On my new MacBook Pro, I am still at a loss for some Windows only applications (Cisco Packet Tracer, games, etc). I want to try to run Windows on my new machine, but I'd rather not use Boot Camp like I do on my Mac mini, just since I'd rather not restart to switch OSes. I tried Virtual Box on my mini, but I never got all of the drivers on before I uninstalled it, so I didn't get a chance to try it fully. Is the performance at least decent for this MBP with the freeware or is it a much better idea to get Parallels or VMWare Fusion? I'd be loading on Win7 Ultimate 64-bit.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Virtual Box or Buy Parallels/ Fusion?
- Thread starter MaxMike
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Fusion gave me the best performance for games. However, games under VM can sometimes have issues. I recommend to install bootcamp, and then use vmWare fustion to boot the bootcamp partition as a VM. This will give you good performance, but in the case you want to play a game that just doesn't work right or is just a tad bit slow, you can always boot windows natively.
I believe fusion/parallels is much more stable then virtual box. I use Fusion and haven't had any issues.
Depending on what you are running, my recommendation almost always to go with Parallels or Fusion
I tried Virtualbox last week on my new MBP 2011 2.2ghz 8 gig ram and had terrible (unusable) performance. I was on a train without internet access and didn't research it.
Parallels gave me great performance.
My experience on my OSX86 machine was similar with both Parallels and Virtualbox, so not sure what the deal is.
Parallels gave me great performance.
My experience on my OSX86 machine was similar with both Parallels and Virtualbox, so not sure what the deal is.
Beat me to it!
I've used VMWare Fusion for 3+ years, and it's performed perfectly. But I'm guessing they're both good.
I think you'll get folks who will recommend what they're using, but who don't have experience with the other software. (Like me... never tried Parallels.)
I've yet to hear from those who have heartily endorsing one over the other who have used BOTH.
I run Win 7x64, server 2003 and Fedora 14 in Fusion 3 all at the same time and switch between them with spaces. I use it all day at work on my new system and it screems. You can't go wrong with VMware when it comes to virtualization...those guys own the space.
One thing to take note of...when you set up Fusion 3 (if you go that route), make SURE you set up the VM to "Allocate predefined disk space." It will speed the vm up about 300%, opposed to allowing the vm to span.
One thing to take note of...when you set up Fusion 3 (if you go that route), make SURE you set up the VM to "Allocate predefined disk space." It will speed the vm up about 300%, opposed to allowing the vm to span.
Has anyone that uses VMware Fusion 3 ever noticed any adverse affects in gaming after you've installed the VMware Tools, etc.? I.E. when I boot into a pure Windows environment (not in VMware Fusion 3) to game later on, will it affect performance or will it be OK?
I fell into VirtualBox because it was free. But it has performed remarkably well with all the abuse I've done to my vms.
Now, by "games" I assume you're referring to pretty light-weight games right? For example, I'm looking to run LOTRO (lord of the rings online) on my MBP and I assume that there's no chance that this is even remotely possible in any kind of VM'd instance of windows... Or is it?
I've used all 3. I was an original beta tester of both Parallels and Fusion. I tried Virtual Box for about 3 months before abandoning it. Here's my take:
VMWare Fusion - Most stable. I'd choose this for primarily productivity applications and light gaming. Word, IE, Visual Studio. if I need it to work, that's my go to.
Parallels - Fastest. Parallels, in my experience is the fastest of the bunch. It sometimes seems they achieve that by taking shortcuts with quality. It's not unstable, but it's not rock solid either. If I was primarily using it for game, browser, or other activities that didn't matter if they bombed, I'd pick Parallels.
Virtual Box - I'm pretty technically savvy. I spent 3 months experimenting with Virtual Box and eventually got everything working correctly. (It was working day, but getting everything working the way I wanted took a bit of twidling.) But it was way more effort than casual users are likely to endure. It's not bad (in fact it's quite good considering the price) but given that you can typically find both Parallels and Fusion on sale for $20-40, I'd choose one of the other 2. Free is great, but in this case I think the other 2 products more than make up for their cost relative to VBox.
All IMO, of course.
VMWare Fusion - Most stable. I'd choose this for primarily productivity applications and light gaming. Word, IE, Visual Studio. if I need it to work, that's my go to.
Parallels - Fastest. Parallels, in my experience is the fastest of the bunch. It sometimes seems they achieve that by taking shortcuts with quality. It's not unstable, but it's not rock solid either. If I was primarily using it for game, browser, or other activities that didn't matter if they bombed, I'd pick Parallels.
Virtual Box - I'm pretty technically savvy. I spent 3 months experimenting with Virtual Box and eventually got everything working correctly. (It was working day, but getting everything working the way I wanted took a bit of twidling.) But it was way more effort than casual users are likely to endure. It's not bad (in fact it's quite good considering the price) but given that you can typically find both Parallels and Fusion on sale for $20-40, I'd choose one of the other 2. Free is great, but in this case I think the other 2 products more than make up for their cost relative to VBox.
All IMO, of course.
Never noticed any effect on gaming in particular, but allowing VMWare fusion to install its tools and shortcuts onto your bootcamp install will cause Windows to boot much slower. I think it has something to do with the network drives it sets up, although I'm not entirely sure.
One problem I found with VMWare when compared to Parallels is that the dynamic disk sizing for VMWare is pitiful. I had a Windows XP install with only about 6 gigs of virtual hard drive in use, yet the VM file size was over 17gb.
Rumors are abounding about VMWare Fusion 4. Apparently it's going to be a big step forward in performance, with a number of features added as well. Among them is a "Virtual Doorman" that monitors the VM from outside looking for the injection of malicious code and ties to the API framework of F4...cool idea.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
I have both and recommend either. Nest bet is to checkout frys.com and see what's on sale. I've picked up not for under $10 after rebates.
I have both and recommend either. Nest bet is to checkout frys.com and see what's on sale. I've picked up not for under $10 after rebates.
Sometime during Q1. I was about to take advantage of the existing rebate program, but it's ending today, so I am guessing the new version will be out soon.
I tried Virtual Box, but due to a bug in the 4.x release, it is not usable in 64-bit environments without disabling some features or booting into 32-bit mode.
I'm currently running Parallels 6 with Windows 7. I'm noticing that when running this VM environment, my MacBook Pro 15" gets really hot at the bottom base of the unit. Is this normal since it's requiring more resources to run Win7? I'm seeing temperatures floating around 72C Any tweaks to the VM to alleviate the heat? I've got 8GB RAM and dedicated 3GB to Win7.
Any tweaks to the VM to alleviate the heat? I've got 8GB RAM and dedicated 3GB to Win7.