Parallels vs VMware Fusion (can we save money?)

[Wowfunhappy]

This must be because you're on Apple Silicon. On Intel, VMWare and Parallels have virtually identical performance for Windows guests. And while neither is great at running Mac guests, VMWare is noticeably better at it. (I use this all the time for software development.)

 

[maflynn]

I completely agree. Broadcom seems to be trying to discourage Fusion users and it feels like they are preparing to ditch the product. I don't know this for sure - I'm relaying what I see as a very long time Fusion user.

What motivation does Broadcom have to continue with Fusion? The company is spending money, time, and staff on a product that will yield zero dollars.

 

[Will Co]

What motivation does Broadcom have to continue with Fusion? The company is spending money, time, and staff on a product that will yield zero dollars.

Exactly. Given that it was Broadcom's decision to cancel all fee-paying licences, one can only conclude that this is the beginning of the end for Fusion.

 

[chrfr]

I definitely agree that Fusion seems to be on its deathbed at this point. Workstation (for Windows) is now also free and supposedly they are working on converting Workstation to use KVM as its virtualization hypervisor, which seems a weird choice, but then nothing Broadcom is doing with VMware really seems to make sense.

 

[maflynn]

decision to cancel all fee-paying licences

What is confusing is for broadcom to cancel all life time licenses, and force enterprises into expenses license arrangements. They bought vmware to squeeze every penny out of it, yet they're basically leaving money on the table - unless they plan leave the desktop sector

 

[gilby101]

They bought vmware to squeeze every penny out of it, yet they're basically leaving money on the table - unless they plan leave the desktop sector

My understanding: Before the acquisition, Fusion and Workstation were in a division slated for immediate closure. A bit of deft work by the manager for Fusion and Workstation got them moved. So we are lucky they still exist. For now.

 

[Will Co]

My understanding: Before the acquisition, Fusion and Workstation were in a division slated for immediate closure. A bit of deft work by the manager for Fusion and Workstation got them moved. So we are lucky they still exist. For now.

That's interesting. It sure feels like Fusion is entering its twilight and that would chime with what you're saying.

I'm currently trialing Parallels. It has quite a different feel - much less in-depth in terms of configurability and it wants to "over help" a technical user like me. I can live with that, once I get used to it. So far though, the biggest issue has been copy/paste. I can't get it to work and I've had to open a support case. That's a bit concerning - a very basic feature like that ought to work out of the box. Still, at least I have a facility to post a support case with Parallels, and the response so far has been pretty quick.

 

[maflynn]

My understanding: Before the acquisition, Fusion and Workstation were in a division slated for immediate closure. A bit of deft work by the manager for Fusion and Workstation got them moved. So we are lucky they still exist. For now.

Interesting, thanks for that little tid bit, I had not known that.

 

[startergo]

I definitely agree that Fusion seems to be on its deathbed at this point. Workstation (for Windows) is now also free and supposedly they are working on converting Workstation to use KVM as its virtualization hypervisor, which seems a weird choice, but then nothing Broadcom is doing with VMware really seems to make sense.

KVM is using the linux kernel module which is not available in Windows. Windows has its hypervisor ( 1 and 2) but it is a different animal. Worth mentioning is that Parallels uses the macOS hypervisor to run macOS operating system on silicon Mac’s and is just a wrapper for the hypervisor.

 

[chrfr]

KVM is using the linux kernel module which is not available in Windows. Windows has its hypervisor ( 1 and 2) but it is a different animal. Worth mentioning is that Parallels uses the macOS hypervisor to run macOS operating system on silicon Mac’s and is just a wrapper for the hypervisor.

Now that I reread it seems more like VMware is moving toward native virtualization in the various OSes but I have no idea what that might mean for virtualizing Windows on Apple Silicon:

VMware Workstation Shifting From Proprietary Code To Using Upstream KVM - Phoronix

www.phoronix.com

 

[startergo]

The success Parallels has in virtualizing Windows on Silicon Mac’s and providing outstanding 3d acceleration results cannot be matched by e free product. If they share the source code they might have better success, but that will never happen.