XP or Vista on Virtual Machine? Parallels vs. WMware Fusion.

Discussion in 'Mac Apps and Mac App Store' started by tejaykay, Nov 12, 2008.

?

Which setup would you recommend?

  1. XP running on VMware Fusion 2

    7 vote(s)
    46.7%
  2. Vista running on VMware Fusion 2

    1 vote(s)
    6.7%
  3. XP running on Parallels 4

    6 vote(s)
    40.0%
  4. Vista running on Parallels 4

    1 vote(s)
    6.7%
  5. No Windows OS! Keep your Mac clean

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. tejaykay macrumors 6502

    tejaykay

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Location:
    Edinburgh
    #1
    So, I've just ordered my Unibody MBP and one of the things I'm most looking forward to is running a virtual machine on the system due to finally having an Intel Mac. Windows' virtual machine on my current PowerBook is terrible.

    So what do you all think, my heart says stick with an XP system, but I've seen better reports of Vista running on a mac recently. Obviously I'd be looking at the 64bit editions due to the new support from VMware Fusion and Parallels.

    So while we're at it what virtual machine client do people recommend? Cast your votes.
     
  2. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #2
    Opinions are like arseholes...everybody has one!

    Seriously, you will never get a solid answer, everyone has a preference, and that's really all it is, a preference.

    I like Windows XP under Fusion.
     
  3. tejaykay thread starter macrumors 6502

    tejaykay

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Location:
    Edinburgh
    #3
    I totally understand, that's why I attached a poll to the post. If enough people vote, then there will be some sort of representative opinion. To be honest, I'm totally worried about getting the wrong VM client for my preference!

    Are the trial versions for both clients a full feature application?
     
  4. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #4
    Pretty sure there are trials for both, full featured but they just expire, which is probably the best way to go.
     
  5. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #5
    from personal experience vmware isnt as fast as parallels. having used both i would prefer parallels with xp.

    vista = ick, it blue screened on me when i tried to install it!!! i dont really care much for the "new improved OS", because quite frankly it isnt.
     
  6. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #6
    ^ This is where the problems begin in taking other peoples word for it.

    My experience was the exact opposite :D
     
  7. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #7
    haha really?? thats fair enough. i havent used parallels 4 before, i have just used parallels 3, and the latest vmware.

    OP: i think the easiest way.. buy vmware, parallels, xp & vista and work it out for yourself!! haha
     
  8. tejaykay thread starter macrumors 6502

    tejaykay

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Location:
    Edinburgh
    #8
    Haha. I've got copies of XP and Vista. For some reason the general vibe I got was that Fusion was the way to go. Then Parallels goes and releases 4.0 yesterday. Now I don't know where to stand! I guess I can try both OSs though.
     
  9. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #9
    yea only you can decide.

    i prefer xp thought because it uses less resources, i dont really care about the looks of vista, i just use it for efficiency and all the rest of that stuff..
     
  10. 1visitor macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    #10
    I read somewhere that WMware Fusion would be the best choice for running Vista, while Parallels would better handle XP.

    In my experience, I wasn't capable enough to get Fusion to work, bumped against something, while Parallels installed without such glitch. This does not mean one is better than the other, only that I could get one to work and not the other.

    Between Vista and XP, the choice seems easier. Among PC users, Vista has been nicked as the new "ME", in analogy to Windows 98ME which pissed so many (kind of) satisfied Win 98SE users at the time. If you use a Mac, you really do not need any of the eyecandy stuff brought by Vista, you are much better off with Leopard for a basic good-looking environment.

    As to being able to run Windows programs that you need and can't find a Mac equivalent, XP SP3 is your best choice. Even though it isn't by far as stable as OSX (and I highly recomend you keep backups of it with WinClone), XP is fast and not resource-greedy and most of the must-have Win applications matured together with XP and not with Vista.

    Remember that a virtualized Windows won't handle everything that a BootCamp Windows would. In my experience, I couldn't get Nero to work in Parallels, so when I really need it I must reboot for BootCamp.

    Still, having XP running simultaneously allows you to do things in a much snappier way than in OSX, like web browsing with Opera (the Mac-version isn't quite the same), using WinAmp, uTorrent, eMule, and handy little things like Metapad, OffByOne, PopCorn Mail, ACDsee fast image browsing, not to mention stuff like Adobe Audition, Sony Vegas, etc.
     
  11. plinden macrumors 68040

    plinden

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    #11
    There's really not much difference. I have and use both and don't really have any preference.

    Fusion is good since we use VMWare images at work for multi-OS work, so I don't actually have to install anything. But when I do, Fusion has better Linux support, and its Windows tools are installed automatically when you install Windows, whereas you have to manually install Parallels Tools.

    Also, Fusion has always offered multi CPU support, which was a big advantage previously, but this was negated by Parallels 4.0.

    On the other hand, Parallels has always had better OpenGL support. For instance, the last Windows game I bought, MoHAA back in 2003, always worked flawlessly even in Parallels 3.0 but won't launch in Fusion even now.

    So I use Fusion with Linux VMs for work and Parallels for home use when I want to play MoHAA or Civ2 in Windows (which is not very often these days)
     

Share This Page