VMWare Fusion vs. Parallels?

[mshan]

I just got a white Core 2 Duo 24 inch iMac )) and am wondering whether Parallels or VMWare Fusion is the better virtualization program to run with Windows XP Home.

My iMac has Tiger pre-installed, but the Leopard upgrade dvd was also included in the box.


VMWare Fusion is about $30 AR, according to this thread:
http://www.fatwallet.com/t/18/779098/

 

[TheStu]

I personally prefer Fusion... but in order to make an informed decision, why not download both? They should both have free trials.

 

[bearxor]

I've been using VMWare Fusion for almost two months now and had used Parallels about two months before that.


Fusion stinks. It's slow and unresponsive. Unity seems less integrated than Coherence. I ran Windows 100% of the time in OS X with Parallels. With Fusion, I only start it f I have to. It bogs down everything. It won't run Windows XP well with 512MB of RAm so I bumped it up to 768MB and the 1GB and then OS X lags.

I can see what VMWare intended for Fusion. If you're a Mac user that needs Windows apps every so often for random things go Fusion. If you want to use Windows at least as much as OS X then go Parallels. It's a lot faster and Coherence mode is a lot more polished. Long time Mac users, such as Stu, will disagree with me however. I'll hang on to it because MAYBE a future revision will work out for me.

There's a lot to like about Fusion. Just remember that Parallels has had a released product for over a year now whereas VMWare has only had Fusion released since August 07. Parallels seems to respond to issues a lot quicker than VMWare, but Parallels is also quicker to abandon a version number in favor of having you buy a new updated version.

I think I'm going to try Crossover next.

 

[mshan]

I really want to convert over to Mac OS X as much as possible, but I do have some programs (e.g. Quicken, Picassa, Microsoft Office 2003, Windows Media Player, websites that only work with Internet Explorer well, etc.) that I think are only available on Windows.

Is cpu utilization low when one of the virtual systems is idling (I ask this because I am a quiet computing enthusiast and would like to hopefully be able to keep fans in the iMac from always spinning up)

 

[TheStu]

Well you can get
Quicken
Office
Media Player (iTunes/Quicktime/VLC)
Picasa (iPhoto)
in OS X... so that shouldn't be an issue. As for the websites, can't help ya there.

CPU utilization... i never really have taken notice. Once i reinstall Fusion and get my VM up and running again ill let you know.

 

[mshan]

Certain websites only work with Windows Media Player and I heard that WMP for OS X was flakey or not even produced anymore.

And the OS X version of Quicken is supposed to be really bad.

 

[bearxor]

Something else I just tried on Parallels that does not work in Fusion. Parallels passes Windows audio to a pair of bluetooth headphones.

Fusion would not do so. You could play Windows sounds through the speakers in your computer and the OS X sounds through your bluetooth headphones or vice versa. Parallels works perfectly in this respect.

 

[mshan]

Other Windows programs I would like to use include Yahoo Instant Messenger, Theatertek, and Mozilla Firefox.

How much additional cpu and resource utilization does Parallels cause with Windows XP Home and Mac OS X (Tiger, with plans to upgrade to Leopard)?

Main concern hear is having the fans in my 24 inch white Intel iMac spinning up all of the time.

 

[Mindflux]

I really like Parallels, but to be fair if I had had to have paid full price for it (I got rebates when I bought my Mac) I would have likely bought Fusion, just because I am familiar with the quality product that VMWare releases.

 

[aphex]

Originally posted by: mshan
Other Windows programs I would like to use include Yahoo Instant Messenger, Theatertek, and Mozilla Firefox.

Yahoo IM -> Adium (OSX) or even Yahoo makes an OSX version
Theatertek -> DVD Player (comes w/ OSX)
Firefox -> Firefox (OSX)

 

[bearxor]

Originally posted by: aphex

Originally posted by: mshan
Other Windows programs I would like to use include Yahoo Instant Messenger, Theatertek, and Mozilla Firefox.

Yahoo IM -> Adium (OSX) or even Yahoo makes an OSX version
Theatertek -> DVD Player (comes w/ OSX)
Firefox -> Firefox (OSX)

You'll get no disagreement with me about Adium. It rocks. Wish there was a Windows version.

Theatertek upscales DVD's. DVD Player does not.

Firefox on OS X is pretty bad. Camino is better but I still prefer Safari on OS X, yes I know this is subjective.

Also, Mindflux, I have no doubt that in the future Fusion will be a quality, stable and fast product. Right now, it's just not.

 

[randomlinh]

I found fusion to be a hair faster personally. And on the quad core machine at work... yeah, nice to be able to make use of it.

With that said, Parallels works too.. I paid for it, so I use it. If fusion was ready before the 3.0 release, I think I would have gone that route. I've had better luck with transfering files between virtual machines on Fusion than Parallels, especially with external NTFS drives.

Your best bet is to just try them both out.

 

[Kaido]

I've heard Fusion is faster but I've stuck with Parallels. VMware makes good stuff but they were super late to the virtualization game, while Parallels continually released update after update to make their product better and better. So far Parallels 3.0 is pretty nice and has some great features; I have no complaints. It's very easy to use and is stable so far. I just need to throw in a faster CPU into my Mini

 

[manly]

Originally posted by: Kaido
I've heard Fusion is faster but I've stuck with Parallels. VMware makes good stuff but they were super late to the virtualization game, while Parallels continually released update after update to make their product better and better. So far Parallels 3.0 is pretty nice and has some great features; I have no complaints. It's very easy to use and is stable so far. I just need to throw in a faster CPU into my Mini

VMware Workstation 1.0 was released in 1999. They pioneered x86 virtualization.

The last time I used Parallels Desktop (the latest stable build), it caused a kernel panic and hosed the VM.

Addressing mshan's question, I felt that Parallels Desktop exhibited more CPU load even during VM idling. But that was just a subjective conclusion, not a scientific one.

I don't even need VMware much anymore, but I'm waiting until Fusion 1.1 is released before playing with it more.

In short, having used both a bit & reading various forums, I disagree with bearxor's assessment.

 

[loup garou]

I find Fusion a bit faster for pure VMs. Also, Parallels hosed my Vista bootcamp install's HAL when I tried to use it as a VM. After a reinstall of Vista, I changed to Fusion and it worked perfectly. I also like having compatibility with the whole VMWare ecosystem...I can drop in VMs created with VMWare Converter, swap around virtual disks, etc.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: loup garou
I find Fusion a bit faster for pure VMs. Also, Parallels hosed my Vista bootcamp install's HAL when I tried to use it as a VM. After a reinstall of Vista, I changed to Fusion and it worked perfectly. I also like having compatibility with the whole VMWare ecosystem...I can drop in VMs created with VMWare Converter, swap around virtual disks, etc.

Yeah, that's another plus w/ VMware. And for $30, I'd go to that route now. But considering I barely use VM's.. I don't care anymore, I've wasted enough money, haha. Plus, after using it on a mac pro, going back to my imac and playing with it is painful.

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: manly
VMware Workstation 1.0 was released in 1999. They pioneered x86 virtualization.

In this context I was referring to OS X virtualization, not x86 virtualization as a whole.