VM ware Fusion or Parallells?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Irosaki, Jan 13, 2010.

  1. Irosaki macrumors member

    Irosaki

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Location:
    Sunderland, UK
    #1
    Hiya,

    when the new MBP refresh happens ill be getting a 17" MBP to replace my current HP laptop, Iv seen Apple say that both VM Fusion and Parallels can be used to run Windows Applications but which is better? as I dont see much difference just by looking at screenshots why do they advertise 2?

    thanks.
     
  2. Gabriel GR macrumors 6502a

    Gabriel GR

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2009
    Location:
    Athens, Greece
    #2
    both programs have trial versions. It's a beaten to death dilemma with no definite answer.
     
  3. spinnerlys Guest

    spinnerlys

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Location:
    forlod bygningen
    #3
    Because there are more than two.

    But those two are the market leaders in virtualization software for Mac OS X.

    MRoogle and Google will you bring many infos on VMWare Fusion vs. Parallels Desktop. Give it a try. Whatever I mean with that.
     
  4. Habitus macrumors 6502a

    Habitus

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2009
    Location:
    Where ever my life takes me...
    #4
    VM all the way. I've used it for about two years, now. VM takes advantage of the multi-core processor our Macs have. Also, it's very easy to use. For example, let's say you get a virus on windows on your Mac. All you have to do, if you want to restore, is find the VM icon and drop it in the trash!

    Cheers,

    Habitus :apple:
     
  5. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #5
    Try Sun's "Virtual Box" it's free. Or some Windows softwre runs under Wine withou need for Windows.

    I like VMware bcause it runs on other non-mac hosts (linux) so I can move my VM images between the Mac and Linux
     
  6. ayeying macrumors 601

    ayeying

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2007
    Location:
    Yay Area, CA
    #6
    Actually Parallels lets you take advantage of the multi-core more effectively than VMWare Fusion. Under Fusion, you can only allocate 4 Cores to a VM, under Parallels you get up to 8 Cores.

    But regardless, both products have good features.
     
  7. ///M5 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 14, 2009
    #7
    Both suck. Save your buck and stick with bootcamp.
     
  8. Irosaki thread starter macrumors member

    Irosaki

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Location:
    Sunderland, UK
    #8
    I wont be using it for games and need the apps running alongside Mac ones
     
  9. Habitus macrumors 6502a

    Habitus

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2009
    Location:
    Where ever my life takes me...
    #9
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but that wasn't always the case, right? I really enjoy how easy VM is, though.

    Habitus :apple:
     
  10. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #10
    Personally I like vmware because of the superior support and stability of the vmware. Parallels has an unfortunate track record of being unstable and buggy at times. I've used it for quite a while and ran into lots of blue screens and Kernel Panics. Where as I've yet to get a Kernel Panic with vmware and only incurred one BSOD.
     
  11. Jaro65 macrumors 68040

    Jaro65

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #11
    I have come across VMware at work where some of the corporate mission-critical servers were running virtual machines from VMware. That definitely inspired a bit of confidence in the company. I've been very happy with the Fusion on my MBPs. I also just upgraded to version 3.
     
  12. ayeying macrumors 601

    ayeying

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2007
    Location:
    Yay Area, CA
    #12
    It started off with VMWare Fusion getting 64-bit and 2 Core allocation first. Then Parallels got 2 Core allocation also. As it progressed, Parallels got 64-bit and 4 core allocation. VMWare Fusion stuck with 2 Core until later on where they got 4 core also. Now Parallels upped to 8 Core allocation while VMWare Fusion is still stuck at 4.

    For stability, VMWare Fusion wins. For 3D Performance, Parallels wins.
     
  13. Novaoblivion macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2006
  14. gguerini macrumors regular

    gguerini

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2007
    #15
    Talking about VMWare & Parallels.. one doubt:

    If you run a VM from a Bootcamp partition, the performance is good, bad or the same? I remember reading about bad performance over the Bootcamp partition in the earlier version of both app... but I was wondering if they improved that or it's the same.

    Do you know guys?

    Tks
     
  15. gguerini macrumors regular

    gguerini

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2007
    #16
    Never mind guys! I googled and found the result: do not run a VM from a Bootcamp partition. :) It's slower..
     
  16. mikes70mustang macrumors 68000

    mikes70mustang

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2008
    Location:
    US
    #17
    This topic has been beaten as bad as chris browns girlfriend and the chris brown beat his girlfriend joke combined.
     
  17. Jaro65 macrumors 68040

    Jaro65

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #18
    Who's Chris Brown?
     
  18. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #19
    evidently someone who beats his girlfriends :confused:
     
  19. tomjleeds macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2004
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #20
    Mediocre pop/R&B singer who very publicly beat up his then-girlfriend Rihanna (also a singer) in a hired Lamborghini.
     
  20. LinMac macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    #21
    I've used VMWare, Parallels, and VirtualBox recently.

    Parallels has impressive features, but crushes my puny Mac Mini when using Windows XP. The startup time is horrible due to the disk speed.

    VMWare also has a nice feature set, but it too crushes my puny Mac Mini when using Windows XP. The startup time was a lot faster than Parallels, but the Windows programs would frequently pause/freeze as the disk was hit.

    VirtualBox has a more limited feature set, but it didn't crush my Mac Mini with slow startups or program freezes. The install process was less than smooth using my really old scratched install disk, but it worked well the second time. The program was the only one I could use to actually run Windows XP for any length of time on my old Mac Mini.
     
  21. sn0warmy macrumors 6502a

    sn0warmy

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #22
    Parallels 5.

    Why? Because I had the same dilemma and after doing research there just isn't enough evidence to pick one over the other based on performance. So when I was in the Apple store I used the "coin flip" app on my iPhone to make the decision.

    So Parallels 5 FTW!!!
     
  22. Gabriel GR macrumors 6502a

    Gabriel GR

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2009
    Location:
    Athens, Greece
    #23
    your vm's will run faster if you don't use fixed size images rather than expanding. Also I think they will run much faster in bootcamp partitions.
     
  23. Patrick J macrumors 65816

    Patrick J

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2009
    Location:
    Oporto, Portugal
    #24
    Parallels 5 works much snappier for me when compared to VMWare. Just my 2 cents.
    Try them both out (they both offer demo periods), and see for yourself.
     
  24. ayeying macrumors 601

    ayeying

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2007
    Location:
    Yay Area, CA
    #25
    They are slower with boot camp because they have to translate NTFS to HFS for it to read
     

Share This Page