Fusion 3.0 vs. Parallels 5.0 Discussion

[Action]

After trying both, here is my conclusion:

Parallels 5: Very good performance. Fast resuming/suspending of VMs. BUT, on 10.6.2 it takes about 3-5 minutes to launch due to some conflict with spotlight it seems: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/821284/

Also, I've had cases where my mouse sensitivity went crazy in OSX due to Parallels.

VMware Fusion 3: I haven't had any real technical issues, but a deal-breaker here is that resuming a VM is unbearably slow. It's faster to just shut down and restart the VM each time to use it.

 

[ayeying]

very confusing, i have no idea what you just explained lol! i completely understand threads/cores but not this. it just means i will have to try out the new parallels haha!

thanks for the info aye

Let's see if I can break this down.

For the Core i5/i7, it has:

2 Real Cores
2 Virtual Cores
= Basically its "4 Cores" but it's called "Thread" because the extra 2 cores is not really a core, it's a thread within a core.

For virtualization, you can allocate 1, 2 or 4 cores. When using Core i5/i7, Parallels or VMWare Fusion should be able to see the whole 4 threads as "cores" for the VM.

 

[DoFoT9]

Let's see if I can break this down.

For the Core i5/i7, it has:

2 Real Cores
2 Virtual Cores
= Basically its "4 Cores" but it's called "Thread" because the extra 2 cores is not really a core, it's a thread within a core.

For virtualization, you can allocate 1, 2 or 4 cores. When using Core i5/i7, Parallels or VMWare Fusion should be able to see the whole 4 threads as "cores" for the VM.

right! that makes sense thank you very much for clarifying!

 

[neteng101]

Got a chance to compare Parallels 5.0 vs. Fusion 3.0 with Windows 7, and by a longshot I'd go with Parallels... Fusion was just plain buggy in some ways especially in Unity where the Windows panes didn't even fully render right at times, and animations like opening a new window while in windowed mode was very jerky.

Parallels boots up a lot quicker booting up. There's still quirks though, it isn't quite perfect either. I can select a Window in Expose but it doesn't pop up to the front (hidden behind another Windows window). And the Parallels logo on everything Windows in the dock is just plain annoying (is there an option to get rid of that overlay?). 3DMark06 of 1270 vs 751 for Fusion (default test but resolution dropped to 1024x768 in full screen mode)... not that anyone would seriously consider gaming in the VM I think. 2.53 15" late '08 on the 9400M (didn't try the 9600GT yet).

 

[MacToddB]

VMware Fusion for $19.99 this afternoon only at Newegg!

I just picked up VMware Fusion for $19.99 as part of Newegg's "Shell Shocker" deal of the day (this afternoon only).

Here are some things to pay attention to:

1) It's for version 2.0. But 3.0 is a free downloadable upgrade.

2) It says Educational version but they explicitly say it's for anyone. They probably want to move the old inventory of old media/boxes.

3) No tax, and free shipping!

4) Deal ends sometime today. For $20 and a little paperwork to get the free upgrade, it's worth trying. I have no relationship w/ Newegg except as a past customer.

PURCHASE PAGE
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832269007

REBATE/FORM FOR DOWNLOADABLE UPGRADE
http://images10.newegg.com/uploadfilesfornewegg/rebate/SH/SMITHMICRO32-269-007Oct1Nov3009ll97.pdf

 

[katorga]

PD5 for me

I tried and dropped Parallels early on, and went with Fusion. But Fusion 3 is somewhat buggy, slow and just not as good as Parallels 5 for me. I miss the out of the box compatibility with my work VMs, but for what I do on my Mac Parallels really shines.

Version 5 is an order of magnitude better than any of the previous parallels versions. I was pretty impressed.

 

[Flynnstone]

I just upgraded from Parallels 4 to 5.
OS X 10.5.8 and XP
I recommend the upgrade if you have this configuration. XP is snappier. Don't get the scrolling lag. Seems pretty close to running BootCamp.
Haven't used Fusion, so can't comment.

 

[samh]

Parallels 5 is working well for me: Snow Leopard and Windows 7 64-bit Ultimate which doubles as a bootcamp partition.

However, I don't plan on spending any more money on Parallels. I had an issue with v4 (I was a brand new mac user and it turned out to be a permissions issue related to a repair on my macbook pro) that support was completely incapable of helping with. And though I'm qualified for a free upgrade to 5, I've yet to receive my proper license key (I'm still working on the trial). Their support is terrible and I've learned they've treated their customers poorly for some time now. Which is a shame, because for me it's a good product.

 

[thermodynamic]

Fusion for me.

I knew of Parallels' purported performance. But the problems I'd read with VM sessions crashing, or even with OS X, and to top all that their history of not being customer-friendly, is an extra ounce of performance worth it if I have problems?

Nope.

Vmware Fusion 3 was an easy install and, while slow (3 hours), installing Win7 upgrade over my old vista license was surprisingly smooth. (My job requires me to learn Win7 so I have no choice but to put Microsoft Mush(tm) back onto my Mac. )

In standard windowed mode, Aero is a bit jerky and not smooth. But on my 2.66Ghz Mac Pro (2009) w/8GB, 3 of which dedicated to the VM, I am getting 5.5~6.5 on all Windows' performance tests, save for "gaming graphics" which netted a puny 3.7. Odd as business graphics got 5.9... Parallels might yield faster numbers, but I need stability - especially if I start .NET development again.

Snow Leopard 10.6.2 is my current running version of OS X.

Oh, I used Win7 Professional, 32-bit edition. (no need to go 64-bit, which would only slow things down in a virtualized environment anyway.)

 

[steve-p]

Fusion for me.

I knew of Parallels' purported performance. But the problems I'd read with VM sessions crashing, or even with OS X, and to top all that their history of not being customer-friendly, is an extra ounce of performance worth it if I have problems?

That's still if you have problems - I've never had a problem with Parallels and I'm sure I can't be the only one. VMWare on the other hand on different host operating systems at work... I have had the occasional problem with. In fact I am investigating one at the moment which corrupts the virtual disk every time it's shut down.

 

[thermodynamic]

That's still if you have problems - I've never had a problem with Parallels and I'm sure I can't be the only one. VMWare on the other hand on different host operating systems at work... I have had the occasional problem with. In fact I am investigating one at the moment which corrupts the virtual disk every time it's shut down.

Eep.

I'm going to give Parallels 5 a try, based on what you said... can Parallels convert VMWare virtual machine disks or do I need to recreate from scratch? (I'm okay with it either way )

 

[maflynn]

I prefer fusion. VMware has a much better track record of producing a stable and functioning system. While they do seem to lag behind parallels in terms of GPU performance. I frequently had KPs running parallels and their forum/support is a joke. Plus they seem to rush out updates w/o adequate testing.

 

[ilkevinli]

Wow. I just tried both with a fresh install of Win7 Ultimate (Full Edition) and for me, Fusion was 100x better. I had the total opposite experience than some of you. Parallels took twice as long to boot windows from an off state AND suspended state. Also I could not access my windows shares (from other computer clients) with parallels where it worked fine with fusion.

Easy winner for me. Fusion.

 

[steve-p]

Eep.

I'm going to give Parallels 5 a try, based on what you said... can Parallels convert VMWare virtual machine disks or do I need to recreate from scratch? (I'm okay with it either way )

Yes it can - and VirtualBox VMs. I think they can all convert each other's formats.

I think the real issue is that virtualisation is not 100% reliable and not necessarily that either product is better than the other in that regard. It may well be 99.99% reliable which is close enough for most people's purposes, but there is always the potential for badly behaved drivers to throw a spanner in the works (with Windows guests anyway, never seen an issue with a Linux guests). For example we currently have an issue with a specific printer driver that has been added recently to Windows terminal servers in a VMWare ESX environment that is causing either disk corruption or total hang on shutdown. If we had never installed that driver, we would never have had a problem - they have been running fine since installation apart from that.

In my opinion if people are happy with VMWare or Parallels I certainly wouldn't suggest they switch chasing some perceived reliability or stability alone. The featureset should probably count for more than worrying about potential for problems - they do happen and probably always will, but they should be rare. The most important thing is to keep backing up the VM image regularly