Wikipedia article on virtualization said:Hardware virtualization or platform virtualization refers to the creation of a virtual machine that acts like a real computer with an operating system. Software executed on these virtual machines is separated from the underlying hardware resources. For example, a computer that is running Microsoft Windows may host a virtual machine that looks like a computer with the Ubuntu Linux operating system; Ubuntu-based software can be run on the virtual machine.
Thank you for your detailed reply. I have a fairly good understanding of Virtual machines and dual boot systems. I have used and set up 10+ virtual machines and currently have VMware on my desktop hosting Linux and OSX. I just never owned a Mac, neither used the Parallels application. I do need to have a way of running Windows since there are couple programs that do not have Mac equivalents. It will be given to me through work IT if I go with a Mac so I do not have the say on if I want Parallels or VMware. I maybe be able to talk them in to making the system dual boot with Windows if needed though. Which is why I asked what the performance hit on a Parallels virtual machine would be versus running native windows. I do understand that it depends on the resources you assign to it, but I also know assigning half the resources does not necessary make it half as powerful. There is overhead and software emulation that goes in to play. I wanted to find out about that. If parallels made full use of the ram and CPU that it has assigned to it and basically can split the resources split in half, I would go with that, if not I may consider the dual boot.
Ps: I don't play games, at least on my work computer.
It's the same VM. The latter is called "coherence" mode and all it does is essentially chop the framebuffer around the application, shove it in a native OSX window and then allow you to position it wherever you want. In my opinion it doesn't work smoothly enough to use and I prefer everything to be it a single desktop view.
Parallels 9, currently in beta testing, supposedly improves performance in Coherence mode.
Personally, I'm OK with just running a Parallels session in its own Spaces window.
Personally I like Fusion, and it works great for normal applications.
I dont try and game or do anything crazy resource wise on it though.
I really hate how they save some of these improvements for a major version number bump and charge you another $50 to get them. I understand they need to make money but I think these costs are a little high for upgrades. Hell, we'll get an entire major OS upgrade for probably $20 when Mavericks comes out. I'd be fine paying that for Parallels too, but not $50.
I might start using VirtualBox soon since I don't even utilize the coherence and I can easily set up my own file sharing between operating systems.
I don't think $50 for the ability to run basically any OS you want without buying new hardware is overpriced at all.
Now, VMWare's enterprise prices THAT is overpriced.
It's $50 for an upgrade from the previous version. All it seemingly changed is some fixes to support Mavericks and improvements to Windows 8 support as well as some increased disk speeds. I have no problem with their $80 cost for a non upgrade fresh install, but $50 for an upgrade with a fairly weak changelog is a bit steep.
People still think that the advertised features are the entirety of the changelog? Really?
I'm also not sure why you think paying $30 less for what you describe as a "fairly weak changelog" is better than paying full price for the same thing.
To be clear: it costs 63% of the full retail price to get incremental improvements for existing customers. All I'm saying is that it seems to be priced a bit high, especially for those that own the immediately previous version. Granted, there could be more changes than what they advertise, but those will be even less important than the main bullet points and could probably have existed in a standard patch.
Not trying to derail this thread