Fusion vs Parallels?

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by gadgetgirl85, Oct 10, 2009.

  1. gadgetgirl85 macrumors 68040

    gadgetgirl85

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    #1
    I'm unsure whether to buy Fusion or Parallels when I get my copy of Windows 7? Any advantages of one over the other for using Windows 7?
     
  2. miki66 macrumors 6502

    miki66

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Location:
    IL
  3. superatombomb macrumors member

    superatombomb

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    #3
    the newest version of vmware fusion supports windows aero, whilst parallels doesnt. Vmware also uses slightly less resources however parallels has better performance. Both have strong and weak points, but overall, it depends on what you are going to do.

    in my opinion,

    Parallels: Gaming
    Vmware: General usage

    edit: oops, vmware fusion 3.0 supports aero but is not released yet. It releases end of this month.
     
  4. iBunny macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    #4
    I really like parallels 4.0 compared to VMWare 2. However that being said, I cant wait for VMWare 3 which comes out at the end of this month. :D
     
  5. TheBritishBloke macrumors 68030

    TheBritishBloke

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #5
    IMO, I love Fusion. I tried the trials of both, and just really loved Fusion. And then there was the offer on MUPromo, which sorta was the turning point for me, so I bought it.

    I've experienced no problems on the Windows 7 x64 RC on VMWare running with 1GB RAM. Loving it :)
     
  6. psingh01 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #6
    I've heard parallels support is nonexistant, though I've never had to personally deal with them. I switched to fusion and am more than satisfied. Added bonus that vmware images are compatible across all of vmware products. So you can move to vmware workstation on windows with no problem.
     
  7. gadgetgirl85 thread starter macrumors 68040

    gadgetgirl85

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    #7
    I've heard of Virtual Box (is that it, the free one?) has anyone tried it?
     
  8. SnowLeopard2008 macrumors 604

    SnowLeopard2008

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
    #8
    Vmware uses less resources, widely used in the business world so it's rock solid stable and built upon proven technology.

    Parallels has better performance, not used in the business world as much. It's a consumer product vs VMware, an enterprise product.
     
  9. lindsayanng macrumors 68000

    lindsayanng

    Joined:
    May 4, 2008
    Location:
    East Haven, CT
    #9
    I had paralells on a macbook and their support was absolutely TERRIBLE. its another outsourced support company that is flipping througha book to give you an answer that you could have easily found yourself.

    I was trying to connect a macbook using XP to a vista pc and it was hell.. i did eventaully get it going though

    Paralells is also a resource hog. We had 4GB ram which was not enough in my opinion. You need at least 6 if you want to run Office, Quickbooks, or other large PC programs at the same time as OSX
     
  10. J&JPolangin macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2008
    Location:
    Thule GL @ the TOW
    #10
    I tried the trial versions of both and decided to go with VMFusion vs Parallels due to cost = they both felt pretty much the same and I got the Fusion for half the price:D
     
  11. relativist macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
    #11
    Using Parallels since it came with the last bundle. I'm hoping the next bundle has VMware so I can try it. The bundle was a great value...
     
  12. GoKyu macrumors 65816

    GoKyu

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    Location:
    New Orleans
    #12
    I started off with a trial of Parallels, and it worked fine, but then I tried VMWare after a coworker suggested it to me -- I MUCH prefer the interface and feel of VMWare now, and ended up buying VM 2, and will definitely be upgrading to 3.0 when it comes out later this month.

    I don't play games on Windows, so any performance boost that Parallels might have in that regard doesn't really matter to me.
     
  13. MythicFrost macrumors 68040

    MythicFrost

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Location:
    Australia
    #13
    I use parallels 4.0 on my Mac Pro, I have XP, Vista & Win 7 RC 7100.
    I think Parallels 5 will support Aero, I'm not sure when it comes out though.

    I don't think I've had one problem with Parallels, I've never tried Fusion though.

    Kind Regards
     
  14. Winni macrumors 68030

    Winni

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Location:
    Germany.
    #14
    I've bought both - Parallels first, VMWare Fusion later - and can say that VMWare Fusion is the MUCH better and more flexible product, especially when you are also going to use other guest operating systems than Windows. In my experience, the only guest OS that Parallels supported quite well was 32-Bit Windows XP.
     
  15. mgridgaway macrumors 6502

    mgridgaway

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    #15
    I too have used both, and find Fusion a much better product.
     
  16. j2048b macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2009
    Location:
    Cali
    #16
    great price for fusion:

    http://www.academicsuperstore.com/

    bought it a few months ago!

    i am not sure if every edition is upgradeable to the newest, but they should be!!
     
  17. techound1 macrumors 68000

    techound1

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2006
    #17
    Virtual box requires more familiarity with how a computer works than either Fusion or Parallels - you get what you pay for. If you're comfortable working in terminal, for example, VB is the cat's PJ's. Of the two commercial products, Fusion usually has the better post-rebate deal, usually coming in $10 less. If you're not a student, amazon is a good place to start shopping for it.
     
  18. jklara macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Location:
    Florida
    #18
    The people at fusions were awesome

    I love fusions!! I had some issues and their support team was great. spent a lot of time with me-- and unlike those other software companies (like intuit-#@*#} they didn't charge me to make sure the program worked to my specifications. I highly recommend it.
     
  19. TheAshMan macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Clarksville, Maryland USA
    #19
    I agree with this, since version 1.0 Fusion has been way better for Linux compatibility. However, Parallels is noticeably faster with Windows XP and is a great product.

    My recommendation is if you want fastest performance with XP just to run Windows apps, go with Parallels. If you want to run the latest versions of Linux and more varieties of OS's, go with Fusion. Benchmarking has shown them to be about equal with Vista/Win7, but I wouldn't recommend them for a VM. I have used both Parallels and Fusion on and off for the past 2+ years and it has always been the same story. I have seen the new versions of both and Parallels 5 is noticeably faster on Snow Leopard.
     
  20. jklara macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Location:
    Florida
    #20
    Fusin runs plenty fast with Windows XP

    I am running windows xp on my mac pro in Fusions. It is plenty fast. I have had no problems and I have it stuffed with some vintage and new software. My parallels program is sitting here collecting dust. Like I said, I liked that I talked to people here in the US and that they didn't charge me to get me up and running. I think that is worth a lot.
     
  21. tuamtuem macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2009
  22. WizardHunt macrumors 68000

    WizardHunt

    Joined:
    May 11, 2007
    Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada USA
    #23
    In my case I would be using Windows XP 32 bit version with my iMac 3.06 Ghz with 4 GB ram using snow leopard, and 4850 Video option. Based upon what I am reading and since I would be using it mainly for a video editing program in the windows section that Mac does not have, I think VMFusion would be the way to go. . .

    Does anyone agree?
    or disagree? and Why?
     
  23. MythicFrost macrumors 68040

    MythicFrost

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Location:
    Australia
    #24
    I've bought Parallels 5 and I love it, according to them they are up to 22% faster than Fusion 3. I've never tried Fusion myself, but with your setup I'd do this:
    Install XP 32-bit into Boot Camp, and create a virtual machine from the Boot Camp partition, that way you can boot into Windows if necessary and you can also run it side by side with your Mac.
    I don't know if you can create a virtual machine from a Boot Camp partition in Fusion 3, so you might want to check that out first.

    If you only have a Intel Core 2 Duo processor, running Fusion may not be an option since you have to dedicate a processor core to the VM, you'd have one for your Mac and one for your virtual machine.
    Is that enough for your kind of video editing, is it serious stuff?

    http://www.parallels.com/products/desktop/features/faster/
     
  24. WizardHunt macrumors 68000

    WizardHunt

    Joined:
    May 11, 2007
    Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada USA
    #25
    I am using Boot Camp already (32 BIt Win) and don't have much problem, but I don't like to have to reboot in order to change from Snow Leopard to Windows XP. That was why I am looking into parallels 5 or VMWare Fusion 3 and trying to decide which would be better for me?
     

Share This Page