> I've heard anecdotal evidence that VMWare Fusion is better,
> but I've only used the Linux version.
As a heavy user of both products under Mac OS X on an eight-core Mac
Pro, I find VMWare to be far more robust and feature rich than
Parallels. Regardless, only Parallels supports 3D OpenGL acceleration
(Windows only).
Accordingly, I use Parallels on the desktop (only) and VMWare everywhere
else.
Cheers,
Warren
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Harry Powell
> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:08 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Mac pro
>
> Hi
>
> I use Parallels on my Mac at home for both Windows XP and Ubuntu - it
> works fine for me when running the more number-crunching parts of CCP4
> - haven't really looked at graphics programs like Coot & MG.
>
> At work I'm running VMWare (Workstation 6.0.0) on a Linux box for
> Vista, and that, too, is fine.
>
> If anyone from Redmond is reading this, both my Windows licenses are
> legit.
>
> On 6 Jan 2009, at 17:55, Nathaniel Echols wrote:
>
> > There are also options for virtualization of Windoze and Linux via
> > the software Parallels although I have yet to test this out.
> >
> > Parallels is okay; I only use it for testing GUI code on Linux. It
> > doesn't support multiple processors, which probably isn't necessary
> > for most people. The graphics support was somewhat flaky in the
> > past, but it now emulates 3D acceleration well enough to run Coot or
> > PyMOL. I've heard anecdotal evidence that VMWare Fusion is better,
> > but I've only used the Linux version.
> >
> > Unrelated advice: try iWork before spending a massive amount of
> > money on MS Office. It's only about $40-$50 with the academic
> > discount, and much less bloated. It'll still read and export Office
> > documents, although I don't know how robust this is.
> >
> > -Nat
>
> Harry
> --
> Dr Harry Powell, MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, MRC Centre,
> Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 0QH
>
>
>
|