Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Whats better - VM Ware or Parallels?

D

dealmaker

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Sep 24, 2010
270
68
So my 13" (2010) with 8GB - sometimes runs like a dog with VM ware active.

Getting a new 15" soon - should I consider switching to Parallels for my MS stuff??

Thoughts??
 
I find them both to be the same. It will run sluggish if you don't have enough ram. If you bump up to 8gb you should be fine.
 
Parallels has a trial version, so you can test it out yourself

I find that both have their fans and detractors with their own personal experience stories
That is why YOUR personal experience may vary

Don't rely on what others say, try them both yourself and pick which is best for you

I use Fusion
My GF uses Parallels
 
Pballer110 said:
I find them both to be the same. It will run sluggish if you don't have enough ram. If you bump up to 8gb you should be fine.
Click to expand...

The OP states that he already HAS 8GB of RAM. I use a MBP with 8GB, runs VMWare fine, with no noticable slowdown with either the VM or the Host OS. My MacPro has 16GB of RAM (and 8 cores) and I frequently run 2 or 3 VMs concurrently and still have more than enough grunt to power Photoshop and Aperture. You may well want to check your settings for the VM to make sure you have only allocated as much of your RAM as you reasonably need, and also only one CPU. This should make your whole setup run more smoothly, if you take too much resource from the Host OS (Snow Leopard etc) then both the host OS and the VM will run very sluggishly.
 
I have tried Parallels because I got it as a mail in rebate discount when I bought our Macbook Pro. It has served me well when I needed it to run applications in Windows XP that are job related and are only developed in Windows environment. I have only 4GB of RAM.

Just my 0.01 cent, :p

Hope this helps,

Cheers.
 
it depends on how u use it in my opinion, like when i was using paralells to run my windows 7 off boot camp it was horribly slow and in any case i liked using vmware more but now i just stick good ol bootcamp
 
JackieHD said:
it depends on how u use it in my opinion, like when i was using paralells to run my windows 7 off boot camp it was horribly slow and in any case i liked using vmware more but now i just stick good ol bootcamp
Click to expand...

I use paralells on my MB, not via bootcamp though and is quick and have no problems using it. Still can use excel, word, safari with no issues. :)
 
I run VMWare on my 2008 MBP w/ 6 GB's of RAM. When I allocated 3 GB's of RAM for the VM, things were crawling. However, when I allocated only 1.5 GB's of RAM (and made sure I had that available before booting the VM - via iStat Pro), things ran MUCH smoother.

You may have to adjust your settings to see what works the best for you.
 
depends what you need. if you need to do 3D graphic and rendering, go for bootcamp. Bootcamp is the best choice so far to run 100% performance of your mbp. Rebooting for windows doesnt sounds that bad isn't?
 
I used to run Bootcamp on my C2d MBP and was very happy with it. I got the new quad 17" so figured I'd be able to run the one game I want to play (Everquest 1) on it just fine under parallels so I installed the trial version.

It runs fast enough but I have two major issues.

1, I can't adjust the gamma, either in game (alt-O) or via the windows preferences. Anyone figure out a way to make gamma adjustments reliably?

2, The function keys still act wonky. I set OSX keyboard preference to release F1-F12, but in game f1-f8 work as they are supposed to but F9-f12 I still have to get them via function-fkey

Speed wise it's fine with a few tweaks to the options, I set 2 CPUs and 1.5gb RAM, and I only have 4 currently. I expect to get up to 8GB going aftermarket soon.
 
VMW Fusion 3.1 is running extremely well on my new 17" MBP. I allocate 2 cores and 3 of the 8 gigs of ram to the virtual windows 7 machine, and it runs like a champ. Wmw has defintely improved fusion over the last few version that I've used.
 
 
Personally, I've found the gaming compatability to be better with Parallels compared to VMWare Fusion. But I would test both of them out to see which performs better for you.

I will say this though, after I stuck in an SSD into my new 2011 17", I can boot Windows 7 from opening Parallels to showing the desktop in about 10 seconds.
 
dagamer34 said:
Personally, I've found the gaming compatability to be better with Parallels compared to VMWare Fusion.
Click to expand...

You game this way? lol. They both suck for games, it's an emulation layer!
OP is asking if BMW is better than Mercedes. I use VMware because it is fairly stable and has native .vmdk support at my company. That and I get it for free.
 
derbothaus said:
You game this way? lol. They both suck for games, it's an emulation layer!
OP is asking if BMW is better than Mercedes. I use VMware because it is fairly stable and has native .vmdk support at my company. That and I get it for free.
Click to expand...
Yeah who would game this way? Now is it really an emulation layer? My understanding is that it is virtualization, not emulation - it is hardware based. Or am I incorrect?
 
nikhsub1 said:
Yeah who would game this way? Now is it really an emulation layer? My understanding is that it is virtualization, not emulation - it is hardware based. Or am I incorrect?
Click to expand...

VMware, Paralleles, VirtualBox etc. All create a "machine" out of software. The Virtualized OS does not run native on the actual hardware. There is a virtualized software layer in between the hardware and the VM operating system. So call it emulation, virtualization, whatever . . the VM cannot see the actual hardware.
 
waynep said:
VMware, Paralleles, VirtualBox etc. All create a "machine" out of software. The Virtualized OS does not run native on the actual hardware. There is a virtualized software layer in between the hardware and the VM operating system. So call it emulation, virtualization, whatever . . the VM cannot see the actual hardware.
Click to expand...
they're related, but rely on vastly different philosophies and technology.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/338993/Emulation_or_Virtualization_
 
waynep said:
VMware, Paralleles, VirtualBox etc. All create a "machine" out of software. The Virtualized OS does not run native on the actual hardware. There is a virtualized software layer in between the hardware and the VM operating system. So call it emulation, virtualization, whatever . . the VM cannot see the actual hardware.
Click to expand...

Not true. Its somewhat true but not fully. They do see the hardware but with some software help. If they didn't see the hardware I would be able to move virtual machines between macs and I can't. Windows has to activate again.
 
GoyoNeuff said:
I have tried Parallels because I got it as a mail in rebate discount when I bought our Macbook Pro. It has served me well when I needed it to run applications in Windows XP that are job related and are only developed in Windows environment. I have only 4GB of RAM.

Just my 0.01 cent, :p

Hope this helps,

Cheers.
Click to expand...

Wouldnt it be 0.01$? lol 0.01 cents is pretty small:p

I use Parallels
 
BJonson said:
Not true. Its somewhat true but not fully. They do see the hardware but with some software help. If they didn't see the hardware I would be able to move virtual machines between macs and I can't. Windows has to activate again.
Click to expand...

Interesting. All my VM's are corporate volume licensed so this never was an issue for me on how integrated the sw and hw were. I can move them anywhere with no limit. Are you on Parallels for VMware?
 
If I could get EQ2 to run with Parallels 6 and Windows 7 I would be happy... but alas its bootcamp or nothing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back