Co-sign!
This article appears to be biased BS as I know 1st hand that Fusion is way faster and taxes my system less than Parallels by far. They just blew any and all their credibility for me.
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.
Boot Camp vs Parallels vs VMware Fusion Benchmarks
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Co-sign!
This article appears to be biased BS as I know 1st hand that Fusion is way faster and taxes my system less than Parallels by far. They just blew any and all their credibility for me.
After reading the whole thread, i feel that the article wants to suggest that parallels is faster / better, and from the reactions i read here most seem to think that VMware is faster /better. Most of the bechmarks are a mess and not clear at all. Very happy to read the real life experience from users here,i'd go for VMware for sure.
It gets worse (see my earlier post on this). I also just realised that nowhere does it say if a longer bar on the graph means it took more time or less time (higher score) than the 100 benchmark!
VM Ware Fusion has been substantially faster than Parallels IMO.
I have had both, and unfortunatly I own both; purchasing Parallels first, and DL'ed the Trial of VM Ware only to be blow away. So I bought it and replaced parallels.
Oh well, trial and error it seems.
I have had both, and unfortunatly I own both; purchasing Parallels first, and DL'ed the Trial of VM Ware only to be blow away. So I bought it and replaced parallels.
Oh well, trial and error it seems.
Whatever...
I really tried parallels but it just wouldn't work on my Mac Pro and their tech support was simply horrible.
Vmware worked, as advertised with very little configuration. Fast doesn't mean s**t if the program doesn't work.
I really tried parallels but it just wouldn't work on my Mac Pro and their tech support was simply horrible.
Vmware worked, as advertised with very little configuration. Fast doesn't mean s**t if the program doesn't work.
After reading this thread I am leaning towards purcashing VMWare as opposed to Parallels. Thanks for posting this story arn & Co., I think it has provided people with vaule information and feedback.
I switched to VMWare from Parallels because it had a much smaller effect on my Mac experience at idle, so I could leave it on without a noticeable speed decrease on my mac. Parallels constantly brought my system down to a halt, even with 4GB of Ram. THey might have improved since then but I'm sticking with VMware.
Who wrote this article?
I know I'm not the first one here to dispute the article, however in November, I did my own testing using trial versions of VMWare and Parallels on the 2.4 ghz. 24" iMac and VMWare won hands down above Parallels, and in no way could I see ANY virtualization solution to be quicker than Boot Camp. The only thing that Parallels did have above VMWare was a slightly better ability to run DirectX programs...Some ran, but way too slow...
I didn't want to spend $80+ to get the wrong virtualization program, and Boot Camp is AWESOME, but alas, you have to boot to it.
Somebody mentioned games: Neither solution is good for 3D Gaming, stick with Boot Camp for that...
If you're curious about the results and methods, you can check it out on my blog:
http://www.coffeecopy.com/CoffeeCopy.com/Jeffs_Blog/Entries/2007/11/11_Entry_1.html
...Jeff
I know I'm not the first one here to dispute the article, however in November, I did my own testing using trial versions of VMWare and Parallels on the 2.4 ghz. 24" iMac and VMWare won hands down above Parallels, and in no way could I see ANY virtualization solution to be quicker than Boot Camp. The only thing that Parallels did have above VMWare was a slightly better ability to run DirectX programs...Some ran, but way too slow...
I didn't want to spend $80+ to get the wrong virtualization program, and Boot Camp is AWESOME, but alas, you have to boot to it.
Somebody mentioned games: Neither solution is good for 3D Gaming, stick with Boot Camp for that...
If you're curious about the results and methods, you can check it out on my blog:
http://www.coffeecopy.com/CoffeeCopy.com/Jeffs_Blog/Entries/2007/11/11_Entry_1.html
...Jeff
Thank you for your personal feedback and the link, I'll definitely be taking a look...
The only thing I don't understand is how a virtualisation layer (running in a host OS) can outperform an OS that runs straight on the hardware. Bootcamp is a bootmanager and once you boot into XP, you run that straight on the Mac hardware.
The only thing I don't understand is how a virtualisation layer (running in a host OS) can outperform an OS that runs straight on the hardware. Bootcamp is a bootmanager and once you boot into XP, you run that straight on the Mac hardware.
I was wondering the same thing. Surely you lose something by using virtualization software?...
You do. Even with VMware ESX 3.x you lose about 4%, according to VMware themselves. And that is a very thin layer that runs directly on the hardware. I don't get it
When the benchmark is something like "print email" or "open messages", then the time it takes is mostly due to the speed of hardware (network connection, hard drive, printer). As long as the processor can keep up, and there's enough memory to account for the overhead of the virtualization (no disk thrashing), then any time difference could very well be within the margin of error of measuring it. Which is to say, if you're just doing non-intensive tasks, like word processing, ordinary business stuff, then these things are fine. On the other hand, if you want to do heavy video processing, or play the latest games, then neither one is probably satisfactory.You do. Even with VMware ESX 3.x you lose about 4%, according to VMware themselves. And that is a very thin layer that runs directly on the hardware. I don't get it
Maybe that's the confusion, that would explain how they seem to have everything completely backwards.
Parallels is worthless
I have used and owned parallels and VMWare Fusion since both were beta. At first Parallels worked, but a few "upgrades" ago it began crashing constantly. Each time they release a new "upgrade" I try it again, and it continues to crash. In my opinion Parallels is trash. VMWare is very stable and never crashes.
Speed be damned. If it won't run 5 minutes without crashing what difference does a speed test make.
My primary use of the above programs is to play duplicate bridge online. I have written to Parallels about the problem and never received a response. In my opinion the program to buy is obvious.
I have used and owned parallels and VMWare Fusion since both were beta. At first Parallels worked, but a few "upgrades" ago it began crashing constantly. Each time they release a new "upgrade" I try it again, and it continues to crash. In my opinion Parallels is trash. VMWare is very stable and never crashes.
Speed be damned. If it won't run 5 minutes without crashing what difference does a speed test make.
My primary use of the above programs is to play duplicate bridge online. I have written to Parallels about the problem and never received a response. In my opinion the program to buy is obvious.
I find it amusing that the actual purpose of this article was to efectively promote Parallels, yet now the opposite effect is occurring, as many people are finding out that Parallels in fact appears not to be as good as Fusion. In addition, the credibility of the people whom carried out these tests and wrote the review is up for criticism as well.
Very bastardly, I approve!
Very bastardly, I approve!
Well, since you can download trials of them both, anyone can see which is better.
And with the exception of a few posters, most of whom only prefer Parallels because they had issues with VMWare, the consensus tells us there is something wrong with either the tests, or the testers.
And with the exception of a few posters, most of whom only prefer Parallels because they had issues with VMWare, the consensus tells us there is something wrong with either the tests, or the testers.
Question on setting up shared folders under Fusion vs. Parallels
Hi all,
I've been watching reviews of Parallels vs Fusion with interest as I am looking for a virtualisation solution, esp. given the attractive Christmas bundles that both now have -- ie. Fusion 2-for-1 discount (the $20 rebate does not apply to non-US customers) and the Parallels Premium Edition.
I am using a MacBook (Black, May 07) w/ 2GB RAM installed. I have mainly been running Boot Camp 1.4 beta on it (it came with OS X 10.4.10). I have a two-screen setup, and Boot Camp 1.4 beta does not often detect my external monitor. (I hear that this is fixed in Boot Camp 1.5 FINAL -- ie. a US$129 upgrade.)
My primary OS is Windows XP SP 2, running:
* MS Office 2003 (need Outlook)
* SI Station (www.sistation.com - stock monitoring programme)
* Internet Explorer v7 (as stock trading, i-banking and e-govt websites in Singapore generally don't like Firefox, let alone Safari)
Basically, I could have just bought a Windows laptop, but have always preferred a Mac. (My PowerMac G4 Gigabit Ethernet, vintage 2000 version, is still sitting below my desk, with a Performa 475 sitting in cold storage ... and anyone wants a SCSI Syquest drives?)
My main questions for the forum are:
1) If I use the Finder to access a Word (.doc) file, will it be opened in MS Office 2003 or in the pre-loaded Mac Office 2004 (Trial version)?
2) Assuming I trash the Mac Office 2004 (trial version), what steps does it take to get MS Office 2003 to open the Word file under Fusion?
Do I have to first transfer the file to a shared directory (like how it was done in Connectix's Virtual PC) before I can open the file?
3) If (2) is true, then would that mean that any Office document clicked on in Mac Firefox will require additional step of saving to a shared directory first before it can be opened?
4) Following from (1), if I click on a .pdf file attachment in an Outlook message, will it open Adobe Reader for Mac or Windows?
5) Can the shared folder in Fusion be pointed to the "~/Documents" folder in the Mac partition. (My set up is OS X running under a HFS+ partition, with Boot Camp loading Win XP under a NTFS partition, both accessing a FAT32-formatted networked drive attached to my Airport Base Station.)
Will doing so leave OS X-specific .DStore and .Trash files all over the place?
Alternatively, is there a better way to set up a shared folder such that I have minimal duplication between my Mac OS X and Boot Camp partitions?
It appears that Parallels' Smart Select function (or "virus") takes care of this issue. (I do seriously wonder what kind of "voodoo" it does to handle the HFS+ to NTFS file system translation, and the corresponding performance hit.)
6) Under Fusion's Unity, will programmes like Faststone Image Capture do screen shots of the Mac Desktop? (This is basically a free version of ScreenCapture Pro for me.)
7) If I install Parallels 3 (5th December 2007) version, how likely is it to mess up my Boot Camp partition? (Seems that Fusion pretty much leaves it alone in line with the use of fewer .DLLs.)
8) Are the Parallels Premium Edition bundled software worth it? Is Kapersky running in the background going to eat up a lot of resources, eg. vs. BitDefender? Is the Acronis stuff worth it, eg. do you have to boot into Boot Camp to run them? Will it slow down Parallels by much?
9) What are the ideal settings for Fusion or Parallels under my configuration? I am a pretty mobile user that needs Windows to be running 24/7 (due to stock trading), and I am particularly concerned about drain on battery life when I am on the move.
Basically, if I can get past the "need many manual steps" integration of Fusion and involves significantly less battery drain, I'd likely go with it. But if the latest version of Parallels makes life a whole lot easier (without any beachballs of death) ... then I'd likely go with that.
At worst, I upgrade to Leopard and get my second monitor back. (I assume that both running Win XP under Parallels or Fusion will give me back my second monitor -- which Boot Camp beta took away.)
Thanks for any feedback and comments.
Regards,
Sour Apple
Singapore
Hi all,
I've been watching reviews of Parallels vs Fusion with interest as I am looking for a virtualisation solution, esp. given the attractive Christmas bundles that both now have -- ie. Fusion 2-for-1 discount (the $20 rebate does not apply to non-US customers) and the Parallels Premium Edition.
I am using a MacBook (Black, May 07) w/ 2GB RAM installed. I have mainly been running Boot Camp 1.4 beta on it (it came with OS X 10.4.10). I have a two-screen setup, and Boot Camp 1.4 beta does not often detect my external monitor. (I hear that this is fixed in Boot Camp 1.5 FINAL -- ie. a US$129 upgrade.)
My primary OS is Windows XP SP 2, running:
* MS Office 2003 (need Outlook)
* SI Station (www.sistation.com - stock monitoring programme)
* Internet Explorer v7 (as stock trading, i-banking and e-govt websites in Singapore generally don't like Firefox, let alone Safari)
Basically, I could have just bought a Windows laptop, but have always preferred a Mac.
(My PowerMac G4 Gigabit Ethernet, vintage 2000 version, is still sitting below my desk, with a Performa 475 sitting in cold storage ... and anyone wants a SCSI Syquest drives?)My main questions for the forum are:
1) If I use the Finder to access a Word (.doc) file, will it be opened in MS Office 2003 or in the pre-loaded Mac Office 2004 (Trial version)?
2) Assuming I trash the Mac Office 2004 (trial version), what steps does it take to get MS Office 2003 to open the Word file under Fusion?
Do I have to first transfer the file to a shared directory (like how it was done in Connectix's Virtual PC) before I can open the file?
3) If (2) is true, then would that mean that any Office document clicked on in Mac Firefox will require additional step of saving to a shared directory first before it can be opened?
4) Following from (1), if I click on a .pdf file attachment in an Outlook message, will it open Adobe Reader for Mac or Windows?
5) Can the shared folder in Fusion be pointed to the "~/Documents" folder in the Mac partition. (My set up is OS X running under a HFS+ partition, with Boot Camp loading Win XP under a NTFS partition, both accessing a FAT32-formatted networked drive attached to my Airport Base Station.)
Will doing so leave OS X-specific .DStore and .Trash files all over the place?
Alternatively, is there a better way to set up a shared folder such that I have minimal duplication between my Mac OS X and Boot Camp partitions?
It appears that Parallels' Smart Select function (or "virus") takes care of this issue. (I do seriously wonder what kind of "voodoo" it does to handle the HFS+ to NTFS file system translation, and the corresponding performance hit.)
6) Under Fusion's Unity, will programmes like Faststone Image Capture do screen shots of the Mac Desktop? (This is basically a free version of ScreenCapture Pro for me.)
7) If I install Parallels 3 (5th December 2007) version, how likely is it to mess up my Boot Camp partition? (Seems that Fusion pretty much leaves it alone in line with the use of fewer .DLLs.)
8) Are the Parallels Premium Edition bundled software worth it? Is Kapersky running in the background going to eat up a lot of resources, eg. vs. BitDefender? Is the Acronis stuff worth it, eg. do you have to boot into Boot Camp to run them? Will it slow down Parallels by much?
9) What are the ideal settings for Fusion or Parallels under my configuration? I am a pretty mobile user that needs Windows to be running 24/7 (due to stock trading), and I am particularly concerned about drain on battery life when I am on the move.
Basically, if I can get past the "need many manual steps" integration of Fusion and involves significantly less battery drain, I'd likely go with it. But if the latest version of Parallels makes life a whole lot easier (without any beachballs of death) ... then I'd likely go with that.
At worst, I upgrade to Leopard and get my second monitor back. (I assume that both running Win XP under Parallels or Fusion will give me back my second monitor -- which Boot Camp beta took away.)
Thanks for any feedback and comments.
Regards,
Sour Apple
Singapore
Both have trial version. I suggest giving VMWare a try and running it from your Boot Camp partition. You should be able to do what you want to do.
What does it mean it wouldn't work? It simply didn't turn on or what?
As for me, I think there's not much difference between the two rivaling parties. Parallels is what I've been using for some time already and I'm pretty satisfied with it. The speed is acceptable, there's no memory leaks and it works rather fine. don't know 'bout the article, but it seems to be a bit biased.
I don't get it how some virtualization system can be faster than the real deal (Boot Camp). Either the benchmark has it wrong or I have missed something...
They can't be and aren't, just one of the many things that doesn't make sense about the article.
It looks like the tests that Parallels was better than native were graphics and display intensive (like scrolling text).
I'd suspect that the native drivers are poorer than the OSX drivers (does Apple supply the graphics drivers, or are they from the graphics manufacturer?), and that Parallels has a good implementation for their graphics.
Personally, I am very happy with Parallels and the environment that it provides. I like having a separate window to simulate a PC. When using on my iMac, which has an external monitor connected, I throw Parallels over to it, and then run Windows in full screen mode on it leaving the Mac OS on the iMac. Works well for me running typical MSFT Office applications and such.
I am currently running Tiger. However, after I upgrade to Leopard, I would envision running Parallels in a separate space in full screen mode.
FWIW, I tried VMWare in the past and did not like how it worked. I may give it a try again based upon the comments in this thread.
I am currently running Tiger. However, after I upgrade to Leopard, I would envision running Parallels in a separate space in full screen mode.
FWIW, I tried VMWare in the past and did not like how it worked. I may give it a try again based upon the comments in this thread.