Currently I am running both Parallels 3.0 and Fusion 1.1 on my brand new 24 inch iMac (Leopard) 2.4 gz Intel C2D with 4GB RAM.
Frankly, I think both programs are great. I have not noticed any slowdown in terms of my computing. I can run multiple programs including Adobe PS CS3 and Acrobat Professional in addition to both Parallels and Fusion with Windows XP SP2 Professional (I have both programs running windows xp with 1GB RAM). XP seems to run just a tad faster with Parallels than Fusion.
I've been doing research and people tend to favor Fusion over parallels these days.
I am also planning on installing Windows Vista on my Mac. Which is virtualization program is better if I want to install Vista? I heard Fusion fully supports duo core processors while Parallels does not. Windows XP is an older OS so maybe single core vs. duo core processors do not matter much and that's why windows XP with Parallels or Fusion runs the same? With Vista, I know it is a huge system hog (I have a Gateway Laptop 2.0 GZ Intel Core 2 with 2GB RAM running Vista and sometimes if even feels slow.
Frankly, I think both programs are great. I have not noticed any slowdown in terms of my computing. I can run multiple programs including Adobe PS CS3 and Acrobat Professional in addition to both Parallels and Fusion with Windows XP SP2 Professional (I have both programs running windows xp with 1GB RAM). XP seems to run just a tad faster with Parallels than Fusion.
I've been doing research and people tend to favor Fusion over parallels these days.
I am also planning on installing Windows Vista on my Mac. Which is virtualization program is better if I want to install Vista? I heard Fusion fully supports duo core processors while Parallels does not. Windows XP is an older OS so maybe single core vs. duo core processors do not matter much and that's why windows XP with Parallels or Fusion runs the same? With Vista, I know it is a huge system hog (I have a Gateway Laptop 2.0 GZ Intel Core 2 with 2GB RAM running Vista and sometimes if even feels slow.