That's gotta be BS. I have yet to see -any- virtualization scheme that can run a VM (Parallels, VMware, etc.) faster than on native hardware (BootCamp). Even ESX, a totally stripped down mini-Linux with no USB support, etc. for big server use, doesn't make that claim.
Somebody in their marketing department is doing some "creative" testing to come up with this data, assuming there is any. I call BS, except maybe for some special cases they manipulated so they could make this claim.
If in fact Apple's BootCamp drivers are so slow that VM drivers beat them, is speed them up. Yet, the fastest native Windows machines have often been MacBooks in BootCamp, over the past few years. I don't think it's a problem.
Anyway, it's impossible for a virtual machine to run faster than on native hardware, since you're going through more software layers. So this has to be some special case crap argument.
This one's gonna look awful silly when it's debunked...
I upgraded earlier this week. Version 5 is faster than version 4 with XP. I have not compared benchmark speeds tho.
I can see how the claim could be true if the virtualization software does a better job of managing the disk cache than the native OS. In such a case, real-world application benchmarks would finish in less elapsed time, although actual CPU time would still be larger, due to the virtualizer having to trap system calls in the VM and emulate them to a certain extent.