Which VM for Windows 10, Parallels or Fusion?

[jerryk]

Hi,

I am currently running Parallels, but my subscription is coming up for renewal so I wanted to see if I should change to Fusion. I am running Windows 10 and the main Windows applications I run are Visual Studio 2015 and SQL server.

Any thoughts?

 

[Bending Pixels]

Either - both do what they're supposed to do (run that inferior OS)

 

[jonfarr]

What do you mean the subscription is coming to an end? I have parallels and have never paid a subscription.

 

[willmtaylor]

What do you mean the subscription is coming to an end? I have parallels and have never paid a subscription.

One can now choose between the two:

 

[UndercoverDotNetGuy]

I've had more luck with Fusion 8. Running VisualStudio.
Also the 3D acceleration has been better on Vmware, but currently i would go with Parallels.

Weird right?
Vmware laid off a hell of a lot people... Including lots of Fusion developers.

Parallels in the other end has a deal with blizard for the Overwatch game and should not be far behind on the 3D business.
Also some nice integrations with VisualStudio.

Currently i'm staying with Vmware since I have it, but Parallels seems more promisable in the long run currently. Wi

 

[wegster]

So...I'm a die-hard VMware lover since being an alpha Workstation user in the late 90s for running Linux on Windows then vice versa, managed thousands of VMs with ESX, vSphere, ... and jumped when Fusion came out. I've build VMs on Fusion for production and R&D ESX deployment, as well as others for team/developer deployments. In short, I always trusted VMWare. I tries Fusion once early on, mainly as it was nearly free, as both VMWare and Parallels were getting into the obnoxious 'forced upgrade' pattern and my Fusion needed to be upgraded. I saw nothing compelling about Parallels at the time.

Having said that...I needed to spin up some VMs again for work, this time via P2V (Physical to Virtual converter) as I was imaging my (Windows) work laptop to my MBP..and it had a lot of software pre-installed, so couldn't easily build from scratch. I was surprised to see the number of issues I ran into with their latest P2V - failing missing openssl bits, needing to kill off 'extra' installer processes on the Windows side (the initial cloned ailed so had to use agent and do via direct connected network instead, effectively running a client on the Windows system and cloning over the network to my MBP..).
Finally got it working, but it was NOT a great experience.

I'd dig around and compare virtual/shared filesystem performance - I also run VS and SQL Server tools in my VM, but rarely as I'm no longer a day to day dev, but I did see some griping about Fusion's shared filesystem performance, and another thread where a Fusion developer basically admitted Fusion doesn't get many resources, and their shared filesystem is in serious need of upgrade. The thread in question is also specifically discussing VS checkout/build/compile performance via a shared filesystem, which may be relevant to you.
https://communities.vmware.com/thread/520731

I hate to say it, as I really dislike the 'yearly forced upgrade' model both Parallels and Fusion have turned into, and I have former peers and co-workers that have worked at VMWare plus a professional history with them, but - YMMV.

 

[jerryk]

Thanks guys. Still debating this, but maybe I will stay with Parallels.

I have no real complaints with parallels other than it seems to use a lot of resources and generates a lot of heat so my rMBP 15 fan is running.

webster - by alpha workstation, do you mean a DEC Alpha? If so I worked at Digital for a long time and worked on those since the early days. Good times. That was one hot running beast.

Regarding the subscription model, I am also not a huge fan. But I understand why the companies went that way. It smooths out the revenue model making it easier to plan and staff.

 

[wegster]

I meant I was using their initial virtualization product when it was still alpha or beta..which became VMWare Workstation. I went through a handful of SGI and Sun workstations though, and some software that also ran on Alphas...thought they would dominate for a while.

It would be interesting to see if anyone has done a deep dive on used resources of Fusion vs Parallels but I expect with modern CPU based hypervisor support there probably isn't enough difference to be significant differences in overhead, other than jockeying back and forth in specific performance scenarios...and relatively minor behavioral or config options....at least when not also needing to be tired into the broader VMWare ecosystem.

As I just picked up my fusion 8 renewal...it may come down to if VMWare forces an 'upgrade' to support Sierra. If they do, I may go Parallels next round if I can bring myself to do it.

 

[dimme]

There is always VirtualBox It's free and the upgrades are free. I know it's not as polished as fusion or parallels, but works for me.

 

[mmomega]

I use both and have for only about 7 years or so but I don't really have any real complaints with either. They both work.

I occasionally use VirtualBox, it's a quick download and setup, I've just never trusted it for anything too vital. But I've also not had any serious issues with it either.

 

[maflynn]

Any thoughts?

Vmware offers a 30 day trial, given them a spin. Its a personal preference thing, so you're better off seeing if you like it now.

Also consider VirtualBox, its free, has less features, but its still a solid application