Parallels 5 vs. VMware 3

[guydor4]

Which one of them is better?

 

[pontiacy]

I prefer parallel desktops because it gives you more controls and choices. I also heard that VMware doesn't work in 64-bit. But parallel definitely does.

 

[tofagerl]

Both work in 64-bit.
I use VMware because I've used their products for eons. I simply trust them.

 

[maflynn]

Which one of them is better?

Neither, both have advantages and disadvantages. It all boils down to personal preference. I've used parallels for quite a bit, I found that they focus a lot on performance and quick updates, this causes some stability problems. For me it was not uncommon to incur Kernel Panics because of Parallels.

VMware may not have the same focus of runnning games/direct-x as parallels but they offer a more solid product. There updates are less frequent but generally the updates are more stable/solid so there's less of a problem when applying the updates.

Support; VMware wins this one hands down. They have a much better infrastructure to handle problems.

Overall, Parallels looks like a good upgrade, but for me, I've found VMware to be an excellent product and I have no desire to switch over.

 

[Zortrium]

I prefer parallel desktops because it gives you more controls and choices. I also heard that VMware doesn't work in 64-bit. But parallel definitely does.

VMware Fusion version 3 works in 64-bit. I've always used Fusion and it's been fine for me. Haven't used Parallels so I can't really offer a comparison, but lots and lots of people have bemoaned the terrible support you get with Parallels.

 

[y2kexodus]

I completely agree with maflynn on the above comments. I have both and VMWare has never corrupted on me but Parallels has. Parallels has more bells & whistles, which i personally like alot, but if you need stability then VMWare is the way. Personally I use both for different purposes - VMWare for work because of the stability and Parallels for personal gaming etc...

 

[Edge100]

I've used both, and Parallels is the product I've stuck with in the end. Everything seems just a bit snappier in Parallels, which has been observed in at least some controlled testing.

Not to say that Fusion is a bad product; it's not. But Parallels has done what I've asked of it (I mainly use it for compatibility with some scientific image analysis programs, some statistics packages, and for testing compatibility of Office documents), and I've never really felt the overwhelming urge to move back to Fusion.