Parallels or Fusion? [Archive]

plunar

Sep 6, 2007, 02:42 PM

iElin

Sep 7, 2007, 03:45 AM

I guess the only way to find out what suits you, is to try them both and see for yourself wich one you like. I like fusion better, but that's just me. :p

chas0001

Sep 7, 2007, 03:55 AM

I have both but prefer Fusion. It does not seem to be as processor intensive as Parallels in addition to having 64Bit support. My boot camp partition is also easier to use in Fusion, with parallels I had all sorts of problems.

Hope this helps. :)

RZetlin

Sep 7, 2007, 07:50 AM

Here's my experience in using both of them.

Fusion: Faster than Parallels. Hardware compatibility is not as good as Parallels. (Fusion can't detect my wacom tablet automatically)

Parallels: More tools than Fusion - it comes with Kaspersky Security Software. The performance speed is not as good as Fusion though.

byakuya

Sep 7, 2007, 08:00 AM

I recommend Fusion as well.
I have tried both and posted some thoughts about both products on my blog but the performace argument made Fusion the better choice for me.
Plus the Kaspersky argument for Parallels is nice but you can get a lot of freeware antivirus software for Windows that is just as good as Kaspersky. Apparently the reason for Fusion being so much faster than Parallels is that Fusion uses both cores of the processors and Parallels doesn't.

byakuya

jf8

Sep 7, 2007, 08:09 AM

Parallels' Coherence works better than Unity and it has more supporting features (SmartSelect), but at least in the betas, the stability of the virtualization itself has left a lot to be desired. When I sleep my iMac (Mid-2007), any running Parallels VM restarts. This has always worked flawlessly in VMware in Windows and OS X, even in betas. And whenever I try to suspend my Parallels VM, it is unable to wake up.

Also, I've had two times where my system has locked up because of Parallels.

In other words, Parallels' basic functionality - the part of it that should remain mostly unchanged - is the part that isn't working very well. I'll probably end up moving to VMware in a few weeks, and hopefully they'll release a new version that catches up with some of Parallels' features pretty soon.

I have no doubt that VMware is much better at virtualization. They're also much better at releasing products that work as intended.

thegrifman

Sep 7, 2007, 08:10 AM

Fusion uses both cores of the processors and Parallels doesn't.

Just a quick qualifier on that is that Fusion only uses 1 core by default, you have to go into the Virtual Machine setup and tell it to use both cores if that's what you want. I did that for my Vista partition and it made a pretty good difference in speed.

Schtumple

Sep 7, 2007, 08:16 AM

Fusion is faster

Parallels has more tools

I tried Parallels first then after a massive crash that completely wrecked my Windows Image, I'm on fusion, fusion does load quite a bit faster, even when set to 300mb odd ram and doesn't slow my mac up as much.

If you're not looking for any specific features and just want to get on with it, get fusion.

hajime

Sep 7, 2007, 08:27 AM

VMware offers excellent tech support and services. Parallels treats their customers with no respect. Usually they just ignore our emails.

odinsride

Sep 7, 2007, 08:51 AM

Adding my vote for Fusion as well.

Tried both, had too many problems with Parallels. Also, you can't go wrong with Fusion, VMware has been in the virtualization business for years now.

ViperDesign

Sep 7, 2007, 09:11 AM

which one has the best 3d support? I only need windows for one thing, Madden 08 on the PC. Which one will work with Madden?

GavinTing

Sep 7, 2007, 09:20 AM

Father Jack

Sep 7, 2007, 09:26 AM

I have never used Fusion but I had some trouble with the early versions of Parallel's.

A few weeks ago I installed version 3 and I have found it absolutely first class .. :)

thegrifman

Sep 7, 2007, 09:26 AM

which one has the best 3d support? I only need windows for one thing, Madden 08 on the PC. Which one will work with Madden?

Neither will work with Madden '08. Fusion only supports DirextX 8.1 and not all DX 8.1 games at that, for instance Sim City uses DX 7 and runs but you can't really see anything. I believer parallels only supports 8. something as well.

ViperDesign

Sep 7, 2007, 09:28 AM

I haven't tried either yet, but have you tried downloading the trials to see which you like?

http://www.vmware.com/download/fusion/eval.html
http://www.parallels.com/en/download/desktop/

They both come with 30/15 day evaluation periods ;)

I downloaded the parralles but of course I never used it and it said my 30 day is up so i would have to purchase it :(

vmware for whatever reason does not find my internet connection just gives me a red x over it (using vista) so I can't use that.

ViperDesign

Sep 7, 2007, 09:29 AM

Neither will work with Madden '08. Fusion only supports DirextX 8.1 and not all DX 8.1 games at that, for instance Sim City uses DX 7 and runs but you can't really see anything. I believer parallels only supports 8. something as well.

Well that stinks, i wonder why they can't support something higher..

odinsride

Sep 7, 2007, 09:50 AM

which one has the best 3d support? I only need windows for one thing, Madden 08 on the PC. Which one will work with Madden?

Bootcamp for gaming.

SDDave2007

Sep 7, 2007, 10:01 AM

Well I use Parallels 3.0 and have no complaints.
As far as tech support.. I had a few questions.. emailed them and had answers in less than 24 hours.
I run a MacPro with 1gig Ram.... and the machine and Parallels on active 24/7 with nary a problem.

Coherence mode is awesome. The windows toolbar sits right on top of the Apple Dock, and I can run programs in both OS as if they were one [even cut and paste between the two]

Have set up a "shared" folder which is visible to WinXP and OSX on my Mac, as well as being seen as a "network" drive to the other computers in my LAN.

As far as speed? It blows my 2.2gig Win Box away [yeah some of that is dual core vs single]

So my suggestion... try them both.... pick the one YOU like

MK2007

Sep 7, 2007, 10:30 AM

I used the Parallels trial version months ago. Parallels seemed alright with the limited experience I had with it. Since then Fusion has become available. The discussion comments here indicate Fusion might be a better product.

For my purposes I only plan to use Microsoft Office 2003 with one of these emulators. Can Fusion or Parallels handle Office 2003 without any problems? I have an unopened copy of Parallels that could be returned if Fusion is a better choice for me. I plan to run Fusion or Parallels on a MacBook and iMac.

Floris

Sep 7, 2007, 11:13 AM

can someone just tell which one is better? i don't want to deal with a bunch of crap. fusion seems more appealing though, considering they won't give me upgrade pricing even though i just bought their damn thing jan (won't even reply to inquiring emails) and applestore seems to be promoting fusion over parallels too....

I wanted to get VMware, but Parallels was in my eyes the first and the best to realize what I wanted out of a Mac (in regards to running those little progs I needed when moving over).

Now, to be honest, I think I will have to get a license for VMWare Fusion, and perhaps stop using parallels, it's just a bit smoother and better. But .. I am optimistic and will give the company some time to fix the little issues parallels has.

grovertdog

Sep 7, 2007, 11:17 AM

I haven't tried the VMWare product, but I've been enjoying Parallels since the beginning of 2007 and love it. It recognizes all of my USB devices, prints to my strange configuration of network printers, and generally gets the job done. You DO need more than minimal ram for this to work, though. Forget trying with any machine with 512mb, and I'd start with no less than 1.5gb, say 700mb allocated to MS, for good results

byakuya

Sep 7, 2007, 11:20 AM

Bootcamp for gaming.

I totally agree.
If you are a gamer and don't own a Pc for that Boot Camp is the way to go. Virtualization and games are just a bad combination.

byakuya

Arcus

Sep 7, 2007, 11:28 AM

VMware offers excellent tech support and services. Parallels treats their customers with no respect. Usually they just ignore our emails.

I had the same experience.

ViperDesign

Sep 7, 2007, 12:03 PM

Bootcamp for gaming.

Yeah that is what I currently do but I hate having to get away from mac os :)

mankar4

Sep 7, 2007, 11:56 PM

For you guys who use Bootcamp for gaming, how many gb did you partition? I am thinking of doing the same thing, but don't want to partition too much or too little.

solvs

Sep 8, 2007, 02:09 AM

VMWare.

But I may be a little biased since I know some of the people who worked on it and my experience with Parallels has just been awful.

thegrifman

Sep 8, 2007, 08:29 AM

For you guys who use Bootcamp for gaming, how many gb did you partition? I am thinking of doing the same thing, but don't want to partition too much or too little.

I partitioned 25 gigs for Vista because Vista alone takes near 10Gb. If you're running XP you could easily got 5 or 10 gigs lower than that depending on what games you're going to be running.

emotion

Sep 8, 2007, 09:06 AM

Huge advantacge for VMWare is that VM images created on any VMWare capable machine (Linux, Windows - it points out the free availability on these platforms though) will run on VMWare Fusion and vice-versa.

The main reason I'd choose VMWare over Parallels.

ViperDesign

Sep 8, 2007, 09:09 AM

I partitioned 25 gigs for Vista because Vista alone takes near 10Gb. If you're running XP you could easily got 5 or 10 gigs lower than that depending on what games you're going to be running.

Yep I did the same. Around 30 gigs for Vista. I wish I had a full XP Laying around, kinda annoying to have to use that much space for an OS.

user13

Sep 11, 2007, 04:41 AM

VMWare.

But I may be a little biased since I know some of the people who worked on it and my experience with Parallels has just been awful.
And what certain problems did you have with Parallels. Most people complain about Parallels being a system resources hog... I dunno, I have 2 Gigs of RAM and it works perfectly well. No reason even to try VM Ware out!

solvs

Sep 12, 2007, 02:54 AM

And what certain problems did you have with Parallels.
Yes, resource hog. Also hosed 2 separate Boot Camp partitions on 2 separate occasions. Completely locked up OS X on a few occasions. Slowed a brand new system I installed to a crawl until I reinstalled. Not to mention the fact that support is practically nonexistent. I could go on.

Unfortunately we have to use it at work since it was the first non beta, though we're considering moving to VMWare, and I think the first couple of versions should have been considered beta given how buggy they were.

Nermal

Sep 12, 2007, 03:08 AM

VMware for me. There was really no thought needed because we use VMware at work and this way I can move VMs back and forth with no conversion or anything.

jonnylink

Sep 12, 2007, 09:31 AM

I've read from all over that fusion performs better than parallels, but parallels lists improved performance as one new feature in their latest release (yesterday).

I'm curious if anyone has tested out the newest version to see if it can perform closer to the likes of fusion?

scoobe

Sep 12, 2007, 12:40 PM

I've been a long time user of Parallels, and it's been pretty good. I have had a couple of times when you launch parallels, it switches on the VT extensions, and gives me a kernel panic. It also lacks 64-bit OS support.
However...
Having tried Fusion for about a month, I have become annoyed with it. Performance when running is similar to Parallels, there is no real discernible difference. But when you load a suspended state, Fusion issues a command in windows to reinitialize the VMware tools. This command prompt window stays open for the better part of 4 min, meanwhile the windows system in unusable.
This is repeatable...

Despite this, there is no doubt in my mind that VMware will have the better product as Fusion matures... it is only 1.0...

Nermal

Sep 12, 2007, 02:22 PM

But when you load a suspended state, Fusion issues a command in windows to reinitialize the VMware tools. This command prompt window stays open for the better part of 4 min, meanwhile the windows system in unusable.

You probably realised this already, but that's definitely not normal.