Windows virtualization - Q or Parallels?

dona83 · Nov 6th, 2006, 03:34 PM

My friend just bought a brand new MacBook. She still needs Windows for some of her apps. Q is free, Parallels costs $95. She's a poor student, should Q be sufficient or is Parallels a worthwhile app for her to get?

Apple101 · Nov 6th, 2006, 03:41 PM

	Quote:			Originally Posted by dona83
	My friend just bought a brand new MacBook. She still needs Windows for some of her apps. Q is free, Parallels costs $95. She's a poor student, should Q be sufficient or is Parallels a worthwhile app for her to get?

I believe Q is an emulator and parallels is a virtual machine. She would be much better off with Parallels.

da_jonesy · Nov 6th, 2006, 04:02 PM

How quickly does she need something? She might want to wait for VMWare to release their mac product.

Heart · Nov 6th, 2006, 04:17 PM

From what I read on the interweb, Q sucks.

VMWare Fusion is in Beta and you may still be able to 'test' it via this article on UNEASYsilence.com .

VMWare Fusion download leaked on the net

.

Vexel · Nov 6th, 2006, 04:41 PM

FWIW, Q is an open source project. It's being developed by a couple of people in their spare time. It is/was emulation at some point.. but I know it was the plan to bring in virtualization. Tho, I'm not sure how far they've come.

Stephanie · Nov 6th, 2006, 04:58 PM

I use Parallels. I don't use it all the time, but IMHO it is well worth the money - it does what it does very well.

-Stephanie

dona83 · Nov 6th, 2006, 06:25 PM

Wow, Q is slow. Really slow.

Nov 6th, 2006, 06:34 PM

Q is a port of QEMU. It is a _very_ low level emulator (it emulates the processor, not any operating system level software). On the x86 linux version (and I think windows) there is kqemu, which turns it into hardware virtualization in terms of speed/performance. I know Mike, the author of Q, I have worked with him in the past, super nice guy, and yes it's FOSS software and he just does it in his spare time. I don't think he's interested in porting the kqemu bits at this point in the game, and it's also worth noting that the initial port of Q was in order to run x86 OSes on PowerPC. Mac going over to Intel just opened up the door for this project that things like Paralells are doing.

If you want good performance speed wise I'd go with paralells. As for VMWare I would wait and see what happens with it. I've used some versions of VMWare that were total stinkers as far as performance goes, so I'd say wait and see is the best approach for their software.

CubaMark · Nov 6th, 2006, 07:58 PM

Hmm. Got a call from a friend today who is setting up a new business. The business software - miracle of miracles - runs on the Intel Macintosh platform, so she's getting a nice big iMac.

Problem: the security monitoring system (clients enter a secure section of the business via card swipe) is Windows-only.

The idea is for the front desk computer to serve dual purpose (I've already suggested a second, el-cheapo PC for the security end of things).

Question: How stable is Parallels, Q, or whatever else for 24/7 uptime? We're going to load the iMac with gobs of RAM, etc.

M.

dona83 · Nov 6th, 2006, 08:18 PM

Very stable on both sides, but Parallels is like driving through a clear night with really good Xenon lights while Q is like driving through a night with torrential rain, potential for hydroplaning galore, one headlight burnt out and the other dimmer than the future of low lying areas of this world.