From what I gathered, during their histories, Parallels has performed better than Fusion, yet there there's still quite a debate over which is better: fusion users aren't a niche. If I'm correct, benchmarks reveled that Parallels just performs better, then why do people still use Fusion? I switched to Fusion years ago, when I realized that Parallels had installed artificial connections within my network preferences pane, and hated it. I believe there are still some features for which Fusion in unique and some users might prefer it over parallels for them. Does unique features justify the popularity of Fusion? Or it just isn't true that on average during years of development parallels has always performed better than fusion? I gathered that Parallels 7 still performs better than Fusion, am I right? Is parallels still as system-invasive as it was before? I do think that installing artificial connections is invasive, I liked the fact that Fusion installation was drag-and-drop and always distrust programs that can be installed only through installers (I'm not talking about Operative Systems of course). What's you guys' opinion on this?