Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

VMware Fusion vs. Parallels?

CitiXen

CitiXen

macrumors member
Original poster
Feb 9, 2009
98
0
Hey guys ordering my MBP 2.66 this week and I do plan on running Bootcamp for games, but I will want to open a new window for a windows related application every now and then. I'm wondering which program for windows on OSX is better? VMware Fusion or Parallels?
 
I am sure people will add their opinions, but this has been discussed quite often.
If you use MRoogle and search for Parallels or Fusion you will find an abundance of threads with all the opinions you can handle.

Personally, I use Fusion, but it is just a matter of preference
I think the majority on the board use Fusion, but Parallels has its fans too
Both do what they say they will do, and do it well

Woof, Woof - Dawg
pawprint.gif
 
ive used both. i like fusion a lot more although i hear parallels 4 finally beat fusion in da performance arena according to mactech. try the trials and see which you like best. and report back, virtualbox is also an option if u don't know what it is. its basically a free virtual machine with more or less features depending on your standpoint
 
I love vmware fusion. It runs better meaning faster if you install wi dows directly on fusion but it has more power if you run your bootcamp partition through fusion. Overall its a great program but remember you cant play games on it. Its just uses some other gpu
 
Fusion and Parallels are both the same in my opinion, they even both use the same technology ripped from a Google app, Parallels is slightly faster, but Fusion is more stable.
 
^^ What Google app is that? I know VMWare has been in the virtualization business on the enterprise side for a long time now...so it just seems strange that they'd have to depend on Google for an app to gut. But if it's true, I'd be interested in reading more about it. How about a link?
 
Wow. They took source code from a Google app? Didn't know that. Yeh, I've heard Parallels 4 finally is better than VMware 2...
 
pdxflint said:
^^ What Google app is that? I know VMWare has been in the virtualization business on the enterprise side for a long time now...so it just seems strange that they'd have to depend on Google for an app to gut. But if it's true, I'd be interested in reading more about it. How about a link?
Click to expand...

kastenbrust said:
I didn't hear it anywhere, I found it out myself when I decided to decompile Parallels to find out how it writes to NTFS partitions, so I could make an App to do something similar. If you slow down the installer you can see it installing MacFUSE and NTFS-3G onto your system.

http://www.tuaw.com/2007/06/21/parallels-using-macfuse-to-access-ntfs/

Google made and own the rights to MacFUSE.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the links, but they don't say anything about VMWare. And a commenter on that tuaw.com blog article said this:

by IdiotProof:
Funny how everybody credits Google for NTFS read-write support on Mac OS.

The reality is that Google just ported Linux FUSE (the ability to write filesystems in userland) to Mac OS. One FUSE module implements NTFS by glueing the FUSE API to the libntfs-3g API.

But make no mistake, the real work is done by libntfs-3g, whose authors should be credited instead. See http://www.ntfs-3g.org/about.html for details.

Parallels also has the ability to modify an NTFS filesystem from their main binary (i.e. without using MacFUSE). They use it to modify an NTFS Boot Camp volume before booting it in a virtual machine. I wonder what code they use to achieve that.
Click to expand...

It gets fuzzy, doesn't it...;) Anyway, most of this stuff is way, way over my head, and makes it hurt.
 
kastenbrust said:
I didn't hear it anywhere, I found it out myself when I decided to decompile Parallels to find out how it writes to NTFS partitions, so I could make an App to do something similar. If you slow down the installer you can see it installing MacFUSE and NTFS-3G onto your system.

http://www.tuaw.com/2007/06/21/parallels-using-macfuse-to-access-ntfs/

Google made and own the rights to MacFUSE.
Click to expand...

MacFUSE has nothing to do with the virtualization technology present in either app. All that does is write to NTFS drives, which isn't needed at all for either app. They include it as a convenience. Your original claim made it sound like the apps themselves are using Google code, they're not. Neither product is using Google's code for actual implementation of virtualization, which is the key piece here. The NTFS writing is more of a "nice to have" feature, and I have it disabled in my Fusion instance because I have zero need for it.
 
CitiXen said:
Hey guys ordering my MBP 2.66 this week and I do plan on running Bootcamp for games, but I will want to open a new window for a windows related application every now and then. I'm wondering which program for windows on OSX is better? VMware Fusion or Parallels?
Click to expand...

As expected you have all sorts of answers and non-answers. The virtual machine software apps are available free for evaluation, so I recommend you do your own evaluation.
 
The main difference I can tell is that Parallels has OpenGL support where as VMware does not.

If you're trying to run 3D apps, etc, then this is a make or break feature.

regards,
Simon
 
fishkorp said:
MacFUSE has nothing to do with the virtualization technology present in either app. All that does is write to NTFS drives, which isn't needed at all for either app. They include it as a convenience. Your original claim made it sound like the apps themselves are using Google code, they're not. Neither product is using Google's code for actual implementation of virtualization, which is the key piece here. The NTFS writing is more of a "nice to have" feature, and I have it disabled in my Fusion instance because I have zero need for it.
Click to expand...

I never said anywhere that Macfuse had anything to do with the virtualization technology present in either app, i simply said they both ripped technology from Google. Please read before writing, usually helps in exams too.
 
I think I was turned off by Parrallels early on because an update required me to pay again... and it wasn't long after I bought it. VMware, on the other hand, hasn't required me to pay additional fees for their updates. Plus they're the leader in virtualization so I feel more comfortable using their product.

VMware all the way.
 
I've used both, and stuck with Fusion.
Both are great products, I went with Fusion because I caught it on sale.
I really have nothing bad to say about either, they both work great.
 
kastenbrust said:
I never said anywhere that Macfuse had anything to do with the virtualization technology present in either app, i simply said they both ripped technology from Google. Please read before writing, usually helps in exams too.
Click to expand...

You said they're essentially the same application because they ripped technology from Google. I'm sure I'm not the only one that read that thinking the underlying code of both applications is something they took from Google. That's not the case. They're using a component, that isn't even a Google original piece. And it's not even an important piece of either application. MacFUSE is completely irrelevant to what the OP is asking. He's looking for an opinion on which is better.

And thanks for the tip or reading and exams. If I decide to travel back through time I'll keep that in mind ;)
 
Virtualbox cannot boot a bootcamp partition.

For Boot Camp partitions, I'd go with Parallels especially for Vista OS. Why? In Parallels, during boot, they do not load every single driver thats loaded in a native boot. VMWare already stated they have an issue that slows down booting due to KBRMGR.exe (which is a apple driver). Parallels uses a new profile during boot so its faster.

For regular virtual machines, I prefer VMWare Fusion for stability.
 
How about program that uses linux?

I might need to run program using either linux or unix,.... which one will better support them?
 
Is it true that Parallels can only use usb in 1.1 mode? Something to consider if you're going to be moving data from an external drive.
 
I am the IT manager at a small office with only 20 computers and 5 of them are Mac's. I have installed Fussion on 2 of the computers and Parallels on the other 3. I like Parallels much better than Fussion, it runs faster and has less problems. Also Inventor form Autodesk runs on Parallels but will not even load with Fussion. After the last update form Fussion I now have problems with the network. Parallels is the best virtualization software for the new Mac's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back