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

Parallels or Fusion?

A

adm531

macrumors member
Original poster
Jun 2, 2009
66
0
Which one?

im leaning towards parallels only because I am planning on buying the Mac Update Promo, which includes Parallels 4, for $50 in total. Are there any killer features that one has which the other one lacks? Anything that might cause me to consider Fusion?

ie. Coherence Vs Unity ...
 
While Duff-Man makes a killer point, I must just say: VMWare Fusion. Hands down, feet down, head down, * down.
 
sorry for not searching, but may i just ask you one question?

Why VMWare?
 
I prefer the interface, support for various operating systems, support for OS X 10.5. and 10.6 Virtual Machines, etc. But it boils down to preference since they both accomplish the same tasks.
 
Don't use Parallels.

Or if you do, get Parallels 3.0, not the newer 4.0. Every time I use it I consider murdering someone. I've never thought about murdering someone before I used that program. Dog slow (the old one wasn't), completely unpredictable. Also they have for years promised free updates with features that either haven't materialised or they've actually decided to charge for them. On the 'joke of a company' scale, they rank way up there with eBay and PayPal.

I got really close when after a long email exchange with their 'support' and got completely irrelevant replies in appallingly broken-English. In the end I just said 'BROKEN. WANT MONEY BACK.' - and I got it!

AppleMatt
 
So does PArallels not work with OS X 10.6 or am i just misunderstanding you?
 
AppleMatt said:
Don't use Parallels.

Or if you do, get Parallels 3.0, not the newer 4.0. Every time I use it I consider murdering someone. I've never thought about murdering someone before I used that program.
Click to expand...

Woah, an application driving you to murder. That defense sadly wouldn't hold up in court, but it would be funny if you tried it. "Not guilty your honor, I blame the Parallels dev team!"
 
adm531 said:
So does PArallels not work with OS X 10.6 or am i just misunderstanding you?
Click to expand...

10.6 isn't out yet, but it supports virtualizing a 10.6 server virtual machine. That means you can theoretically install 10.6 server in a VM and run OS X inside of OS X.
 
Sean from Parallels

Sean from Parallels here.

Just wanted to jump in on a few things. Thanks uberamd for clarifying. Yes, Parallels will let you run OSX in a VM, even Snow Leopard.

AppleMatt please don't kill anyone. Yes, there certainly were bugs at launch, but it seems like the latest build solves them. Most people are finding 4.0 to be a lot faster, so I'll be curious to hear if you're still having lag with the latest version.

And Baydogan, if you're using 3D with VMWare, make sure not to upgrade to 10.5.7 (per their recommendation). Parallels doesn't have those same issues.

Do please send your feedback and issues to me. I'll pass them along.

twitter.com/parallels_hq
 
Sean, I can't help but notice every thread/blog post/website article criticising Parallels is quickly replied to by 'Leto - Parallels'. I'm sure you're a nice guy doing your job well, but people should be made aware of both sides of any story. Instead of doing damage-limitation and putting others off the competition, how about encouraging a culture change within your organisation to produce a better product? Then it will sell itself!

For clarity, yes, I have three major bugs which I can, if you wish, bore you with. I must confess however that I'm not overly interested solving them anymore, tens of emails to your support wasting untold hours (I'll post my favorite reply in a separate post - it deserves it) led me nowhere and after reading the litany of angry posts on your own support forums - you have to be quick, they get deleted fast! - I used Parallels less and less. Now it's almost entirely abandoned, but occasionally gets use to 'play around' with, e.g. the Windows 7 RC.

Leto-Parallels said:
Thanks uberamd for clarifying. Yes, Parallels will let you run OSX in a VM, even Snow Leopard.
Click to expand...

Apple's EULA agreement allows only Leopard/Snow Leopard Server to be virtualised. Can you clarify whether the current version of Parallels Desktop 4.0 supports the retail (i.e. consumer) Snow Leopard? I tried to install it but it failed, which I presumed was due to the EULA issue? I'd like to have a fiddle with it.

Leto-Parallels said:
AppleMatt please don't kill anyone. Yes, there certainly were bugs at launch, but it seems like the latest build solves them. Most people are finding 4.0 to be a lot faster, so I'll be curious to hear if you're still having lag with the latest version.
Click to expand...

I'm not really interested in 'most people' - that's meaningless. Can you point to facts, independent benchmarks, independent timings etc? I've got some:

Macworld Review said:
Given that Parallels uses the word “fast” to describe Windows in Parallels 4, I was expecting some notable speed increase when running XP and Vista under Parallels 4. However, my experience—both quantitative and qualitative—didn’t match those expectations. Neither OS feels appreciably slower or faster than it was under Parallels 3. When I ran the PassMark benchmark suite, the results bore out my subjective assessment-. Scores improved in some categories (3-D graphics), but others worsened (2-D graphics, memory). Overall, the two versions of Parallels scored roughly the same on the PassMark tests. - www.macworld.com/article/137524/2008/12/parallels43540.html
Click to expand...

ARS Technica Review said:
(VM Ware is faster on every single graph). Also (subjective) "the disk copy benchmarks also confirm what I felt in day-to-day use with Parallels: that it just feels slower than VMware 2.0...VMware does, indeed, win the snappiness category, hands down." - http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2008/12/parallels-4-review.ars/5
Click to expand...

The Burning Questions
  1. I'd be really interested to hear you explain why Parallels promised features would be supplied in free updates to 2.5, which clearly induces people into purchasing 2.5, but subsequently charging for them?
  2. Same question for why Parallels repeated this for the 3.0 -> 4.0 upgrade.
  3. The advertising for 4.0 claimed a "50% speed increase" due to utilising "Intel’s VT-x2 technology". One slight problem; no shipping Macs had that technology in them (I fell for it too). Care to explain?

I'm sorry if this post sounded blunt, it's just that I'm not interested in preserving feelings when facts tell otherwise - the truth is more important than 'being friendly' and I'd feel more awful if someone reading this thread purchased Parallels. It's clear you are articulate, responsive and can speak English, but unfortunately you're not the one people are lucky enough to get when they have an issue.

If you ignore these issues, people will research them and discover the truth anyway. If you post the (admittedly instinctive) reponse of 'what features do you mean?', I'll spotlight every single lie made by Parallels in this respect (I can't walk due to a knee injury and I truly am horribly bored). So please, be honest.

AppleMatt
edit: Woah way too long. Trimmed some.
 
Best Support Email Reply Ever

What I liked about it, apart from the awful English, is that apart from agreeing with me, it neither offered a resolution nor a refund (which I asked for in the alternative). It literally says nothing!

(This was email number 995696458554389574, before then I'd opened numerous tickets and posted on the forums simple bullet point problems, but the non-sensical replies from 'support' were as equally outstanding as this one).

Dear Matt,

It is a very bad news to read about your experience with Parallels Desktop. It feels like you have faced several major issues at the same time.

I understand your emotions on product features, performance, etc.

To sum up these cases, it would be better to stay at Desktop 3.x

Sure there are solution for issues you have faced, they were reported and under investigation. But I am not sure if you still interested in getting them resolved.

Please accept my apologies from company face.

Let me know if I may assist you further in technical issues resolution.


Thanks,
--
Tatiana Zhikhareva
Frontline Team Leader
Technical Support Department
Parallels
Click to expand...
 
You can get parallels with ten other applications for $50 but this offer is only available for two more days. If you've settled on Parallels, then go grab it.
 
Fusion for it's stability. VMWare actually does this stuff for a living and their products are generally more rock solid than competitors. Parallels is better for solely Windows VMs, but Fusion isn't too bad.
 
I bought the MU bundle and have been testing Parallels and it is working very well. I find it very easy to manage and it runs fast for me. Macmall has Fusio. For $20 atm, but if you're looking at some of the other bundle apps I think you'll be pleased.
 
Thinking over this thread I had a couple of oter thoughts. First, AppleMatt... if you're all about fairness, consider posting any of the positive reviews of Parallels? At this rate it looks less like a bad review and more like a personal grudge on your part. And, looking at the customer service email you posted, it looks also less like proof that 3.0 > 4.0 and more like a CS rep looking to calm down an angry ranting emailer. I'd be more interesting in seeing the emails you wrote leading up to that.
 
Here you go. Very in depth. It reslly depends on what you want to do, run, and play. I'd say XP because I get so annoyed with Vista. Maybe look into boot camping Windows 7. It looks pretty doable.
 
Hi guys... sorry to post more to this seemingly dramatized thread.

But, I just wanted to say that I've been using Parallels Desktop 3.0 (then 4.0, as of current) for two years and I think it is very rock-solid. Not that VMware Fusion isn't, but Parallels was the first to offer this kind of virtualization for Intel Macs. I don't mind giving them credit for that.

I've found that Parallels Desktop 4.0 is much faster than version 3.0 also.

I cannot say I hate Fusion, it's just that I like Parallels from personal experience. I think the main point is that they will probably both work just fine. Just buy whichever one is cheaper. Seems fine to me.
 
rKunda said:
Thinking over this thread I had a couple of oter thoughts. First, AppleMatt... if you're all about fairness, consider posting any of the positive reviews of Parallels? At this rate it looks less like a bad review and more like a personal grudge on your part
Click to expand...

?
They are positive reviews, the ARS one in particular is very positive, that's why I chose them (to avoid bias). Oh, did you not read them and instead just quoted away? Shock. I quoted those excerpts on speed because Sean specifically mentioned speed - and the 50% claim was one of the main reasons I upgraded.

rKunda said:
And, looking at the customer service email you posted, it looks also less like proof that 3.0 > 4.0 and more like a CS rep looking to calm down an angry ranting emailer. I'd be more interesting in seeing the emails you wrote leading up to that.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely correct. It was in response to a long email where I outlined all the bugs no-one had helped me with. Prior to that, again as I clearly stated in my post, I opened (multiple) factual and succinct tickets for each issue on their support forums but received non-sensical replies. I'm sure you've had a terrible experience with customer service at some point in your life (in this case they lied about features, it didn't work as advertised and I got no help; quite right I should be frustrated). Have you read their forums, before they get moderated? If you think me having a grudge is an issue you'll see people there who've had far worse and want blood!

However, I'm sure you can agree my post actually contained a lot of factual issues that have, so far, been undressed by Parallels/Sean (or you). Are you not concerned that they lied to their customers about free/paid features and VT-x2? If not, do you consider that other people might care?

I do have to question what's your motivation here - Do you have a vested interest in Parallels, or are you more concerned with telling me that I should behave more like you would?

AppleMatt
 
I stopped using Parallels Desktop several months ago and switched to VMWare Fusion and I am quite happy with it.

Parallels Desktop only works well with Windows XP. But since I also run 64-Bit operating systems in VMs like Ubuntu or FreeBSD or Vista 64-Bit, Parallels just doesn't cut it anymore. Its support for non-XP operating systems simply SUCKS.

VMWare is more flexible and better supported in the industry - it's the standard in data centers, and VMs built for VMWare Server also run in VMWare Fusion. (Which is more than just a nice-to-have in my job.)

Thus: Use VMWare Fusion.
 
I originally purchased Parallels three years ago, but I have been using VMWare Fusion for just under a year. I use VMWare Fusion on a daily basis for my work and depend on it functioning correctly and performing well. My experiences:

1. Parallels was fair. The only major problem that I ever experienced was a one-time corruption of a VM. I'm not sure whether this was a persistent problem in Parallels, or I happen to get unlucky. In any event, it was not the reason I moved to Fusion.

2. Reason for moving: work. My work does much of its business using VMWare VMs: development, testing, demos, and production servers are all VMWare VMs running on ESX, Workstation, and Player versions. Having VMWare Fusion makes my life a lot easier in running and exchanging VMs with my colleagues and customers.

3. VMWare is rock-solid. I've not had a single crash (although I'm sure it has happen to someone) on the 30+ VMs that I deal with across a large variety of guest OS's: Windows XP, 2003, 2008, CentOS, OpenSolaris, Ubuntu, 32-bit and 64-bit OS's. We run enterprise databases on the them: Oracle 10g, 11g, and DB2 9.5. I've done Visual Studio development (in reviewing Silverlight technology for our product roadmap). I've run 4 VMs in parallel (on my Mac Pro) to simulate a multi-tier deployment of our application. It just works.

4. I don't play games in VMWare -- so no valid feedback on its graphic performance.

In sum, I honestly depend on VMWare Fusion to get my work done and it delivers. This is not a recommendation against Parallels, simply a recommendation for VMWare, based on my personal experience.

Good luck with your decision.

AppleMatt said:
?I do have to question what's your motivation here - Do you have a vested interest in Parallels, or are you more concerned with telling me that I should behave more like you would? All you've done is get on an equally high soapbox, but this time for seemingly no reason?AppleMatt
Click to expand...

While not an ideal solution, the fact that a manufacturer refunded money to an unhappy customer closes the issue in my book -- this is a relatively positive outcome.
 
mags631 said:
The fact that a manufacturer refunded money to an unhappy customer closes the issue in my book -- this is a relatively positive outcome.
Click to expand...

I completely agree +ve, I was very happy with this because despite my offering they didn't even want me to supply the reg key (so they could disable it).

That said, if you had a terrible experience with both a car and the service and someone asked you about it, you'd honestly share your experiences. You wouldn't fall silent if someone asked you but you'd since been refunded - the point remains that the car (and service) wasn't fit for purpose. If no-one brought these issues to the attention of Parallels, their product wouldn't improve.

AppleMatt
 
yaaaa...ya its work and useful me...tnx
home.gif
:)
 
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