Fusion 3.0 vs. Parallels 5.0 Discussion

[willmtaylor]

Ladies & gentlemen, boys and girls; it's time for another round of...

Choose...

That...

Virtualization Software

Today's match-up: VMWare's latest release of Fusion 3.0 and the hot-off-the-presses release of Parallels 5.0!!!!!


Ok seriously, I'll be getting a new iMac soon and have some indespensible windows apps bla bla bla, and I'd like to get some updated discussion going specifically about F3.0 & P5.0 (NOT VirtualBox etc.)

[MacRumorUser]

They both are pretty much neck & neck. I have both of them, and they are pretty much on 'parallel' terms ;).

Simply buy whichever you can get cheapest.


I do like the new 'mac look' skinning feature of parallels 5, to make windows 'windows' appear more like mac 'windows'... I just gave myself brainache.

[Queso]

Having been a regular user of both (one on each Mac) I definitely prefer VMWare. The speed increase of 3.0 makes a big enough difference that I finally virtualised by Boot Camp partition too :)

[Voidness]

I do like the new 'mac look' skinning feature of parallels 5, to make windows 'windows' appear more like mac 'windows'... I just gave myself brainache.
I read that on Parallel's website, but they don't seem to have any screenshots. Could you post one? :)

[Harpy007]

If 3ds Max is actually usable in parallel 5.0, I'll upgrade (4.0 is unusable)

[willmtaylor]

I haven't actually downloaded the trials either, but from what I've seen on the "propoganda" videos on each's webpages I think I like the virtual integration of isolated windows programs more with the new Parallels.

[Razeus]

I haven't actually downloaded the trials either, but from what I've seen on the "propoganda" videos on each's webpages I think I like the virtual integration of isolated windows programs more with the new Parallels.

As a user of Parallels 4, I'll be getting part 5. I'll finally move from XP Machine once I go get another copy of Windows 7 (I have Windows 7 Pro on my home desktop machine, and I have the 7100 build of Windows 7 on my Macbook Pro's Boot Camp partition AND I have XP via Parallels 4). I'm hoping to get rid of my Boot Camp partition and XP VM and just use Parallels for all my Windows needs on my MBP. I'm loving the "Window-less" feature.

[willmtaylor]

Obviously we all have eyes and we all have google, but would someone who has used both care to elaborate on the most major of the differences between the two? (regarding interface and features)

[MacRumorUser]

I read that on Parallel's website, but they don't seem to have any screenshots. Could you post one? :)

Windows 7 windows opened with coherence, and with the new 'Mac' appearance skinning option applied.

[MacRumorUser]

Obviously we all have eyes and we all have google, but would someone who has used both care to elaborate on the most major of the differences between the two? (regarding interface and features)

As I said in post two - Fusion 3 & Parallels 5 are pretty much exactly the same feature wise with only 'MINOR' differences.

There are no 'MAJOR' differences.

That's it.... There is nothing more to say other than if your unsure which to get - download either as a trial.

VMWare fusion & parallels will convert either's existing virtual images so just try for yourself.

[cababah]

They are both priced the exact same for someone who is not upgrading. Could they possibly make it harder to choose?

[stylinexpat]

I heard that if you don't install bootcamp first Windows using Parallels will write all over the HD or SSD (which is bad) unless you use Bootcamp and partition a portion just for Windows using bootcamp. Is this true for the new Parallels as well?

[MacRumorUser]

^ That's simply untrue you'll be glad to hear, and utterly misinformed.

Parallels and Fusion both create virtual image drives and all the files are contained within. There is no 'writing all over the HDD or SDD' at all. period. :cool:

[MacRumorUser]

They are both priced the exact same for someone who is not upgrading. Could they possibly make it harder to choose?

They know that themselves. Parallels offers bundles with other apps in their 'switch to mac' bundle. That's pretty much all they are doing to differentiate between themselves.

Like I said. Simply download the trials and see for yourself peeps.

[1ofthedavids]

As I said in post two - Fusion 3 & Parallels 5 are pretty much exactly the same feature wise with only 'MINOR' differences.

There are no 'MAJOR' differences.

That's it.... There is nothing more to say other than if your unsure which to get - download either as a trial.

VMWare fusion & parallels will convert either's existing virtual images so just try for yourself.

OpenGL 2.1 support on Vista/7 & Linux guests is a pretty major difference. IIRC, VMware only supports OpenGL 2.1 for XP guests

[ayeying]

Parallels spent quite a bit of time on build 8898, a predecessor to this one. The mac style wasn't even featured in 8898. I gotta admit, this needs some testing before you can really do a Fusion vs Parallels.

For Fusion, the final and the RC wasn't that much different. Infact, for the final, it was faster than the beta. However, I still noticed that 3D performance was very lacking in Fusion. It seems slower than Parallels but at least you get Aero in Unity mode.

I was enrolled in both the beta programs for VMWare Fusion and Parallels so I got some sneak preview of both already.

[MacRumorUser]

It seems slower than Parallels but at least you get Aero in Unity mode.

Actually aero works in coherence, but only over other windows 'windows'. Put two windows over each other and the aero glass effect is in effect. However against mac windows/background it's flat.
:)

[ayeying]

Actually aero works in coherence, but only over other windows 'windows'. Put two windows over each other and the aero glass effect is in effect. However against mac windows/background it's flat.
:)

You're right. I didn't notice that when I first posted. As I said, build 8898 and the current build 9220 is a lot different. It seems good that you can turn off Aero under coherence if you wanted to. The "Mac" look is also interesting.

I installed a new Windows XP Pro virtual machine in Parallels 5 build 9220 because for some reason, it won't load my Boot Camp Windows 7 without stalling (Doesn't crash, just won't proceed any further). Performance seems to be the same still but I haven't had a chance to do any further tests yet.

[richpjr]

I had both (the last version of each) and settled on Fusion. Their upgrades are cheaper and it seems a bit more stable on my machine.

[DoFoT9]

parallels man, born and bred. :rolleyes:

[stylinexpat]

Windows 7 windows opened with coherence, and with the new 'Mac' appearance skinning option applied.

Is it better to just install Parallels first or install Bootcamp first and then Parallels after before installing Windows 7? :confused:

[mashimaro]

Considering Parallel's crappy support for linux ( remember the 5 month hiatus to get parallels tools working on ubuntu 9.04? ) , vmware 3 definitely. Vmware 3 definitely is more stable. btw, Parallels 5 can easily corrupt your bootcamp drive (source: experience).

[ayeying]

Considering Parallel's crappy support for linux ( remember the 5 month hiatus to get parallels tools working on ubuntu 9.04? ) , vmware 3 definitely. Vmware 3 definitely is more stable. btw, Parallels 5 can easily corrupt your bootcamp drive (source: experience).

Well, apparently Parallels have the upper advantage in Linux support now. Theres OpenGL 2.1 support and I'm able to run Compiz under Ubuntu.

I never got a corrupted Boot Camp drive with Parallels or Fusion.

[MacRumorUser]

Is it better to just install Parallels first or install Bootcamp first and then Parallels after before installing Windows 7? :confused:

I've done both in my macpro and my MacBook pro. Either way made no discernable difference for me.

[RS232]

I was wowed by VMware Fusion 3 and thought I would be switching over to them. I'm running Windows 7 Professional on a MacBook UMB 2.4GHz with 4GB memory.

But... :eek:

I've been using Parallels 5 today. It seems snappier and the Aero handling is much better (On Fusion 3 it works well but it doesn't seem that smooth).

Definitely better than Parallels 4 I've been using for the last few months.

I have a play around tonight but looks like it is Parallels 5.0 for me! :)

[robanga]

I run both. VM Fusion 3.0 runs on a 13" MacBook that runs Windows 7 from a bootcamp partition.

Parallels 5.0 runs on a Mac Mini and Windows 7 for the moment is running only as a virtual machine.

Not enough experience with the latter to make a real comparison, so I will get back to this thread in a couple of days.

[mcgreggor]

Hello all,

I currently run a imac with a 2.16 processor 3gb ram and 128mb ati graphics ans 10.6 os. I have xp installed under paralles 4.0 (latest patch) and it is a bit slow (I'm being kind). The marketing hype on 5.0 is that it is faster then Boot camp (which I don't believe, I was born at night but not last night) I noticed in the thread that several of you have been involved in both betas so I'm looking for some real world advice. Is 5.0 faster then 4.0 will it make a difference on my machine? Thanks in advance!

[ayeying]

Hello all,

I currently run a imac with a 2.16 processor 3gb ram and 128mb ati graphics ans 10.6 os. I have xp installed under paralles 4.0 (latest patch) and it is a bit slow (I'm being kind). The marketing hype on 5.0 is that it is faster then Boot camp (which I don't believe, I was born at night but not last night) I noticed in the thread that several of you have been involved in both betas so I'm looking for some real world advice. Is 5.0 faster then 4.0 will it make a difference on my machine? Thanks in advance!

A virtual machine is only as fast as you configure it. If you give it too much memory or not enough or whatever, you'll get crap performance. I found performance between Parallels 4 and 5 to be a difference. I even found performance between Vmware Fusion 2 and 3, however, stability wise, Vmware fusion beats parallels in that. For real speed, parallels is faster, as proven in several benchmarks

[jav6454]

Fusion has never given me any problems. Very stable. Testing Fusion 3.0 and so far, its been great.

[MacsRgr8]

I also own both Parallels 5 and Fusion 3

I love both products, and I hope that they keep on competing with eachother!

The way I use them:

Parallels:
Easiest and best "normal" Windows XP experience for Mac users.

VMware Fusion:
More OS "fun".. let me explain:
I like to play around with different Operating Systems. Windows and Linux are obvious, but I adore having Rhapsody and OPENSTEP running on my Mac (see pics) aswell.
I find it easier to get these OSses working on Fusion than Parallels, and the fact that VMware also has images which are used in their Windows counterparts which can be converted to Mac-Fusion-images is very handy.

I also use Fusion to see if I can play all time ol' Windows-games. And, VMware Fusion 3, does a brilliant job in getting my fav of all time (Need For Spped 4) working PERFECTLY: DirectX7 and Force Feedback USB Wheel full supported!! :cool:

But, again.... I find the everyday Windows Virtual Machine on a Mac best on Parallels.
I also applaud Parallels for being there so quickly and first (1.0 and pre-release before that) back in the day Apple switched to x86, to help users switch from PC to Mac.
:)

[willmtaylor]

Anyone else tried either one of them in the last few days? Tried both of the trials or anything? Still would love to hear some hands-on firsthand feedback.

wmt

[fiercetiger224]

Anyone else tried either one of them in the last few days? Tried both of the trials or anything? Still would love to hear some hands-on firsthand feedback.

wmt

I've tried both, and both have their advantages. Parallels tends to be a little bit faster in graphics performance, and has a small leg up on their feature set. Fusion tends to give a smoother, and more stable experience. I've tested XP, Vista and 7 64-bit editions on both. Also tested on both a Mac Pro and Macbook Pro.

What would I suggest? VMware Fusion, simply because it's more stable. I've had a few problems with Parallels, from corrupting virtual machines, to kernel panics. I've never had any of those problems with Fusion. I've been using both since their original releases. Parallels is definitely more stable than version 4.

VMware has been making virtualization products for years now, and I simply have never had any major issues with them. Their support is also top-notch. I've used VMware's products on both Windows and Linux as well.

[steve-p]

I've been using Parallels 4.0 without any issues for a while (XP Pro VM). There is a certain appeal to switching to VMWare though as I use that at work. Of course it's free for other platforms, but not on the Mac...

Anyway the problem I have is working out the feature differences between VMWare 3.0 and Parallels 4.0 which I am currently using, and Parallels 5.0 which is an option. All I want to know right now is what features if any I would lose by switching to VMWare 3.0 from Parallels 4.0, but working that out isn't so easy. After that, a direct comparison of everything which is unique to either product would be useful. In other words, for people considering switching one way or the other, what you would gain by switching is less important in many respects than what you might lose.

Edit: I bit the bullet and upgraded from Parallels 4.0 to 5.0 to see if the promised speed increases had materialised - they certainly have for me in XP. The apps I run are much snappier and now have pretty much the same UI and redrawing performance as running them on my real Windows desktop. They felt a bit clunky before on 4.0, so quite impressed so far. I will hold off on trying out Fusion 3.0 for a while now.

[applevx]

Hi, I am a regular mac guy with MBP late 2007 version (2.4Ghz, 4GB Ram, 256VRAM, Gforce 8600M)


I ran VMWare Fusion 3 with Windows XP SP3 guest OS. The CPU temp is around 48ºC - 50ºC, fusion's cpu usage is around 2% - 4%. Fan speed at 3000 rpm by smcFanControl.


Same as above, I ran Parallels Desktop 5, the CPU temp is 52ºC - 55ºC, Parallels cpu usage is like 1% - 1.7%.


So, can anyone please tell me why this is so odd?
The Parallels desktop 5 should make CPU cooler than VMWare fusion 3 does, but it's NOT!

[ayeying]

Hi, I am a regular mac guy with MBP late 2007 version (2.4Ghz, 4GB Ram, 256VRAM, Gforce 8600M)


I ran VMWare Fusion 3 with Windows XP SP3 guest OS. The CPU temp is around 48ºC - 50ºC, fusion's cpu usage is around 2% - 4%. Fan speed at 3000 rpm by smcFanControl.


Same as above, I ran Parallels Desktop 5, the CPU temp is 52ºC - 55ºC, Parallels cpu usage is like 1% - 1.7%.


So, can anyone please tell me why this is so odd?
The Parallels desktop 5 should make CPU cooler than VMWare fusion 3 does, but it's NOT!

Temperatures are caused by many factors, including your video card. You do realize you share the same heatsink with the chipset and video card. If your video card is slightly higher temp, it can cause the cpu to raise it's temperature also.

Furthermore, your temps are within acceptable limits. I wouldn't worry about it at all. My current CPU temp is at 77 deg C.

[DoFoT9]

Temperatures are caused by many factors, including your video card. You do realize you share the same heatsink with the chipset and video card. If your video card is slightly higher temp, it can cause the cpu to raise it's temperature also.

Furthermore, your temps are within acceptable limits. I wouldn't worry about it at all. My current CPU temp is at 77 deg C.

yup i agree with everything you said there.

the temperatures are really nothing to worry about at all around that range.

my CPU is idling on 72°C haha. :(

[SnowLeopard2008]

VMware Fusion is more stable. Performance is not better than Parallels, but it doesn't lag behind by much (very negligible). VMware has been making VM software for a long time, making it the industry leader, but they never made such apps for the Mac platform. Their products are widely used in enterprises and businesses.

Parallels offers better performance (again, very negligible) but is nowhere as stable as Fusion is. They have this new feature that adds a "Mac" skin to the application, namely the top close/minimize/maximize buttons so it matches a Mac app.

I like Parallels for it's great UI work but I like stability as well. Those features are only skin-deep. I liked even more Fusion's proven technology. :D

[MBX]

Can somebody tell me who of the two (both latest versions and running Win7) wins in 3D/ OpenGL Performance?

[steve-p]

I like Parallels for it's great UI work but I like stability as well. Those features are only skin-deep. I liked even more Fusion's proven technology. :D
I use VMWare's "proven technology" at work on a variety of host and guest operating systems and it's maybe not quite as bulletproof as you seem to think it is ;) Parallels has never crashed on me personally but a colleague did get a corrupt VM once with version 3. I wouldn't like to say that either is more stable - especially with two new versions which are an unknown quantity right now. If you want stability wait a few months until any new issues have been ironed out of either, then it's probably a non-issue in choosing between them.

[ayeying]

Can somebody tell me who of the two (both latest versions and running Win7) wins in 3D/ OpenGL Performance?

That would be Parallels. They have slightly better 3D performance than VMWare Fusion but no where near boot camp yet.

[peterho]

I did a side-by-side comparison of Windows 7 Professional on Parallel Desktop 5 and VMWare Fusion 3 yesterday. I installed fresh copies of Win7 as virtual machines on both PD5 and VM3 systems. From the installation perspective, they are equally easy and straight forward. I assigned 1 CPU and same amount of RAM (1024 GB) for each virtual machine (although 1GB is probably not enough for Win7...), and boot up only one virtual machine at a time without another system opened. No other application was running at the same time, so both systems get equal amount of resources when tested.

I have noticed slower boot up on PD5 due to the slower response from NAT service. I booted up and shut down Win7 on both systems several times, and on PD5 it takes 1 min 25 -50 sec to finally be ready for IE to work, while 52-57 sec on VM3. Shut down time is more or less the same, PD5 15.1 sec vs VM3 16.2 sec.

I have no software installed in both Win7, so have no idea how applications perform at this point. I will keep you updated. By the way, can anyone suggest some free benchmark software that I can run under both system? (or any better way to compare the performance?)

I'm using 15" UB MBP Late 2008 2.53GHz, 4GB RAM.

[ayeying]

I did a side-by-side comparison of Windows 7 Professional on Parallel Desktop 5 and VMWare Fusion 3 yesterday. I installed fresh copies of Win7 as virtual machines on both PD5 and VM3 systems. From the installation perspective, they are equally easy and straight forward. I assigned 1 CPU and same amount of RAM (1024 GB) for each virtual machine (although 1GB is probably not enough for Win7...), and boot up only one virtual machine at a time without another system opened. No other application was running at the same time, so both systems get equal amount of resources when tested.

I have noticed slower boot up on PD5 due to the slower response from NAT service. I booted up and shut down Win7 on both systems several times, and on PD5 it takes 1 min 25 -50 sec to finally be ready for IE to work, while 52-57 sec on VM3. Shut down time is more or less the same, PD5 15.1 sec vs VM3 16.2 sec.

I have no software installed in both Win7, so have no idea how applications perform at this point. I will keep you updated. By the way, can anyone suggest some free benchmark software that I can run under both system? (or any better way to compare the performance?)

I'm using 15" UB MBP Late 2008 2.53GHz, 4GB RAM.

That's a REALLY SLOW boot up time. I'm booting up a Windows 7 system, from start to logged in and all processes loaded within 45 seconds for both Parallels 5 and VMWare Fusion on a cleanly installed Windows 7 with nothing else. Granted I have an SSD but even booting it off a USB 2.0 ATA-6 hard drive only takes 1 minute and 30 seconds. (I have OSX Leopard 10.5.8 installed in a External 250GB hard drive for testing/diagnostic/back up purposes)

The shut down times are pretty similar to yours though.

My settings for Windows 7 when I was testing Parallels 5 and Fusion 3 was:

1 CPU, 896MB Ram Dedicated, 3D Enabled (256MB for Parallels 5), 20GB Virtual Disk Expanding

[jon08]

Judging from Windows 7 Experience Index stats in both VMWare and Parallels, it seems that Parallels beats VMWare hands down...

Here is what I get:

VMWare:
4,5
5,0
2,9
3,3
5,9

Parallels:
5.9
5.5
2.9
4.6
5,9

Bootcamp:
6,0
6,0
5,5
6,0
5,2

But on the other hand, when I watched PPStream through both apps, VMWare seemed to run smoother than Parallels - I don't really understand why, when the latter beats VMWare in pretty much all categories, as seen above...

Btw, I am still using Leopard, so I don't know if there is any difference on SL?

[willmtaylor]

I'd be curious to see some numbers running virtualization software in some of these newly arriving i5's & i7's.

[ymarker]

I'd be curious to see some numbers running virtualization software in some of these newly arriving i5's & i7's.

Probably the best use of those spare cores to use them for virtualization. I'd like to give two to VM and two for host.

[DoFoT9]

Probably the best use of those spare cores to use them for virtualization. I'd like to give two to VM and two for host.

can you actually do that? choose the number of cores...? id give 1 core (2 threads) to VM hehe ;) (when i order my i7 lol).

[ayeying]

can you actually do that? choose the number of cores...? id give 1 core (2 threads) to VM hehe ;) (when i order my i7 lol).

It's more like, 1 Core 1 Thread. I think Parallels have 1 Core/2 Threads feature, not 100% positive. For Fusion, its 1 core/1 thread.

[DoFoT9]

It's more like, 1 Core 1 Thread. I think Parallels have 1 Core/2 Threads feature, not 100% positive. For Fusion, its 1 core/1 thread.

oh ok so the options are somewhat limited?

[ayeying]

oh ok so the options are somewhat limited?

Not really. Under 4 threads like the Core i5/i7, I think you can tell VMWare Fusion or Parallels that you want to dedicate like 2 or 3 or even 4 cores to the virtual machine. It should run because you actually have 4 threads that can be used as "cores". It's a little confusing but yeah.

I wouldn't worry about that part. Most of the time, you won't need to dedicate more than 1 core or thread to the virtual machine unless you plan on doing modeling. I only use 1 core with 512mb ram when I play sins under parallels.

[DoFoT9]

Not really. Under 4 threads like the Core i5/i7, I think you can tell VMWare Fusion or Parallels that you want to dedicate like 2 or 3 or even 4 cores to the virtual machine. It should run because you actually have 4 threads that can be used as "cores". It's a little confusing but yeah.

I wouldn't worry about that part. Most of the time, you won't need to dedicate more than 1 core or thread to the virtual machine unless you plan on doing modeling. I only use 1 core with 512mb ram when I play sins under parallels.

very confusing, i have no idea what you just explained lol! i completely understand threads/cores but not this. it just means i will have to try out the new parallels haha!

thanks for the info aye :D

[Action]

After trying both, here is my conclusion:

Parallels 5: Very good performance. Fast resuming/suspending of VMs. BUT, on 10.6.2 it takes about 3-5 minutes to launch due to some conflict with spotlight it seems: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=821284

Also, I've had cases where my mouse sensitivity went crazy in OSX due to Parallels.

VMware Fusion 3: I haven't had any real technical issues, but a deal-breaker here is that resuming a VM is unbearably slow. It's faster to just shut down and restart the VM each time to use it.

[ayeying]

very confusing, i have no idea what you just explained lol! i completely understand threads/cores but not this. it just means i will have to try out the new parallels haha!

thanks for the info aye :D

Let's see if I can break this down.

For the Core i5/i7, it has:

2 Real Cores
2 Virtual Cores
= Basically its "4 Cores" but it's called "Thread" because the extra 2 cores is not really a core, it's a thread within a core.

For virtualization, you can allocate 1, 2 or 4 cores. When using Core i5/i7, Parallels or VMWare Fusion should be able to see the whole 4 threads as "cores" for the VM.

[DoFoT9]

Let's see if I can break this down.

For the Core i5/i7, it has:

2 Real Cores
2 Virtual Cores
= Basically its "4 Cores" but it's called "Thread" because the extra 2 cores is not really a core, it's a thread within a core.

For virtualization, you can allocate 1, 2 or 4 cores. When using Core i5/i7, Parallels or VMWare Fusion should be able to see the whole 4 threads as "cores" for the VM.

right! that makes sense :D thank you very much for clarifying! :D

[neteng101]

Got a chance to compare Parallels 5.0 vs. Fusion 3.0 with Windows 7, and by a longshot I'd go with Parallels... Fusion was just plain buggy in some ways especially in Unity where the Windows panes didn't even fully render right at times, and animations like opening a new window while in windowed mode was very jerky.

Parallels boots up a lot quicker booting up. There's still quirks though, it isn't quite perfect either. I can select a Window in Expose but it doesn't pop up to the front (hidden behind another Windows window). And the Parallels logo on everything Windows in the dock is just plain annoying (is there an option to get rid of that overlay?). 3DMark06 of 1270 vs 751 for Fusion (default test but resolution dropped to 1024x768 in full screen mode)... not that anyone would seriously consider gaming in the VM I think. 2.53 15" late '08 on the 9400M (didn't try the 9600GT yet).

[MacToddB]

I just picked up VMware Fusion for $19.99 as part of Newegg's "Shell Shocker" deal of the day (this afternoon only).

Here are some things to pay attention to:

1) It's for version 2.0. But 3.0 is a free downloadable upgrade.

2) It says Educational version but they explicitly say it's for anyone. They probably want to move the old inventory of old media/boxes.

3) No tax, and free shipping!

4) Deal ends sometime today. For $20 and a little paperwork to get the free upgrade, it's worth trying. I have no relationship w/ Newegg except as a past customer.

PURCHASE PAGE
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832269007

REBATE/FORM FOR DOWNLOADABLE UPGRADE
http://images10.newegg.com/uploadfilesfornewegg/rebate/SH/SMITHMICRO32-269-007Oct1Nov3009ll97.pdf

[katorga]

I tried and dropped Parallels early on, and went with Fusion. But Fusion 3 is somewhat buggy, slow and just not as good as Parallels 5 for me. I miss the out of the box compatibility with my work VMs, but for what I do on my Mac Parallels really shines.

Version 5 is an order of magnitude better than any of the previous parallels versions. I was pretty impressed.

[Flynnstone]

I just upgraded from Parallels 4 to 5.
OS X 10.5.8 and XP
I recommend the upgrade if you have this configuration. XP is snappier. Don't get the scrolling lag. Seems pretty close to running BootCamp.
Haven't used Fusion, so can't comment.

[samh]

Parallels 5 is working well for me: Snow Leopard and Windows 7 64-bit Ultimate which doubles as a bootcamp partition.

However, I don't plan on spending any more money on Parallels. I had an issue with v4 (I was a brand new mac user and it turned out to be a permissions issue related to a repair on my macbook pro) that support was completely incapable of helping with. And though I'm qualified for a free upgrade to 5, I've yet to receive my proper license key (I'm still working on the trial). Their support is terrible and I've learned they've treated their customers poorly for some time now. Which is a shame, because for me it's a good product.

[thermodynamic]

Fusion for me.

I knew of Parallels' purported performance. But the problems I'd read with VM sessions crashing, or even with OS X, and to top all that their history of not being customer-friendly, is an extra ounce of performance worth it if I have problems?

Nope.

Vmware Fusion 3 was an easy install and, while slow (3 hours), installing Win7 upgrade over my old vista license was surprisingly smooth. (My job requires me to learn Win7 so I have no choice but to put Microsoft Mush(tm) back onto my Mac. :( )

In standard windowed mode, Aero is a bit jerky and not smooth. But on my 2.66Ghz Mac Pro (2009) w/8GB, 3 of which dedicated to the VM, I am getting 5.5~6.5 on all Windows' performance tests, save for "gaming graphics" which netted a puny 3.7. Odd as business graphics got 5.9... Parallels might yield faster numbers, but I need stability - especially if I start .NET development again.

Snow Leopard 10.6.2 is my current running version of OS X.

Oh, I used Win7 Professional, 32-bit edition. (no need to go 64-bit, which would only slow things down in a virtualized environment anyway.)

[steve-p]

Fusion for me.

I knew of Parallels' purported performance. But the problems I'd read with VM sessions crashing, or even with OS X, and to top all that their history of not being customer-friendly, is an extra ounce of performance worth it if I have problems?
That's still if you have problems - I've never had a problem with Parallels and I'm sure I can't be the only one. VMWare on the other hand on different host operating systems at work... I have had the occasional problem with. In fact I am investigating one at the moment which corrupts the virtual disk every time it's shut down.

[thermodynamic]

That's still if you have problems - I've never had a problem with Parallels and I'm sure I can't be the only one. VMWare on the other hand on different host operating systems at work... I have had the occasional problem with. In fact I am investigating one at the moment which corrupts the virtual disk every time it's shut down.

Eep.

I'm going to give Parallels 5 a try, based on what you said... can Parallels convert VMWare virtual machine disks or do I need to recreate from scratch? (I'm okay with it either way :) )

[maflynn]

I prefer fusion. VMware has a much better track record of producing a stable and functioning system. While they do seem to lag behind parallels in terms of GPU performance. I frequently had KPs running parallels and their forum/support is a joke. Plus they seem to rush out updates w/o adequate testing.

[ilkevinli]

Wow. I just tried both with a fresh install of Win7 Ultimate (Full Edition) and for me, Fusion was 100x better. I had the total opposite experience than some of you. Parallels took twice as long to boot windows from an off state AND suspended state. Also I could not access my windows shares (from other computer clients) with parallels where it worked fine with fusion.

Easy winner for me. Fusion.

[steve-p]

Eep.

I'm going to give Parallels 5 a try, based on what you said... can Parallels convert VMWare virtual machine disks or do I need to recreate from scratch? (I'm okay with it either way :) )
Yes it can - and VirtualBox VMs. I think they can all convert each other's formats.

I think the real issue is that virtualisation is not 100% reliable and not necessarily that either product is better than the other in that regard. It may well be 99.99% reliable which is close enough for most people's purposes, but there is always the potential for badly behaved drivers to throw a spanner in the works (with Windows guests anyway, never seen an issue with a Linux guests). For example we currently have an issue with a specific printer driver that has been added recently to Windows terminal servers in a VMWare ESX environment that is causing either disk corruption or total hang on shutdown. If we had never installed that driver, we would never have had a problem - they have been running fine since installation apart from that.

In my opinion if people are happy with VMWare or Parallels I certainly wouldn't suggest they switch chasing some perceived reliability or stability alone. The featureset should probably count for more than worrying about potential for problems - they do happen and probably always will, but they should be rare. The most important thing is to keep backing up the VM image regularly :)