It funny 'cause for me, VMW has always been more stable than Parallels (pre-4). And On my iMac (C2D), VMWare is way more tender with my CPUs...
I guess it's a personal point of view!
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.
Parallels 4.0 Promises Significant Performance Improvements
- Thread starter JNRidgway15
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It funny 'cause for me, VMW has always been more stable than Parallels (pre-4). And On my iMac (C2D), VMWare is way more tender with my CPUs...
I guess it's a personal point of view!
Yes that happens with a lot of people, but not everyone for some reason. The thing is that since 3.0 and 4.0 are so different, Windows sees them as totally different machines with different hardware. Parallels Desktop 4.0 for Mac was built from the ground up with a new engine.
That's how Windows verifies that you've installed it; it checks the hardware on the system. When the hardware changes, Microsoft believes you're trying to duplicate your installation. The same thing happens when you make any major hardware upgrades. The solution is a call to Microsoft explaining your situation.
Switched back to Parallels 4 from VMware Fusion.
Upgraded my Windows partition to Parallels 4 and could boot from it. I switched to Fusion because Parallels 3 couldn't boot from my Windows partition (the way the partitions was set up in my hackintosh wasn't supported by previous versions of Parallels). Parallels can run some 3d apps that Fusion can't, which is the reason I am using it. After initial setup of Parallels Tools everything but sound was working in Windows, but found drivers for sound.
Also, converted Ubuntu 8.04 Fusion VM to Parallels 4 without any problems. Installed Parallels Tools without any problems.
Upgraded my Windows partition to Parallels 4 and could boot from it. I switched to Fusion because Parallels 3 couldn't boot from my Windows partition (the way the partitions was set up in my hackintosh wasn't supported by previous versions of Parallels). Parallels can run some 3d apps that Fusion can't, which is the reason I am using it. After initial setup of Parallels Tools everything but sound was working in Windows, but found drivers for sound.
Also, converted Ubuntu 8.04 Fusion VM to Parallels 4 without any problems. Installed Parallels Tools without any problems.
I've been away from virtual windows arena for awhile, so pardon me if my questions seems newbish. 
1. how's usb support? i remember old versions wouldn't support most of the windows peripherals through usb. (i.e. video cam)
2. how's the graphic support? can i play wow on it?
3. how much faster/slower when comparing bootcamp to either parallels or fusion?
Thank you.
Yuniverse
1. how's usb support? i remember old versions wouldn't support most of the windows peripherals through usb. (i.e. video cam)
2. how's the graphic support? can i play wow on it?
3. how much faster/slower when comparing bootcamp to either parallels or fusion?
Thank you.
Yuniverse
Seems to be very stable. Running it on 2 machines. Upgrade to my work machine with network log on took quite a while but now everything is running very well.
I am very relieved with the upgraded graphics support, I now can run one of my company's DVR programs that utilize Direct Draw, Active X, and Direct X 9.0.... Finally!!!
Seems snappier, but that could just be me. The configuration and UI for the upgrade was much nicer too. I am waiting for the iPhone App they mentioned during the upgrade process though....
BTW it does offer you to B/U just in case something goes wrong, and then it deletes the v3.0 app.
I am very relieved with the upgraded graphics support, I now can run one of my company's DVR programs that utilize Direct Draw, Active X, and Direct X 9.0.... Finally!!!
Seems snappier, but that could just be me. The configuration and UI for the upgrade was much nicer too. I am waiting for the iPhone App they mentioned during the upgrade process though....
BTW it does offer you to B/U just in case something goes wrong, and then it deletes the v3.0 app.
Gloor: It doesn't support every game, none of the solutions do.. You frequently need to throttle down even the games that do work well. Bootcamp is likely to stay the only solution for modern gaming, with possibly VMware/bootcamp being worthwhile on MacPros (tho they'd still perform much better in bootcamp)
Crossover games works nicely on the games it supports, much better than the full windows virtualisations.
Source games on my setup in Parallels 4 are comical, for some reason everything is rendered at a weird angle and the menus don't work.. @_@
...
From my few hrs testing Parallels 4 trial I've had one BSOD and one kernel panic.. It did seem very fast and responsive but so is VMware, so I'm sticking with fusion for now. :}
Crossover games works nicely on the games it supports, much better than the full windows virtualisations.
Source games on my setup in Parallels 4 are comical, for some reason everything is rendered at a weird angle and the menus don't work.. @_@
...
From my few hrs testing Parallels 4 trial I've had one BSOD and one kernel panic.. It did seem very fast and responsive but so is VMware, so I'm sticking with fusion for now. :}
Just upgraded to 4.0, and overall it does seem more responsive!
I also use VMware Fusion 2 quite alot, so I'll be comparing...
Multiple Core support is now there as well as Leopard Server running on Mac OS X client
I like the new interface too.
One glitch though... I had Need for Speed 4 running quite well in Parallels 3.0, but now the grfx seem all off...
See pic..
I also use VMware Fusion 2 quite alot, so I'll be comparing...
Multiple Core support is now there as well as Leopard Server running on Mac OS X client
I like the new interface too.
One glitch though... I had Need for Speed 4 running quite well in Parallels 3.0, but now the grfx seem all off...
See pic..
Attachments
Same here. Parallels has always been buggier. I run Fusion 24x7 on my Mac Pro and its awesome.
I had the same problem having bought Parallels' permanent activation for v2 and then upgraded to 3. When upgrading again to v4 it refused to take my v3 key so I tried the v2 permanent activation key since v3 was an upgrade. That worked fine and I am now upgrading my win2K install.
Really all cores?
Wow, if it really supports all cores, I may have to switch from VMWare, or hopefully that will spur them to match. Prior forum messages to VMWare have said you "can't" get more then 2 supported for a VM, so this will be interesting. I know there is some CPU vs. core issue in the counting.
Let's hope someone will post their setup in Windows under Parallels with Task Manager showing all those cores!!!
Wow, if it really supports all cores, I may have to switch from VMWare, or hopefully that will spur them to match. Prior forum messages to VMWare have said you "can't" get more then 2 supported for a VM, so this will be interesting. I know there is some CPU vs. core issue in the counting.
Let's hope someone will post their setup in Windows under Parallels with Task Manager showing all those cores!!!
Just like someone else here said I have no luck with Parallels and Fusion seems to work great and fast for me. I will try Parallels tonight.... and will try to do some real bench marks with some graphic software on both...
This is not the case for me, no reactivation here on my XP machine, that was converted from 3.0.
Using handbrake now to test speeds. Using both cores on my MBP.
While its nice, using 100% of the cpu in parallels makes OSX well, skip. Totally understandable, but I wish you could set parallels to use say 75% CPU, while OSX could have the rest, idle or not.
I miss the 3.0 Icon too,
Permanent Versus Upgrade
Thanks for letting me know that I'm not crazy. Unfortunately, I bought V2 in a box (and so don't have an electronic record of its key). Here's hoping the box is sitting at work and wasn't purged when I cleaned my office. It sounds like I'll need that number for the rest of my Parallels-using life.
Thanks for letting me know that I'm not crazy. Unfortunately, I bought V2 in a box (and so don't have an electronic record of its key). Here's hoping the box is sitting at work and wasn't purged when I cleaned my office. It sounds like I'll need that number for the rest of my Parallels-using life.
Thanks for letting me know that I'm not crazy. Unfortunately, I bought V2 in a box (and so don't have an electronic record of its key). Here's hoping the box is sitting at work and wasn't purged when I cleaned my office. It sounds like I'll need that number for the rest of my Parallels-using life.
if you click "about parallels" it tells you your key, doesnt it?
New feature alert. Parallels Images are now in one Archived file, just like VMWARE.
amazing!
I've been using Parallels since September... I just use it for minor things, but I have yet to experience any issues or bugs with it. It seems very solid on my end. Much better than having to go out and buy another computer just to run some XP only applications for school!
This is on a MacBook Pro 2.4 Penryn/4GB RAM.
This is on a MacBook Pro 2.4 Penryn/4GB RAM.
Problem is - it wants the V2 key, which I guess was the last "permanent" key I had. I had V3 installed and running using an "upgrade" key, which I already know. Besides, that has now been uninstalled and replaced with V4. Doing "about parallels" now will just tell me that V4 isn't registered.
I won't panic until I get to work tomorrow and see if I tossed the V2 box.
Problem is - it wants the V2 key, which I guess was the last "permanent" key I had. I had V3 installed and running using an "upgrade" key, which I already know. Besides, that has now been uninstalled and replaced with V4. Doing "about parallels" now will just tell me that V4 isn't registered.
I won't panic until I get to work tomorrow and see if I tossed the V2 box.
dont you know??? WHenever you need something like an old box, someone "just" threw it out yesterday
Good luck! A while back, I lost my key. I emailed support, and gave them my email address i used to purchase it. They emailed me a replacement key for v2 within hours. Worth a shot.
They finally fixed the bug where it would ALWAYS cause Spaces to refocus to its space while booting a VM. Now it boots all by itself and doesn't constantly switch spaces on me. Worth the upgrade price alone
In reality, it does seem faster than 3.0. I don't use it for games so i can't comment on that. It also seems less CPU intensive. I could not leave 3.0 open all the time because after a while it would tax the CPUs and rev the fans. But at idle, 4.0 is using <1% CPU time which is absolutely terrific!
Edit: Ah crap, it totally broke my MS Office 2007 for Windows installation. Where did I put those discs?
In reality, it does seem faster than 3.0. I don't use it for games so i can't comment on that. It also seems less CPU intensive. I could not leave 3.0 open all the time because after a while it would tax the CPUs and rev the fans. But at idle, 4.0 is using <1% CPU time which is absolutely terrific!
Edit: Ah crap, it totally broke my MS Office 2007 for Windows installation. Where did I put those discs?
Just upgraded to 4.0, and overall it does seem more responsive!
I also use VMware Fusion 2 quite alot, so I'll be comparing...
Multiple Core support is now there as well as Leopard Server running on Mac OS X client
I like the new interface too.
One glitch though... I had Need for Speed 4 running quite well in Parallels 3.0, but now the grfx seem all off...
Wow, funky!
I'll see about getting a copy of NFS4 to test in-house. At first glance looks like a driver issue, not a VM compatibility issue exactly. Of course either way it looks weird.
Just to make sure, what OS are you on? DX9 updated?
VirtualBox is free and better
I use Virtual Box. Its free and has a smaller memory footprint.
I use my Mac primarily to run Mac applications. Parallels locks too much memory and slows down my system for Mac apps. Virtual Box seems to lock less memory. It still runs Windows fine, doesn't slow down my Mac as much and you can't beat the price... free!
I use Virtual Box. Its free and has a smaller memory footprint.
I use my Mac primarily to run Mac applications. Parallels locks too much memory and slows down my system for Mac apps. Virtual Box seems to lock less memory. It still runs Windows fine, doesn't slow down my Mac as much and you can't beat the price... free!
Some Testing
I don't use it all that much - stay out of windows as much as possible but...
I've been running Fusion 2 for a while now and downloaded Parallels 4 trial.
(P stands for Paralells - F for Fusion)
Boot time:
P - 50 sec
F - 43 sec
1080p Quicktime Movie Trailer Up (24 fps)
P - 12-24 fps
F - 23-24 fps
Guitar Hero 3
P - Said graphics card not supported
F - Playable
Halo 2
P - Graphics card not supported
F - Loads mostly with menu problems in game and can move around but way to slow to be playable
I'm running a Mac Pro and let each Parallels and Fusion use my Boot Camp installation of XP SP2 and do its default thing with it. In windows 1600x1200 on both configurations. Both using 2 cores and 3d graphics enabled - in parallels tried 256 MB and 128 MB.
Maybe having them both installed on the same bootcamp is conflicting with each other and such.
Don't take my tests as final things. I like the way Parallels feels and interacts and looks and such. Fusion seems to be performing better though.
Hope this helps some. Interesting to see others results as well.
I don't use it all that much - stay out of windows as much as possible but...
I've been running Fusion 2 for a while now and downloaded Parallels 4 trial.
(P stands for Paralells - F for Fusion)
Boot time:
P - 50 sec
F - 43 sec
1080p Quicktime Movie Trailer Up (24 fps)
P - 12-24 fps
F - 23-24 fps
Guitar Hero 3
P - Said graphics card not supported
F - Playable
Halo 2
P - Graphics card not supported
F - Loads mostly with menu problems in game and can move around but way to slow to be playable
I'm running a Mac Pro and let each Parallels and Fusion use my Boot Camp installation of XP SP2 and do its default thing with it. In windows 1600x1200 on both configurations. Both using 2 cores and 3d graphics enabled - in parallels tried 256 MB and 128 MB.
Maybe having them both installed on the same bootcamp is conflicting with each other and such.
Don't take my tests as final things. I like the way Parallels feels and interacts and looks and such. Fusion seems to be performing better though.
Hope this helps some. Interesting to see others results as well.