vm fusion or parallels

Discussion in 'Mac Apps and Mac App Store' started by beerglass007, Dec 7, 2008.

  1. beerglass007 macrumors 6502

    May 13, 2008
    Now that Parallels desktop 4 is out for the mac.

    I was looking into getting buying fusion or parallels.

    I've seen VM fusion and like the fact you can use the bootcamp drive and mount it like a virtual machine under vm fusion.

    Can you do the same in parallels now? and which is better these days ?

  2. Leto-Parallels macrumors member


    Nov 7, 2008
    Parallels is better these days!

    ... so yeah, fine, I work for them. Whateva, I can be biased.

    To answer your question, though, yes you can use a BootCamp partition with Parallels Desktop 4.0 for Mac. There's more than one way to do this, including using Parallels Transporter within the partition to back it up separately.

    Our feature page is HERE, as well as a comparison of the two products. Note that the phone support for Parallels Desktop 4.0 for Mac is currently no charge. There are also a few cool YouTube demo videos we have on our channel HERE, many of which sport lovely, serene, trance-inducing music :D.

    There's a free trial for the software. It has everything the full version has, just with a 15-day time limit. You're given the option of backing up your data before converting any partition, just in case you choose not to get the full version.
  3. MacDawg macrumors Core


    Mar 20, 2004
    "Between the Hedges"
    Actually, I prefer Fusion... and so do a lot of others around here :eek:

    OP, you should try the Trial Versions of both and make up your own mind
    Most of it is personal preference... both do the job

    Woof, Woof – Dawg [​IMG]
  4. Sky Blue Guest

    Sky Blue

    Jan 8, 2005
    Definitely Fusion. Both have a trial version.

    ..and Fusion doesn't update every 6 months and want to charge you for a new version.
  5. drichards macrumors 6502a


    Nov 30, 2008
    I've had better personal experience with parallels, and for what I use Windows for (I run GM's STC Server on it, its Windows only though its just an apache based java server app, too lazy to set it up in OSX) its more convenient. I can use their new tiny-windowed mode and ignore it while windows sits behind ichat, and their coherence mode works excellent if I want to run something like Starplayr for Windows to listen to XM-Sirius.

    I used VMware a while back, and it fragged out when windows crashed. The primary virtual machine was destroyed in a crash and the other one - boot camp - was unusable in VMware or to boot to normally. Parallels was always smooth sailing though.
  6. Leto-Parallels macrumors member


    Nov 7, 2008
    Actually, it's been over a year since Parallels Desktop 3.0 for Mac released, and the build updates for that were all free, as will be 4.0's build updates.
  7. cleetusvandamm macrumors member

    Nov 28, 2008
    I used the Parallels trial for a bit then went and bought it. I think it works great for the few Win apps I use like Quickbooks , Sound Forge, and DVD Profiler
  8. jfg22557 macrumors newbie

    Jun 28, 2008
    and why not just use CrossOver to run your windows apps again?
    really no point in creating an entire virtual machine just to run a few apps.
  9. dukebound85 macrumors P6


    Jul 17, 2005
    5045 feet above sea level
    which is great if you have no need for 3d acceleration with apps. 3d acceleration is the only reason id ever consider fusion or parallels at this point and who know, virtualbox might implement it at some point
  10. sushi Moderator emeritus


    Jul 19, 2002
    The problem with CrossOver, is that it had many compatibility limits.

    For example, Microsoft Office 2003 & 2007 are at the Bronze level.

    IMHO, CrossOver is a waste of time because of so many compatibility issues. If you want to run Windows apps, then Parallels or VMware provide a much better solution.

    I use both Parallels and VMware. Both are good. Both have good points and bad points. To the OP, suggest that you try out both then decide.
  11. cleetusvandamm macrumors member

    Nov 28, 2008
    because Im very happy with Parallels and thats a good enough point for me .
    plus im sure I will be adding more Win apps in the future at some point...
  12. sushi Moderator emeritus


    Jul 19, 2002
    Good point.

    Once you get comfortable and get to know your way around with WMware or Parallels, it's nice to stick with one.


    CrossOver is so limited as a solution. They are slow to update to support new or updated programs. Plus, they are not even close to supporting mainstream apps like Office 2003 and 2007 so why bother with them.

    IMHO, using Parallels or VMware is a much better solution than CrossOver.
  13. Trip.Tucker Guest

    Mar 13, 2008
    ..and yet, Fusion still outperforms Parallels. Oh and yes, I am biased. Can you guess why? ;)
  14. aristobrat macrumors G5

    Oct 14, 2005
    I love that. I bought Fusion before it came out and haven't paid for an update since, and they've added some pretty major new features (even though they're version is only 2.0)

    I personally went with VMWare because they're #1 in the overall VM market. The datacenter where I work has at least 200 production servers running on VMWare enterprise products and they've been rock-solid.
  15. Trip.Tucker Guest

    Mar 13, 2008
    Glad you like the products! Don't forget ESXi is free to download and runs on major vendor hardware in 32MB!
  16. aristobrat macrumors G5

    Oct 14, 2005
    I think we're using 8 ESX servers here for production. We use the ESXi in our labs to play around with, though. :)

    The VMWare stuff is slick as snot, especially the vmotion stuff. Being able to move a VM being used by users from one ESX server to another, and the users don't notice anything, ... that just boggles my mind! :eek:
  17. eleven2brett macrumors regular

    Oct 20, 2008
    I've barely used fusion, but have had a good experience with it so far. Haven't tried parrells.

Share This Page