VMWare Fusion or Parallels for mbp?

Discussion in 'Mac Apps and Mac App Store' started by supernet33, Jun 15, 2019.

  1. supernet33 macrumors 6502

    Jan 29, 2008
    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.
  2. chscag macrumors 68040


    Feb 17, 2008
    Fort Worth, Texas
    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.
  3. pshufd macrumors 65816

    Oct 24, 2013
    New Hampshire
    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.
  4. MacDawg macrumors Core


    Mar 20, 2004
    "Between the Hedges"
    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.
  5. jdelgado macrumors regular

    Oct 25, 2009
    I recall that both offered free trials. If so, you may try both and keep the one that better fits your needs.
  6. poorcody macrumors 6502a


    Jul 23, 2013
    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.
  7. Trey M macrumors 6502a

    Trey M

    Jul 25, 2011
    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.
  8. NoBoMac macrumors 68020


    Jul 1, 2014
    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.
  9. sracer macrumors G3


    Apr 9, 2010
    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.

Share This Page

8 June 15, 2019