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 vs VMware Fusion
- Thread starter m3kilpat
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I used both several versions ago and here's my $.02
I found parallels to be ok, but a bit unstable in the early versions. The company also over promised on a number of topics and under delivered on them. To compound matters their support was lacking and the problems were very frustrating. My personal problems were such that parallels caused numerous Kernel Panics.
As for VMware, they did not over promise but delivered a solid product that was extremely stable and they continued to update it. to that end, I've been a VMware user, the downside (if you want to call it a downside) is that parallels maybe better now, but since I stick with VMware, I have no idea.
Finally VMware has a long track record of producing exceptional products, not just fusion, and standing behind them. That's one of the main reasons why I went and stayed with them.
I'm sure at this point parallels is a stable application, but since I've not used it since version 3 I'll let others chime in on version 4.
I've used VirtualBox on OSX and I currently use if on Ubuntu. On OSX I found it not as polished as VMware, lack of integration and the performance was such that I quickly deleted the application. I found quite the inverse on Ubuntu, its a more rounded and polished product and I use that when the need arises and as the other poster mentioned - its free
I found parallels to be ok, but a bit unstable in the early versions. The company also over promised on a number of topics and under delivered on them. To compound matters their support was lacking and the problems were very frustrating. My personal problems were such that parallels caused numerous Kernel Panics.
As for VMware, they did not over promise but delivered a solid product that was extremely stable and they continued to update it. to that end, I've been a VMware user, the downside (if you want to call it a downside) is that parallels maybe better now, but since I stick with VMware, I have no idea.
Finally VMware has a long track record of producing exceptional products, not just fusion, and standing behind them. That's one of the main reasons why I went and stayed with them.
I'm sure at this point parallels is a stable application, but since I've not used it since version 3 I'll let others chime in on version 4.
I've used VirtualBox on OSX and I currently use if on Ubuntu. On OSX I found it not as polished as VMware, lack of integration and the performance was such that I quickly deleted the application. I found quite the inverse on Ubuntu, its a more rounded and polished product and I use that when the need arises and as the other poster mentioned - its free
I stuck with Parallels
I just removed VMware Fusion 2.0.5 after trying it out for a couple of days. Both programs work well, but I had some issues trying to run AutoCAD in Unity mode on fusion and posts on the VMware forum received no responses. The thing I did like about Fusion is that it supports a dual monitor set up (although a little flaky) which Parallels 4.0 does not. The final reason I changed is that Parallels supports Windows 7, albeit experimental, and Fusion does not. Both are programs work well.
Mac Book Pro 17 2.93 GHz 4 megs.
I just removed VMware Fusion 2.0.5 after trying it out for a couple of days. Both programs work well, but I had some issues trying to run AutoCAD in Unity mode on fusion and posts on the VMware forum received no responses. The thing I did like about Fusion is that it supports a dual monitor set up (although a little flaky) which Parallels 4.0 does not. The final reason I changed is that Parallels supports Windows 7, albeit experimental, and Fusion does not. Both are programs work well.
Mac Book Pro 17 2.93 GHz 4 megs.
Go for VMware fusion. The setup process for new VM's is super easy and it runs very smooth. I have had no problems running Windows 7 in Fusion. Once, I was running win 7 in full screen mode and I thought I was in bootcamp when It came time to shut win 7 down. It ran so much like a regular install of windows I forgot I was running it virtually.
By just running a simple search from Google, I came up with these topics from Mac Rumors: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/300033/, https://forums.macrumors.com/archive/index.php/t-262746.html, https://forums.macrumors.com/archive/index.php/t-649610.html.
And finally, here is the Google Search that came up with...almost 2 million results.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=VMware+vs.+Parallels&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g4
Please search Google, MRoogle and Mac Search before you post. Thanks.
And finally, here is the Google Search that came up with...almost 2 million results
.http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=VMware+vs.+Parallels&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g4
Please search Google, MRoogle and Mac Search before you post. Thanks.
I would suggest that you give yourself some time with your macbook. You may find that you really don't need windows after all. I have virtualized windows on various linux distributions, and now on OSX, and though its is interesting in a novelty kind of way, I've yet to come to the point that I need windows for anything.
That being said, if you want to try virtualizing windows, or other operating systems, I would suggest VirtualBox. It's free, stable, and a good way to test the waters of virtualization.
I didn't say it wouldn't run...said it wasn't supported.
From the VMware site:
Windows 7 beta, both 32-bit and 64-bit, is not supported with VMware Fusion, but many VMware product features appear to work well today including Drag and Drop, Unity, and more. Based on commentary in our VMware Fusion forums, the best experience with Windows 7 beta with Fusion results from the following VMware settings:
- Use the Windows Server 2008 option to create your VM
- Disable 3D Acceleration
- Disabled Shared Folders
Apple Blog:
Parallels 4.0 Gets Major Update, Can Do Windows 7
Written on January 09, 2009 by Darrell Etherington and 7 people have commented
parallels Good news today for those of you who want to try out Microsoft’s latest attempt at an operating system without leaving the comfort of your Mac. A recent update to Mac virtualization program Parallels Desktop 4.0 (4.0.3810) introduces experimental support for Windows 7. Apple faithful will also note that the new update additionally brings support for Snow Leopard as both primary and guest operating system.
We plan to support Windows 7 after it is released.
By just running a simple search from Google, I came up with these topics from Mac Rumors: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/300033/, https://forums.macrumors.com/archive/index.php/t-262746.html, https://forums.macrumors.com/archive/index.php/t-649610.html.
And finally, here is the Google Search that came up with...almost 2 million results
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=VMware+vs.+Parallels&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g4
Please search Google, MRoogle and Mac Search before you post. Thanks.
Objective views and personal experience are completely different. If you notice I asked:
If you don't want to read about it then don't click on the post.
Duff-Man says....perhaps you ought to read the forum rules and guidelines, specifically that part about searching before starting new topics - it is even right there in the box when you start a new thread....oh yeah!
MacTech speaks to Fusion v. Parallels Debate
MacTech conducted a very good comparison of VMWare Fusion and Parallels. You should check it out before making your decision.
http://macte.ch/vmbench09
-Monica from Parallels
MacTech conducted a very good comparison of VMWare Fusion and Parallels. You should check it out before making your decision.
http://macte.ch/vmbench09
-Monica from Parallels
When I bought my iMac I purchased Fusions. I initially installed Vista and even with 4GB of ram found it unbearable. I deleted it and installed XP. It was better but still a little slow.
I've been trying Win7 RC in Virtual Box and it's actually pretty fast and stable. In my opinion VB doesn't provide the seemless intergration that Fusions does/did as far as running both OS's at the same time.
I'm interested in trying Win7 with Fusion to see if it's any better then Vista and Fusion.
Just my 0.02.
David
I've been trying Win7 RC in Virtual Box and it's actually pretty fast and stable. In my opinion VB doesn't provide the seemless intergration that Fusions does/did as far as running both OS's at the same time.
I'm interested in trying Win7 with Fusion to see if it's any better then Vista and Fusion.
Just my 0.02.
David
Touchdownjesus4,
Thank you for evaluating Windows 7 and it's great to hear that you are enjoying your experience so much! If you are planning on purchasing Windows 7 when it is released it may be helpful to know you don't have to wait until October to reserve your copy of Win 7! You can pre-order your copy of Windows 7 Home Premium or Windows 7 Professional today. For more information, see the Windows 7 Pre-Order offer page here: http://tinyurl.com/nldc8p
Jessica
Microsoft Windows Client Team
Thank you for evaluating Windows 7 and it's great to hear that you are enjoying your experience so much! If you are planning on purchasing Windows 7 when it is released it may be helpful to know you don't have to wait until October to reserve your copy of Win 7! You can pre-order your copy of Windows 7 Home Premium or Windows 7 Professional today. For more information, see the Windows 7 Pre-Order offer page here: http://tinyurl.com/nldc8p
Jessica
Microsoft Windows Client Team
You know, I don't recall him saying that he enjoyed the "Windows 7 experience" so much as he said he simply enjoyed the experience of seamless mode in the virtual machine which he was running it (as compared to previous virtual-machine experiences)...
ha theres so many parallels haters when parallels has hands down more support and is 20% faster in most situations its been proven
I got my first Mac a few weeks ago. I bought Parallels to run Quicken 2009 and SportTracks. I've been pretty impressed with it - especially the coherence mode. If you install XP on Parallels, I'd recommend you not install it from a RTM copy of Windows XP (i.e. a copy pre-sp1). I had alot of trouble getting the original version of XP to work correctly. I then created a slipstreamed XP image and installed from that and it's been 100% stable since then.
What does this "integration" mean? From my understanding... you run Windows OS (or any other OS) in a window as if it itself were an application on your Mac OS. Correct me if I'm wrong. So then what is this integration thing? For the record I'm not scolding this... I myself am looking into virtualization as I approach college and I just want to gather all the information possible.
What does this "integration" mean? From my understanding... you run Windows OS (or any other OS) in a window as if it itself were an application on your Mac OS. Correct me if I'm wrong. So then what is this integration thing? For the record I'm not scolding this... I myself am looking into virtualization as I approach college and I just want to gather all the information possible.
By within I mean where it looks like one is running 2 (or more) operating systems, not running it in a "window".
All major virtualization programs have a way to make it seem one is running Windows "on top" of OS X. One has both a start menu, task bar, dock, etc.
HTH
David
Re: integration and my experience with VM Ware, Parallels and VB
VM Ware was my choice before the most recent release of parallels. Right mow Parallels just seems faster. VirtualBox is surprisingly good, but not as stable as Parallels or VM Ware (at least it isn't on pre-release software).
VM Ware was my choice before the most recent release of parallels. Right mow Parallels just seems faster. VirtualBox is surprisingly good, but not as stable as Parallels or VM Ware (at least it isn't on pre-release software).
Both Parallels and Fusion have their fans and critics, much like anything else
The good news is, both have a trial version that any potential user can use to test them and make their own decision
I use Fusion and I have had a good experience with it
Woof, Woof - Dawg
The good news is, both have a trial version that any potential user can use to test them and make their own decision
I use Fusion and I have had a good experience with it
Woof, Woof - Dawg
I think both packages have their advantages and disadvantages. Personally, I bought both, but now only run Parallels due to a custom windows accounting package that won't install on fusion.
Just a quick note about file storage, I've found it's best to store your data files in your mac documents rather than in windows virtual machine as a mapped drive rather. That way you can test out both fusion and parallels without having to migrate data files. Plus it's easier to restore something from time machine by individual files if need be...and eventually your windows virtual machine will need to be reinstalled... because as a microsoft product, it just will eventually break.
Just a quick note about file storage, I've found it's best to store your data files in your mac documents rather than in windows virtual machine as a mapped drive rather. That way you can test out both fusion and parallels without having to migrate data files. Plus it's easier to restore something from time machine by individual files if need be...and eventually your windows virtual machine will need to be reinstalled... because as a microsoft product, it just will eventually break.