sushi
Moderator emeritus
Isn't coherence available for both?
I know that it is for Parallels. Personally, I don't use it much and prefer to use Parallels in full screen mode on an external monitor.
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.
Fusion or Parallels?
- Thread starter k2k koos
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I know that it is for Parallels. Personally, I don't use it much and prefer to use Parallels in full screen mode on an external monitor.
katejones
macrumors regular
I really don't know I guess I should go read about fusion. I was under the impression it wasnt in fusion. I just intend to mostly use 1 app from windows so coherence sounded nice.
I believe it's called Unity on Fusion...
I've been using VMWare's Fusion, and prefer to my limited experience with Parallels.
I installed Parallels on my girlfriends MacBook, and it works ok... but it crashes a lot.
I've never had a problem with my VMWare install.
I've been using VMWare's Fusion, and prefer to my limited experience with Parallels.
I installed Parallels on my girlfriends MacBook, and it works ok... but it crashes a lot.
I've never had a problem with my VMWare install.
Neil321
macrumors 68040
Are you joking me,go back back threw and read this thread and do a count up,those who
prefer fusion to parallels.Someone even posted a pole its a fact
Yes they both have their advantages and disadvantages but fusion's advantages
far out way its disadvantages otherwise so many members of this site wouldnt
rate it above parallels
Coherence in fusion is called Unity
user13
macrumors regular
I back Parallels, mostly because I never had problems with the app. I use it daily at the Office, running different office apps. I must say that it doesn't crash so often, as Fusion-backers here say. It also runs pretty fast with my 2 Gigs of RAM.
In fact, this is the only forum on the net, where Fusion dominates so much over Parallels. It is a good form here to speak high of Fusion and bring down Parallels - taking into account, that both apps really seem to be on par with each other (I mean they have identical goals and similar means of bringing them into life).
By the way, concerning the speed of Parallels and Fusion: activity monitor shows that they eat up almost the same amount of memory.
I don't want to make an advertising of other sites, but I'm sure, that MR is NOT one of the most popular Mac discussion sites. I'm sure else that this is the ONLY site where fusion is more popular then parallels 🙂
What are those advantages? Could you please name them?? All we can hear from you is that you have many supporters!!! 🙂 In fact, not so many as it appears to be and not so evident even if they are supporters... By the way if you want to prove us that you have many supporters here just post a poll! 😉
Please try to interpret me properly...
I just call upon those people who has an experience in using these 2 apps to post particular advantages and disadvantages of Parallels and Fusion!
Some posts above perfectly illustrates some of them.
I guess one of the main purpose of any forum is too help each other! I think the list of advantages and disadvantage will be the logical development (according to its title) of this thread which will help to make a correct choice for anyone who want to have Windows on his Mac!
As we can see some disadvantages are not really disadvantages for someone! The same about advantages! This list of adv & disadv is a good decision! And generally it is good idea. Maybe we should make a serious article about these 2 apps? 🙄 😀 (not entirely a joke)
Yeah, I've noticed either that this forum has more Fusion supporters than other forums I visit. And it seems to be the only one...
Brilliantly! 🙂 Exactly! Nice conclusion for the article... 😉 But... We all know that there are 2 different companies with 2 different know-hows and approaches... And moreover they are serious rivals who try to improve their products. And they do it differently and independently from each other. That's why they do have advantages and disadvantages among each other...
I'll attempt to add to this discussion.
I bought Parallels the same day I bought my Intel iMac. I it was version 1.something. I updated religiously every time they made new builds, including the beta builds.
There was one common theme to all builds:
KERNEL PANICS
The only kernel panics I've ever gotten during all my years of using Macs were from Parallels.
I recently downloaded Fusion and tried the free demo. Within 2 days, I took out my credit card and bought it. I sent Parallels to the trash, both metaphorically and physically.
So, the advantages of Fusion over Parallels? For me, it's simply stability. That's it. That's what matters the most to me.
They are similar in features and usability. But, I can't have kernel panics trying to boot Windows. I won't stand for it when it's a regular basis.
EDIT:
I also want to note, that I took the virtual machine I built under Parallels (that gave me kernel panics) and converted it to Fusion using their beta converter. It works flawlessly and never panics.
Great app.
I bought Parallels the same day I bought my Intel iMac. I it was version 1.something. I updated religiously every time they made new builds, including the beta builds.
There was one common theme to all builds:
KERNEL PANICS
The only kernel panics I've ever gotten during all my years of using Macs were from Parallels.
I recently downloaded Fusion and tried the free demo. Within 2 days, I took out my credit card and bought it. I sent Parallels to the trash, both metaphorically and physically.
So, the advantages of Fusion over Parallels? For me, it's simply stability. That's it. That's what matters the most to me.
They are similar in features and usability. But, I can't have kernel panics trying to boot Windows. I won't stand for it when it's a regular basis.
EDIT:
I also want to note, that I took the virtual machine I built under Parallels (that gave me kernel panics) and converted it to Fusion using their beta converter. It works flawlessly and never panics.
Great app.
sushi
Moderator emeritus
Thanks for the story.
I had to chuckle a bit, as I had exactly the opposite experience.
As for the stability of both, I use Parallels to host Windows XP and to run typical office type applications such as Microsoft Office 2003 (haven't upgraded to 2007 yet). Parallels has been rock solid for me.
On the flip side, I had nothing but problems with Fusion when trying to run the same software.
I do like the idea the Fusion can take advantage of the multiple cores. Parallels is projected to do this in the future. We shall see.
Neil321
macrumors 68040
I'm on Leopard. Parallels was buggy on Tiger for me, but after moving to Leopard, it was a nightmare. Fusion appears to me more "Leopard Ready."
YMMV.
YMMV.
sushi
Moderator emeritus
Most interesting.
It may be that Parallels is better with Tiger and Fusion is better with Leopard.
Neil321
macrumors 68040
Parallels is working just fine under 10.5.2
installation, on the other hand, was a nightmare. problems galore with microsoft serial numbers...had to call M$ to get them sorted out.
installation, on the other hand, was a nightmare. problems galore with microsoft serial numbers...had to call M$ to get them sorted out.
Just a question.
If I create a backup of my windows machine and install a virtual machine on a MBP. Is it possible to restore my system in that virtual machine or do I have to install windows first?
If I create a backup of my windows machine and install a virtual machine on a MBP. Is it possible to restore my system in that virtual machine or do I have to install windows first?
Which is the better one? Is there a difference in speed?
I recently bought a base model Mac book for my wife, who also needs to run windows apps (not me, and am still on my trusty old PB G4), but like that to be a seem less and fast as possible.
Is the basic memory config of the macbook sufficient to run it well (no need for gaming, but business/accounting software should run without trouble).
Any thoughts?
I'm using fusion on 10.5.1 and now 10.5.2. No problems. I chose fusion over parallels because I've used vmware products before. I use it to run Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris; very little windows. I like the fact that you can give your guest operating systems 2 virtual cpus. I'm not sure how it compares to the current version of parallels.
Right now im running Fusion and I love it but the only problem im running into is that it does not use my dedicated graphics card and will not allow me to run PC games. Other than that it runs great!
some 'statistics'
I was thinking about which one to install on my wife's macbook so I looked up a Parallels vs Fusion thread. I felt compelled to calculate the number of "I prefer fusion over parallels" for the readers after the discussion of fact vs emotion got a little heated. Here are the numbers based on this (apparently abnormally pro-fusion thread):
1) Tried both & preferred fusion: 17 vs 4 (81% vs 19%)
2) Total (includes those who tried both & those who either tried only one or did not disclose whether they tried the other, e.g. "Fusion!"): 27 (Fusion) vs 7 (Parallels) (79% vs 21%).
3) If this does not support neil321 already, the point at which neil321 threw out the ballpark number that 95% of posters on this thread prefer Fusion (simply implying the large majority), it was actually 73% (8 vs 3) for those who had tried both.
The best thing that I got out of this thread is that I can try them out first. I started using my wife's macbook since my pc is in the shop. Now I can try running some of the statistical and graphing software I use regularly.
I was thinking about which one to install on my wife's macbook so I looked up a Parallels vs Fusion thread. I felt compelled to calculate the number of "I prefer fusion over parallels" for the readers after the discussion of fact vs emotion got a little heated. Here are the numbers based on this (apparently abnormally pro-fusion thread):
1) Tried both & preferred fusion: 17 vs 4 (81% vs 19%)
2) Total (includes those who tried both & those who either tried only one or did not disclose whether they tried the other, e.g. "Fusion!"): 27 (Fusion) vs 7 (Parallels) (79% vs 21%).
3) If this does not support neil321 already, the point at which neil321 threw out the ballpark number that 95% of posters on this thread prefer Fusion (simply implying the large majority), it was actually 73% (8 vs 3) for those who had tried both.
The best thing that I got out of this thread is that I can try them out first. I started using my wife's macbook since my pc is in the shop. Now I can try running some of the statistical and graphing software I use regularly.
spaceballl
macrumors 68030
NOT an emulator. This is not a PPC emulating x86. Macs can run windows NATIVELY.
I am purchasing a new MBP and want to be able to run Windows parallel to OSX because I have some software that is Windows-based that I run on my [old] PC.
How/where do I get Windows for Mac?
How/where do I get Windows for Mac?
Neil321
macrumors 68040
Bootcamp comes with leopard,you then need a copy of windows( bootcamp will let you run windows at native speed),or you can run windows through a vm such as fusion ( still need a copy of windows )
or you can let your vm run of you bootcamp partition
if installing windows via bootcamp follows this guide
http://www.apple.com/support/bootcamp/
