What is better VMWare Fusion or Parallels for mbp? 2019 13” with 16GB Of ram. I am asking for a friend who needs windows for win software.
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.
VMWare Fusion or Parallels for mbp?
- Thread starter supernet33
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
chscag
macrumors 601
What kind of Windows programs does he need to run? Parallels seems to do better running Windows games otherwise both Fusion and Parallels work well. He also might want to take a look at the free VirtualBox from Oracle. Not as sophisticated as Fusion or Parallels but it's free and works.
I found that Parallels is the best performing and integrated with macOS.
Note that Parallels uses a subscription model. I'm not sure how VMWare Fusion charges.
Note that Parallels uses a subscription model. I'm not sure how VMWare Fusion charges.
MacDawg
Moderator emeritus
I've used VMware Fusion for years and have been very happy with the performance and results
That said, I echo @chscag in assessing the needs, because VirtualBox (free) can be a very viable alternative
2013 MBP 16GB RAM
Note: Fusion isn't a subscription model, but typically has updates that coincide with a new macOS release. I've found I can lag behind a few releases with no issues and still catch back up to the newest with a discount.
That said, I echo @chscag in assessing the needs, because VirtualBox (free) can be a very viable alternative
2013 MBP 16GB RAM
Note: Fusion isn't a subscription model, but typically has updates that coincide with a new macOS release. I've found I can lag behind a few releases with no issues and still catch back up to the newest with a discount.
I recall that both offered free trials. If so, you may try both and keep the one that better fits your needs.
poorcody
macrumors 68000
I think they are both good, but Parallels might be slightly more refined for the Mac. I remember watching a video benchmarking a MBP recently, and the reviewer noted that taking (or maybe it was restoring) a snapshot under Parallels was much much faster than under VMWare.
Parallels releases a new update every year, which usually you can get for $40 or $50 discounted. But they support new Mac OS's two years back, so you really only need to spend $20-$25/yr to keep it working, which to me is a reasonable deal.
Parallels releases a new update every year, which usually you can get for $40 or $50 discounted. But they support new Mac OS's two years back, so you really only need to spend $20-$25/yr to keep it working, which to me is a reasonable deal.
Trey M
macrumors 6502a
I have gone back and forth a few times but in the last 2 years I have stuck with Parallels. It is an awesome piece of software.
It is worth just getting a subscription (even though I’m really not a fan of many subs) because they do a solid job year in and year out. I find that Parallels is faster, more user friendly, and more Apple-esque in terms of their implementation.
I switched from VMWare (much cheaper and easier to get gray market licenses) to Parallels 2 years ago like I said and within 2 days I deleted all my VMWare apps because I was that impressed.
It is worth just getting a subscription (even though I’m really not a fan of many subs) because they do a solid job year in and year out. I find that Parallels is faster, more user friendly, and more Apple-esque in terms of their implementation.
I switched from VMWare (much cheaper and easier to get gray market licenses) to Parallels 2 years ago like I said and within 2 days I deleted all my VMWare apps because I was that impressed.
Will cast my vote with VirtualBox.
Yes, not as nice and feature rich as Parallels or VMware, but gets the job done when not going to be a heavy user of Windows (or other VMs), and the price is right for that use case.
Was a long time VMware user (really liked it; was running Windows and various *nix VMs), but since only use Windows about once a year (if that), got tired of having to buy a new version every few years due to incompatibilities with new MacOS versions.
Yes, not as nice and feature rich as Parallels or VMware, but gets the job done when not going to be a heavy user of Windows (or other VMs), and the price is right for that use case.
Was a long time VMware user (really liked it; was running Windows and various *nix VMs), but since only use Windows about once a year (if that), got tired of having to buy a new version every few years due to incompatibilities with new MacOS versions.
sracer
macrumors G4
Neither. If the Windows software is supported by WINE then I would recommend Wineskin. If the app isn't supported by WINE, then I recommend VirtualBox.