Parallels vs VMware

Discussion in 'Windows, Linux & Others on the Mac' started by Tucson Boy, Aug 8, 2007.

  1. Tucson Boy macrumors newbie

    Aug 8, 2007
    I'm planning to install one of those for just windows live messenger and some music editing programs and office so which one is better and whats the minimum ram that i need to work without problems?
    another question does the isight work with windows live messenger ?

  2. M@lew macrumors 68000


    Nov 18, 2006
    Melbourne, Australia
    Yes the iSight works. Wait until VMware is properly released and people have time to test it before you ask this question and you'll get more realistic results.
  3. Stadsport macrumors regular

    Nov 9, 2006
    VMWare was properly released like two days ago. :p
  4. M@lew macrumors 68000


    Nov 18, 2006
    Melbourne, Australia
  5. sm0 macrumors regular

    Jun 5, 2007
    Wellington, NZ
  6. RonJ83 macrumors member

    Nov 1, 2004
    i tried both and wasnt a fan of either so i went to bootcamp. emulation sucks even for small apps, i was having a problem running a program based on MS paint.
  7. marioman38 macrumors 6502a


    Aug 8, 2006
    Elk Grove, CA
    Made the switch from parallels to VMWare yesterday, so far, I'm lovin it. It just seems snappier.
  8. goldretrvr macrumors newbie


    Apr 6, 2007
    Bucks County PA
    I have been running Parallels on my macbook pro for a few months - but I am thinking about making the switch to VMWare - does anyone know if you can use the Parallels instance of WinXP and migrate it to VMWare?

    I really do not want to configure a new instance of WinXP - I do not use it enough..
  9. pastrychef macrumors 601


    Sep 15, 2006
    New York City, NY
    Parallels and Fusion aren't emulators.
  10. brkirch macrumors regular

    Oct 18, 2001
    Here's a simple comparison.

    Parallels Desktop
    -Faster Graphics
    -Can show Windows disks on Mac desktop
    -Can open Mac documents in Windows programs
    -Can open Windows documents in Mac programs
    -Multiple snapshot support
    -Supports connecting to multiple network interfaces
    -Supports printing through Mac printer drivers
    -Coherence is stable
    -Future roadmap is more public and includes 64-bit guest OS support, mult-processor support, and Aero support
    -Fast development
    -Lots of free updates
    -Currently no 64-bit guest OS support or mult-processor support
    -Frequent updates make it more likely that you will encounter bugs
    -Poor support

    VMWare Fusion
    -Capability with other VMWare products
    -Less CPU overhead
    -64-bit guest OS support
    -Support for two processors
    -More stable
    -Unity is buggy and unstable
    -Few extra features; doesn't even include many of VMWare Workstation's features
    -VMWare will not give any future roadmap
    -Slow development

    IMO Fusion is very overhyped, I own a copy so I've been trying to make use of it but it is just not as bug free as people have been saying. In fact it does not at all seem worth using Fusion for about 10% less CPU usage when all the features are buggy and there are a lot fewer features in Fusion than Parallels. Not to mention Fusion even lacks configurability for the features it has (why can't I set which network interface to use? or make the taskbar visible in Unity without having to manually edit configuration files?).
  11. LMO macrumors member

    Jun 8, 2007
    Yes, you can migrate the Parallels VM to Fusion.
  12. KWRegan macrumors newbie

    Aug 11, 2007
    Amherst, NY
    Integer performance; when > 2 cores?

    A simple test of integer performance is to run a Windows chess program and see how many nodes-per-second it computes. (Indeed, the Crafty program was part of SPECint 2000.) Comparing Parallels 3.0 and VMWare Fusion beta VMs each using the same Boot Camp partition on my 2.6Ghz 4-core MacPro with 3GB RAM, and remembering to set the chess engines running under Fusion to run just 1 processor only, I get:

    () Deep Fritz 10 is 33-40% faster on VMWare than on Parallels
    () Rybka 2.3.2a is 40-50% faster on VMWare
    () My own Borland C++ compile of Fruit 2.1 is only about 15% faster on VMWare.

    (All engines have 512MB hash, and both VMs have about 1.3GB RAM assigned.)

    Of course I'd like my chess programs to use all 4 cores, the way they do under Boot Camp proper, so: when will Parallels go multi-processor, and when will Fusion allow more than a dual-core VM?

    Also, the need to reactivate my Boot Camp partition seemingly whenever I switch from one to the other is a royal pain... !
  13. brkirch macrumors regular

    Oct 18, 2001
    Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to set the Fusion VM to only use one processor? When you tell a program from within Windows to only use one processor, the rest of Windows still will have access to another processor and that can make a significant difference in benchmarks.

    Parallels has made a mention of including mult-processor support in a future Parallels Desktop 3 update, but I have no idea exactly when they plan to have it done. VMWare Fusion I don't believe has any support for more than two processors planned currently based on what I have heard, but then again VMWare refuses to talk about their future roadmap so no one can really say for sure.

    Edit: I just noticed that the extra 10% CPU usage that Parallels has is mentioned by the developers on the Parallels support forums as a known issue that is being worked on. If you disconnect all USB devices, mute sound, and close Parallels Tools Center the idle CPU usage is about the same as VMWare's, in fact even lower from my experience.

Share This Page