A simple study on battery performance when running multiple operating systems on a MacBook Pro using VirtualBox vs. Parallels Desktop for Mac.
VirtualBox is a great product and it is free. Before I upgraded my copy of Parallels 3 to Parallels Desktop 4 for Mac, I decided to give VirtualBox a shot and see what this free virtualization platform is all about.
VirtualBox preformed very well, it took some minor work to get my os x partitions mapped, nevertheless, it worked perfectly and I was able to play video clips from my hard drive and online videos without a glitch.
One issue that bugged me about Parallels Desktop 3.0 was the heavy CPU load I experienced when running windows even when no windows applications are launched. VirtualBox had a much lower CPU load but still it was peaking at about 10% which is acceptable, however, I was looking for a much lower CPU load due to the fact that I’m forced to run Windows XP for hours at a time using my MacBook Pro while powered through the battery. Lower CPU load will eventually give my laptop longer battery life.
Not very happy with the CPU load, I upgraded to Parallels Desktop 4.0 for Mac and to my surprise the upgrade was worth it. Parallels has finally managed to move this product from a beta like application to the best virtualization platform I’ve ever used. My peak CPU usage while Windows XP is active in the background moved down to an average of 1% and that increased my battery discharge time by 56 minutes and one could imagine how happy I am with the results.
If you need virtualization on your portable Mac and you use your battery extensively then Parallels Desktop 4.0 for Mac is the Ultimate choice. Otherwise, I’m really a fan of VirtualBox and I believe that with time, VirtualBox is going to deliver a product comparable to the current version of Parallels.
0 Responses to “VirtualBox VS Parallels Desktop on MacBooks”