VMWare Fusion 7 vs. Parallels 10

Discussion in 'Windows, Linux & Others on the Mac' started by casperes1996, Sep 3, 2014.

  1. casperes1996 macrumors 68040


    Jan 26, 2014
    Horsens, Denmark
    So, since both Parallels and VMWware Fusion have been updated recently, I thought it'd be fun to have a little versus.
    I was thinking that we could compare features and performance on this thread, to possibly help people who are considering either product make the right purchasing decision. I for one am considering maybe one day getting one of the two, cause it's an easier solution for gaming than Bot Camp.

    If anyone has tried either product yet, I urge you to chip in with experience and benchmarks.

    Anecdotes are welcome, and hard data is very appreciated.
  2. maflynn Moderator


    Staff Member

    May 3, 2009
    Your best bet is try to both, since both offer trials.

    Parallels is usually faster with games, i.e., better directx but Fusion tends to be more stable.

    I like Fusion and I'm happy with 7 though I've just installed it. My advise is to try both and pick the one that best suits your needs.
  3. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Apr 23, 2011
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    VMware Fusion 7 actually now has DirectX 11 support.

    See my thread here: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1772325
  4. WorldIRC macrumors 6502

    Sep 25, 2005
    I found Fusion 7 to be slow and laggy compared to Parallels 10.
  5. sfwalter macrumors 68000


    Jan 6, 2004
    Dallas Texas
    If your not using it for gaming then I think Fusion is the way go. Most businesses use VMWare on windows so you can connect those VM's.
  6. pdjudd macrumors 601

    Jun 19, 2007
    Plymouth, MN
    A claim that was debunked by VMware on their site.

    To quote "It says right on the Fusion product page that only DX 9.0c is supported."

    Just to clear the air
  7. maflynn Moderator


    Staff Member

    May 3, 2009
    Even if it did support it, I'd say parallels is faster for game playing. They have that reputation of superior performance. As I mentioned, though Vmware Fusion is much more stable and I prefer that :)
  8. MacDawg macrumors Core


    Mar 20, 2004
    "Between the Hedges"
    I've used Fusion since the early days and have never had an issue
    As has been stated, both have free trials and can be compared and everyone's system/needs are different
    There is no reason users shouldn't try them both themselves and make a decision

    I am using VMware Fusion 7 now and it does everything I need and more
    But I have no doubt Parallels would function well also
  9. dyn macrumors 68030

    Aug 8, 2009
    Small correction: Parallels has the reputation of superior graphics performance in Windows. In anything else (raw cpu, disk and network utilisation) it's Fusion that has superior performance (especially when it comes to non-Windows systems).

    If all you do is run Windows then Parallels might be a better choice because of it's graphics performance and even some tight integration with OS X (such as the OS X gestures that are usable in the Windows vm). If you want to have a very stable system I'd opt for Fusion since it has the reputation of being superior when it comes to stability (with any OS as guest). It also is superior when it comes to the more professional features (linked/full clones, advanced networking options and so on).

    Only use Virtualbox if you really don't want to spend any money on virtualisation software but if you want something proper, get Fusion or Parallels.
  10. sboychuck macrumors regular

    Sep 19, 2014
    Thousand Oaks, CA
    Parallels 10

    I just put P10 on my fully loaded 27" iMac with an i7 and it works great. Running 8.1 and it is smooth. Really only use it for Quicken 2014. I got tired of having to switch over to BootCamp. My wife also likes to use Office in Windows as well. She will come around someday. Have to say the 27" iMac is a thing of beauty though. I will give P10 a thumbs up.
  11. peterpan123 macrumors 6502

    Sep 24, 2014
    Some of you mentioned that Fusion is more stable. What so unstable about Parallels? I am a Fusion user but I might be forced to use Parallels if I want my school to pay for the update.
  12. dyn macrumors 68030

    Aug 8, 2009
    Parallels crashes on some people but usually it is just glitches and things like that. Running Windows is what it does really well but when it comes to non-Windows systems you'll run into those glitches quite a lot. Parallels also used to break a lot whenever Apple released security updates and dot-releases (like 10.9.4, 10.9.5) but they've got that under control now. Am hoping they'll do the same for non-Windows support. Also Fusion has a very predictable behaviour which is not very strange as they target business users.
  13. Ccrew macrumors 68020

    Feb 28, 2011
    Like (for instance) being able to move a Fusion VM on my MBP to one of my VMWare farms in the datacenter wit a minimum of effort. I can do proof of concept at Starbucks if I want then move it to a datacenter halfway across the country seamlessly.
  14. Anijake macrumors 6502


    Oct 19, 2008
    Brooklyn, NY
    I just switched to VM7 from Parallels and the one thing I miss or have not configured correctly, is in Parallels I could right click on a file in Windows and select Open on Mac and it would open on the Mac.

    For example: .flv files downloaded of concerts, will open in VLC on the Mac with a right click. I do not see a way for VM7 to do that.
  15. JoelBC, Oct 3, 2014
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2014

    JoelBC macrumors 6502a

    Jun 16, 2012
    I have been a Parallels user from version 8 through to and including version 10...I use it mainly for Quicken 2014 and MS Office, both of which I use daily (and will until Intuit gets a proper version of Quicken for Mac and MS gets a fully functional version of Excel for Mac.)

    I now am considering moving from parallels to Fusion because I am getting tired of the instability / jumping that often (but not daily) occurs in Quicken (i.e. the individual entries in the register sometimes "shimmer up and down" making it difficult to enter new items).

    Please -- to the extent possible -- answer the following so that I can decide whether or not to try Fusion:

    1. Conversion

    I would test / try Fusion by converting my current Parallels VM to a Fusion VM but would like to know:

    a) Is there any difference between a "converted" VM and a "native built" VM and, if yes, what?

    b) Is it necessary or recommended to remove Parallels Tools before doing the conversion...I have looked at the Fusion website but could find no mention of this. [UPDATE: I spoke to VM Ware who said I actually had to remove Parallels to try Fusion. Does this makes sense.]

    2. Possible Deal Breakers

    There are three features in Parallels that I use extensively and would not like to do without in Fusion; namely, integrated / shared Dropbox, integrated / shared printers and the use of OS X gestures. Are these features available in Fusion and, if yes, how well do they work?

    3. User Manual

    Though I have searched the VM Ware webpage I cannot find a PDF copy of the user manual...would appreciate the URL should someone know as I have a long flight over the weekend and would like a hard copy of the manual with me in case I run into any configuration problems. [UPDATE: I spoke to VM Ware, they have no PDF user manual. This makes no sense, at least to me]

    Thanks for reading this posting and for your responses...
  16. ayeying macrumors 601


    Dec 5, 2007
    Yay Area, CA
    The best is to remove the tools before moving. But it's not required. I moved, installed the new tools, then removed the old tools.

    There is no user manual because you don't really need one... It's running a separate PC within your Mac. There is no configuration once its set up. Any other configuration is within Windows, just like if you have a desktop or laptop and you need to configure windows to your settings.
  17. Demigod Mac macrumors 6502a

    Apr 25, 2008
    In general,

    Parallels - better performance
    Fusion - more stable, less buggy, better customer service, more OSes supported
  18. JoelBC macrumors 6502a

    Jun 16, 2012
    Thanks, I was hoping this would be the case as I really did not want to have to remove Parallels in order to test Fusion!

    Thanks, guess I will have to give it a try myself to see which I prefer.
  19. MacForScience macrumors 6502


    Sep 7, 2010
    If you just want to run Windows then Parallels–is a bit faster, and more integrated. If you want to use Linux too, then VMWare Fusion. I would not game inside of a VM–BootCamp is way better for that.

  20. JoelBC macrumors 6502a

    Jun 16, 2012
    Thank you, I am not a gamer so this is not an issue for me...I don't need / want Linux at present so this too is not an issue for me...all I need / want is OS X and Windows as virtual machines...

    While I will try Fusion I am guessing that I will stick with Parallels because it allows the use of OS X's gestures which I find invaluable and, which I understand, are not available in Fusion. Is this correct?

  21. MacTCE macrumors 6502


    Dec 20, 2013
    Upstate NY
    I personally use VMWare just for the fact I run lots of Cisco VM's which I can directly download from them and install.
  22. JoelBC macrumors 6502a

    Jun 16, 2012
    Noted with thanks but also note that I do not need this capability because at present I only need to run OS X or Windows as VMs.
  23. Traverse macrumors 604


    Mar 11, 2013
    VMware Fusion has been solid for me for the last 2 years. Admittedly though, version 7 has been buggy.
  24. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Apr 23, 2011
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    Fusion actually provides more raw computational power. So for number crunching within a VM, Fusion's the way to go.

Share This Page