Fusion 3.0 vs. Parallels 5.0 Discussion

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.

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

MacRumorUser said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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

willmtaylor said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Voidness said:

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

Click to expand...

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

willmtaylor said:

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)

Click to expand...

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.

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

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?

^ 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.

cababah said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

MacRumorUser said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

ayeying said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

MacRumorUser said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

parallels man, born and bred.

MacRumorUser said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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).

mashimaro said:

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).

Click to expand...

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.

stylinexpat said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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...

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!