Parallels or Fusion?

[solvs]

VMWare.

But I may be a little biased since I know some of the people who worked on it and my experience with Parallels has just been awful.

 

[thegrifman]

For you guys who use Bootcamp for gaming, how many gb did you partition? I am thinking of doing the same thing, but don't want to partition too much or too little.

I partitioned 25 gigs for Vista because Vista alone takes near 10Gb. If you're running XP you could easily got 5 or 10 gigs lower than that depending on what games you're going to be running.

 

[emotion]

Huge advantacge for VMWare is that VM images created on any VMWare capable machine (Linux, Windows - it points out the free availability on these platforms though) will run on VMWare Fusion and vice-versa.

The main reason I'd choose VMWare over Parallels.

 

[ViperDesign]

I partitioned 25 gigs for Vista because Vista alone takes near 10Gb. If you're running XP you could easily got 5 or 10 gigs lower than that depending on what games you're going to be running.

Yep I did the same. Around 30 gigs for Vista. I wish I had a full XP Laying around, kinda annoying to have to use that much space for an OS.

 

[user13]

VMWare.

But I may be a little biased since I know some of the people who worked on it and my experience with Parallels has just been awful.

And what certain problems did you have with Parallels. Most people complain about Parallels being a system resources hog... I dunno, I have 2 Gigs of RAM and it works perfectly well. No reason even to try VM Ware out!

 

[solvs]

And what certain problems did you have with Parallels.

Yes, resource hog. Also hosed 2 separate Boot Camp partitions on 2 separate occasions. Completely locked up OS X on a few occasions. Slowed a brand new system I installed to a crawl until I reinstalled. Not to mention the fact that support is practically nonexistent. I could go on.

Unfortunately we have to use it at work since it was the first non beta, though we're considering moving to VMWare, and I think the first couple of versions should have been considered beta given how buggy they were.

 

[Nermal]

VMware for me. There was really no thought needed because we use VMware at work and this way I can move VMs back and forth with no conversion or anything.

 

[jonnylink]

I've read from all over that fusion performs better than parallels, but parallels lists improved performance as one new feature in their latest release (yesterday).

I'm curious if anyone has tested out the newest version to see if it can perform closer to the likes of fusion?

 

[scoobe]

I don't understand why fusion is better

I've been a long time user of Parallels, and it's been pretty good. I have had a couple of times when you launch parallels, it switches on the VT extensions, and gives me a kernel panic. It also lacks 64-bit OS support.
However...
Having tried Fusion for about a month, I have become annoyed with it. Performance when running is similar to Parallels, there is no real discernible difference. But when you load a suspended state, Fusion issues a command in windows to reinitialize the VMware tools. This command prompt window stays open for the better part of 4 min, meanwhile the windows system in unusable.
This is repeatable...

Despite this, there is no doubt in my mind that VMware will have the better product as Fusion matures... it is only 1.0...

 

[Nermal]

But when you load a suspended state, Fusion issues a command in windows to reinitialize the VMware tools. This command prompt window stays open for the better part of 4 min, meanwhile the windows system in unusable.

You probably realised this already, but that's definitely not normal.

 

[72930]

VMWare all the way, but I wish it had some of Parallels' features...