[dayglored]

> I upgraded earlier this week. Version 5 is faster than version 4 with XP. I have not compared benchmark speeds tho.

I don't doubt the claim that they sped up their code, and good for them.

I'm only saying that (except for a rigged case) virtualization can't run faster than native code on the hardware (unless the native code is really stupid-slow). If Parallels has figured out how to make software that runs so fast that it actually beats the hardware, somebody will be in for a Nobel in Physics -- they'll have invented the equivalent of a perpetual motion machine!

I've generally used VMware products, but a few co-workers have used Parallels and say it historically has lagged behind VMware in speed and features. I suppose this means Parallels is catching up, which is good.

[Terpfen]

I'm only saying that (except for a rigged case) virtualization can't run faster than native code on the hardware (unless the native code is really stupid-slow). If Parallels has figured out how to make software that runs so fast that it actually beats the hardware, somebody will be in for a Nobel in Physics -- they'll have invented the equivalent of a perpetual motion machine!

It's a slightly rigged claim, in that Apple doesn't yet officially support Windows 7 in Boot Camp. This means the drivers aren't where they should be, which means it's entirely viable that Parallels 5 does beat Boot Camp in Windows 7, but not because of anything under Parallels' hood. This claim will dissipate when Apple officially supports Win7 and benchmarks are run between Fusion, Parallels, and Boot Camp.