package. The MBP is that notebook and I can only see them getting better and better. Mine has been the best notebook I've ever owned even with the little things like warped lid etc.
Parallels simply put is the answer to a dream for me. All I need Windows for is to run my programming environment and test. I need internet/network connectivity. In Parallels I get all that and more.
I installed BootCamp the day the beta came available and it was great. No doubt a killer way to run Windows. But I lost OS X. IE I couldn't switch. For me this was not much better than having a Windows based laptop. I wanted both.
I think what Parallels has accomplished is simply amazing and I participate in the Parallels forums. But I see alot of people asking for things that are very difficult. Basically they want Parallels to fully support highspeed 3D graphics and full USB 2.0. Both of these things give Windows alone a headache. To ask that it be done in a virtualization environment seems to be asking the impossible.
Yet Parallels claims there will be answers to these questions. For now I can tell any of you that are concerned... I have not found ONE SINGLE PROGRAM that does not run in Parallels UNLESS it is doing something hardware specific.
Add to that the speed which which it runs (almost native!) and you simply can't go wrong.
Furthermore as people here have stated. Parallels uses a disk file to represent the hard disk. To me this is BETTER than having a partition. One simple reason... You can easily make backups of the ENTIRE hard disk. My Windows XP Parallels file is about 16gb. It takes about 5 minutes but on a regular basis and before EVERY new install of anything in Windows or OS X I copy it to my backup disk. I have about 5 archived versions of this file.
In the event something goes bad in a Windows install... No problem. Quit the VM, copy the "good" file back in place and you've just gone back in time BETTER than any of the restore point stuff in Win XP ever could be.
That alone makes Parallels an AMAZING choice for people doing testing and development. You can have a "fresh & clean" environment at anytime by copying over a saved off disk file.
Bootcamp, since it puts WinXP on a disk partition you are resigned to using some of the disk cloning software to achieve the same thing. Most of those like Norton GoBack and others require reboots to "unlock" the volume for cloning. During this reboot you are hosed and unable to use your machine.
With Parallels while I'm backing up my VM file I'm in Entourage answering messages or surfing the web in Safari/OmniWeb.
If I were Apple I would be buying up Parallels as we speak and making sure this technology was tightly integrated into Leopard or whatever is destined next.
Imagine an OS that could boast: Install ANY OS with in this OS and run it at close to native speed in a window! That is what Parallels gives OS X at the current moment. If Apple bought it, put it in Leopard or whatever and didn't kill it too bad with registrations and limitations it might place a serious crimp in M$ plans for XP in the future. They have NOTHING close to this.
So that's my sales pitch for Parallels. (Parallels... I'll expect my check in the mail!!) It's not for everyone! If you want to run XP based fast graphics games... You will probably have trouble. If you want to control various strange USB devices requiring drivers. You will probably have trouble. If you want to install and run the mariad variety of XP software and be able to use it while you are still running everything you like and love about OS X then it is the way to go.
The ONLY caveat... MEMORY! Load your machine up to the max! MacPRO users have a special problem in that they can put more memory in than Parallels supports but those issues are being worked on.
I'm hoping someday a firmware/ROM fix comes out for the MBP that enables us to put 4gb in these little notebooks. That would rock.
Mark