Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: A question about BW9 MAC compared to using BW9 Windows via Parallels - Battery life

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3

    Default A question about BW9 MAC compared to using BW9 Windows via Parallels - Battery life

    I just recently got a MacBook Air. I have Parallels 9 to run some legacy XP programs that I still find valuable. Would my battery last longer if I ran BibleWorks on OSX instead the windows version via Parallels? In other words, what is the "energy impact" of the native Mac version of BibleWorks compared to running it through Parallels?
    Last edited by navilluspm; 09-03-2014 at 08:44 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by navilluspm View Post
    I just recently got a MacBook Air. I have Parallels 9 to run some legacy XP programs that I still find valuable. Would my battery last longer if I ran BibleWorks on OSX instead the windows version via Parallels? In other words, what is the "energy impact" of the native Mac version of BibleWorks compared to running it through Parallels?
    Having purchased the mac installer, I will answer my own question (in case any one else wonders):

    Using the Mac installer is more energy efficient that running the program through Parallels 9 on XP. (I thought this would be the case - this is why I bought the mac installer)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by navilluspm View Post
    Having purchased the mac installer, I will answer my own question (in case any one else wonders):

    Using the Mac installer is more energy efficient that running the program through Parallels 9 on XP. (I thought this would be the case - this is why I bought the mac installer)
    Hello navilluspm,

    What do you mean by the Mac Installer?

    My experience is the following. Up till about two months ago, I had BW9 installed on BootCamp, and accessed it via Parallels with Windows XP. This gave me two ways of accessing the Windows partition, but I found that both decreased the battery time by over 50% (3 to 3 1/2 hours, as opposed to 7 using only the Mac partition).

    Two months, I replaced my hard drive, and installed Parallels only, with Windows 7, not using BootCamp at all. My Mac is now close to 5 years old and so my battery only lasts about 3 to 3 1/2 hours with constant use. But, my impression is that this setup doesn't drain the battery nearly as much as with the previous setup. Of course, this may also be due to the fact that Windows 7 is less demanding on batteries than XP. Someone else who is more up on Windows would have to tell you that.

    I wish I had a more recent battery to be able to give you some more definite information (I will probably be replacing it fairly soon), but my impression at present is, If there is a difference between Mac only and Mac with Parallels (not using BootCamp), it is fairly negligible. I would assume that, concerning your question, that is the bottom line.

    Regards,

    Donald Cobb
    Aix-en-Provence, France

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Thank you Donald for the reply. I was interested in the difference of running the Mac version of BW9 compared to the windows version of BW9 via Parallels. I purchased the Mac installer from Bibleworks (the upgrade program that allows me to install BW9 directly in OS X, and found it to be more energy efficient when running on the battery (hence I answered by own question simply by trying it out).

    It is interesting that you find running Parallels with windows 7 more efficient than running XP. I actually found to opposite to be true, which is why I downgraded to some old XP disks that I had lying around. I really don't use it much - mainly for for an old program called Hymnsoft (originally written for win 95) that I use for my worship prep. There is a newer version of this program, but it doesn't have the "Planner" like the old version - so I stuck with the old.

    Thanks again for your reply.

    In Christian love,
    Michael

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by navilluspm View Post
    Thank you Donald for the reply. I was interested in the difference of running the Mac version of BW9 compared to the windows version of BW9 via Parallels. I purchased the Mac installer from Bibleworks (the upgrade program that allows me to install BW9 directly in OS X, and found it to be more energy efficient when running on the battery (hence I answered by own question simply by trying it out).

    It is interesting that you find running Parallels with windows 7 more efficient than running XP. I actually found to opposite to be true, which is why I downgraded to some old XP disks that I had lying around. I really don't use it much - mainly for for an old program called Hymnsoft (originally written for win 95) that I use for my worship prep. There is a newer version of this program, but it doesn't have the "Planner" like the old version - so I stuck with the old.

    Thanks again for your reply.

    In Christian love,
    Michael
    Michael,

    Thanks for your feedback. Yes, I think the Mac version of BW9 will necessarily use less battery power than running Parallels and Windows. I hadn't understood that when you were speaking of the Mac installer, you were simply talking about installing the Mac version. Sorry about that!

    As for my experience, I have the feeling that the difference I've found in energy efficiency between XP and Windows7 is more due to the fact that, before changing to the latter, I had XP installed first on BootCamp, which I then opened via Parallels. Using only Parallels (I completely uninstalled BootCamp upon recommendation of my Mac dealer) seems to be much more energy efficient.

    Blessings,

    Don

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •