Parallels 5 vs VMWare Fusion 3

[Derkatwork]

I'm unsure on this as the internet has run 'tests' and I have seen some who say VM is faster while others say that Parallels is faster. Can I get some feedback from the users? I use a macbook pro with 4 GB ram and 2.53 GHz. My primary purpose is the old video games I used before my macbook. Which one works faster and is more stable?

 

[Chrysaor]

I was a Fusion 3 user, recently tried Parallels 5 and difference is amazing. In Windows 7, 3D performance increased significantly and PD 5 even supports 3D in Linux OS.

 

[saschke]

I've used Fusion 3 for a while but had tried Parallels 5 after getting my new Macbook Pro and I have to say it's faster and neater, too. Get Parallels.

 

[yensteel]

I agree with the other two. Despite what people have said in other threads, Parallels 5 is actually quite stable. I never had any problems with the program.

Parallels 5 is definitely faster than Vmware Fusion 3, at least in benchmarks. I can't subjectively compare it with Vmware Fusion 3 because I've never used it.

 

[Zortrium]

Parallels for raw speed. VMware for rock-solid stability. I also think the Parallels interface is a confusing mess, whereas VMware's is intuitive and clear. If you care about 3D performance, however, Parallels is probably the best choice. I don't really run 3D apps in VMs, and I'm a regular VMware Fusion 3 user.

 

[fhall1]

I can't get Parallels to boot in anything other than safe mode...otherwise it thinks windows is running, but all I get is a black box. I suspect it's due to the Displaylink drivers I use for a 7" USB LCD monitor I have attached to my iMac since Parallels used to work. However, disconnecting the monitor and re-installing Windows7 still yields the same results.

Fusion, on the other hand, is working fine, so I've given up on Parallels.

 

[maflynn]

First off do a search, since this question has been asked multiple times.

As for my opinions.
I've used both and both have advantages/disadvantages.

Parallels:

• Faster then vmware
• Frequent updates (that are typically buggy)
• has stability issues
• generally will add a feature before vmware but those features may not work for a couple updates until parallels shakes the bugs out
• poor customer support

VMware:

• Good performance
• Less frequent updates, but those updates are very stable and enhance Existing features without impacting stability
• Little to none stability issues, very solid
• New features are added more methodically, i.e., added without bugs
• excellent customer support

Overall, I found parallels to be too problematic, giving my BSODs and even kernel panics. VMware has a great reputation for producing solid virtualization applications and fusion does not disappoint. Backed up by vmware's great customer suppport, it was a no brainer for me.

 

[LAS.mac]

I've been Parallels user since v. 3. Using v. 4 since roughly 1 year, I recently upgraded to 5. I mainly use Excel 2003 for some macros I use for work that do not run in any other Excel. Well, everything was working fine up to version 4, but with 5 Excel started crashing. So I had to uninstall Parallels 5, install back v. 4. What's bother me is that I spent 50 bucks for an upgrade I'm not going to use. And that Parallels 4 keeps telling me to upgrade to 5...

 

[fhall1]

....oh...and Parallels support forums suck. Even after you register, all posts are not posted until a moderator approves them. I've had several that the mods must have "forgotten" about because they never showed up until the third time I tried to post them.

 

[macrazee]

VMWare Fusion, by a country mile. 3D performance hat may go to Parallels but for everything else (and rock-solid stability) Fusion is the way to go.