I don't like having to reboot my machine to play a game. Also some of the work I do depends on Windows, and having to be outside of OSX would be extremely inconvenient - I need a VM, so I'd need X2 installations of windows on my hard disc eating up space.
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 Desktop 9 with OS X Mavericks and Cloud Services Support Launches for Existing Customers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't like having to reboot my machine to play a game. Also some of the work I do depends on Windows, and having to be outside of OSX would be extremely inconvenient - I need a VM, so I'd need X2 installations of windows on my hard disc eating up space.
Parallels is basically subscription-ware. It is very good at eventually breaking with OS X updates, and you have to pay to acquire a version that works again.
I got tired of the constant pay pay pay and switched to VirtualBox. VirtualBox is free and works nearly as well.
Other software doesn't break when OS X updates, why must Parallels?
I got tired of the constant pay pay pay and switched to VirtualBox. VirtualBox is free and works nearly as well.
Other software doesn't break when OS X updates, why must Parallels?
I think I'll wait until VMWare comes out with the next version of Fusion. I don't like how much Parallels puts its tendrils into OS X. Fusion is more 'lightweight'. It's not noticeably slower in everyday use (not gaming) even if all the tests show Parallels to somehow be faster.
I've been a VMWare Fusion guy from the beginning and for the most part never had a problem. Currently, I use it to run a copy of WinXP Pro and Win7 64 bit. It does seem like Parallels pushes out major version updates way more often but I've never felt left behind by VMWare either.
I noticed that in Win7 using Fusion it drags my whole machine down...performance is horrible on the Mac side and not great on the Win side either. Now granted, I've allocated 4 processors and 4GB of RAM but on a MacPro with 8 cores and 12GB it shouldn't be a problem.
Are the issues specific to VMWare or does Parallels offer better performance?
I noticed that in Win7 using Fusion it drags my whole machine down...performance is horrible on the Mac side and not great on the Win side either. Now granted, I've allocated 4 processors and 4GB of RAM but on a MacPro with 8 cores and 12GB it shouldn't be a problem.
Are the issues specific to VMWare or does Parallels offer better performance?
Or look to see if your app has a premade WINE wrappers you could use; WINE is definitely not the easiest to use choice, but many applications run extremely well under it so it's always worth trying just in case!
I've run several games under WINE and found the performance to be good enough not to bother restarting under Windows to play them.
I'm a bit confused about the mention of Power Nap though; I thought that that required use of an API to identify stuff your app needs to do while "asleep"? How would that apply to Windows applications in a VM?
Parallels blew it years ago
I was using Parallels in 2007 and was told that I had to buy a new version a few months later because OS X went from 10.4 to 10.5. There was no word of supporting the old version of Parallels any more even though the new features of the all-new-shiny Parallels meant nothing to me.
Software that breaks because of a new OS X is also breaking up with me. I have put several dozen people on VMWare Fusion since, nobody ever complained.
I was using Parallels in 2007 and was told that I had to buy a new version a few months later because OS X went from 10.4 to 10.5. There was no word of supporting the old version of Parallels any more even though the new features of the all-new-shiny Parallels meant nothing to me.
Software that breaks because of a new OS X is also breaking up with me. I have put several dozen people on VMWare Fusion since, nobody ever complained.
good team
for the amount of time I needed parallels I had nothing but good experiences from the support team.
for the amount of time I needed parallels I had nothing but good experiences from the support team.
It's also slower.
----------
Yeah, performance is why I switched back from VMWare to Parallels. (I've owned, I think, 3 versions of Fusion and 2 versions of Parallels.) Parallels is noticeably faster, and the slow performance under Fusion that you described was my experience as well.
I'll also add that when it comes to performance, SSD make a huge difference for virtual machines. Often, it's not even the number of cores or RAM allocated that's the limiting factor so much as it is disk thrashing.
----------
It doesnt - it's entirely optionalJust installed and updated my VM's.
Can you chime in on performance? That's honestly the thing I'm most curious about.
Just a tip - you can actually open Boot Camp partitions in Parallels so that you'd have the flexibility of either booting directly into Windows for performance intensive stuff, or opening the VM through Parallels to have OS X and Windows side-by-side.
The only downside I've seen to this approach is the fact that the disk size is then not 'elastic' since you have to actually give Windows its own partition for Boot Camp.
Myself, I just run it as a straight VM. I don't play games, and performance is more than good enough for me using it as a straight VM when I need to use it for work with Windows-only apps.
I'd rather go for the native option rather than the "not quite so bad anymore" option. With solid state drives, rebooting isn't all that slow or inconvenient.
maybe VMs are fine for fine for the less graphic intense games and for the games that don't require 100% attention where you can tab in and out of other apps while playing, (and in fact, I still use VMs for this purpose as you do), but if you are doing any task that requires a prolonged use of windows apps that require more intensive CPU and graphics performance, it isn't practical to try to do so on VMs and it makes the 30 seconds to reboot worth the time.
Does it support virtual appliances in the Open Virtualization Format(ovf)? NO!
Does it support Linked Clones of snapshots? NO!
Does it support Vagrant? NO!
So, in my opinion, it's a toy, because it isn't apt for professional usage. Even Virtualbox has this features.
Does it support Linked Clones of snapshots? NO!
Does it support Vagrant? NO!
So, in my opinion, it's a toy, because it isn't apt for professional usage. Even Virtualbox has this features.
This. Their upgrade "policies" are pretty ******... If you bought it within the past 15 days? You get the upgrade free. But more than 15 days ago? Guess how f'cked you are? I bought Parallels last month, and now it looks like I get to pay out again to have W8.1 support.
I see the advantages of VMs, but for prolonged windows usage, things run much smoother when running it native. I personally like having both options at my finger tips, and the extra investment in getting a slightly larger HD to accommodate a second windows install is worth it...although, even in parallels 7, you would not have to have 2 windows installs if you didn't want to. you can use the VM to run your bootcamp copy of windows, and thus have 1 windows for both VM and native varieties.
I do this as well. It's a fantastic solution - boot camp when I really need it (honestly, it's just games at this point) and a VM of this same partition for running key windows- only apps.
It's a great solution.