or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Parallels 6 to run 40% faster, launch Windows 2x faster than Fusion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Parallels 6 to run 40% faster, launch Windows 2x faster than Fusion

post #1 of 53
Thread Starter 
Parallels is expected to announce as early as Thursday the sixth major upgrade to its Windows virtualization software for Mac OS X, delivering a significant performance boost over its predecessor, as well as 80 other new features.

The new Parallels Desktop 6 for Mac has been shown on average to run 40 percent faster than last year's edition, according to people familiar with the matter. Those same people said that the upgrade -- expected to retail for the same $79.99 price as its predecessor -- will also feature Windows boot times that are roughly two times faster than version 3.1 of its primary competitor: VMWare Fusion.

VMware and Parallels have gone head to head in the virtualization market since 2008, when the Fusion product was first introduced. Parallels has existed since 2006, and both products retail for an identical prices. In a recent study, Parallels 5 was already found to be 30 percent faster on average than VMware Fusion 3.

Parallels 6 is also expected to showcase tighter integration with its users' natural environment, adopting support for the Mac OS X's keyboard shortcuts, Spotlight search engine, and Expose windows management features. Similarly, the upgrade will offer the option to automatically apply a Mac's parental controls to their corresponding Windows applications, according to those familiar with the product.

Another major focus for Parallels is said to be gaming. Version 6.0 will reportedly deliver up to two-fold performance improvements while adding support for Dolby 5.1 surround sound and better handling of 3G environments.

Parallels 6 will sport compatibility with an enhanced Parallels Mobile application that will offer users the option of remotely accessing their virtual machines on an iPad, as well as an iPhone or iPod touch.

Parallels Transporter, previously a standalone application that allowed users to migrate a virtual PC image to the Mac, will come built into the new release as well.

Earlier this week, Parallels Desktop 6 was spotted on the shelves of a Fry's Electronics store in California. The product has not yet been formally announced.
post #2 of 53
I don't know about others, but I want *less* integration with the Mac side. I don't like programs that run 50 different daemons and hook their tentacles in to every aspect of my computer from the kernel to the filesystem to the USB ports.

The most urgent missing feature from these emulators IMHO is DX11 support so the latest games can be run.
post #3 of 53
Autocad is soon on mac I dont think I will need windows on my mac. I have tried ti use fusion before but it was too slow. I have friends who are accountants using sage etc. and still need windows I will let them know.
post #4 of 53
parallels > vmware
Tech Apocalypse - Battle for the Sky.
Reply
Tech Apocalypse - Battle for the Sky.
Reply
post #5 of 53
Not a big deal. No plans to switch from Fusion. I don't use the windows side very often, if at all.
post #6 of 53
I've owned every version of Parallels and I am really disappointed with v.5. It runs like crap on my i7 MacBook Pro.

Every version they ask for another $50 and say it's going to make gaming awesome. I'd like it to be able to handle such graphically-intensive tasks as opening the start menu without lagging.

I have "only" 4GB of RAM, which is looks to me could help if it was improved, but 8GB is still more than I can afford right now. I don't think just running Windows with no apps open on either OS should be so slow with the machine I've got.

I have two questions about VMWare for people who are familiar with the current versions of both: is performance noticeably better, and do they charge as much for yearly upgrades?
post #7 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by KP* View Post

I have two questions about VMWare for people who are familiar with the current versions of both: is performance noticeably better, and do they charge as much for yearly upgrades?

I don't have any speed issues with Fusion 3.1 at all. It was always slightly slower than Parallels 5 and I haven't had a chance to look at version 6. As for upgrades, version 1 to version 2 was free. I don't know if there will be a free upgrade path from 3 to 4.
post #8 of 53
When the day comes that I leave my crappy job and be done with the Windows environment, I'll remove VM from my iMac, which I need to work from home. That will be a happy day, I tell you.
post #9 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

I don't have any speed issues with Fusion 3.1 at all. It was always slightly slower than Parallels 5 and I haven't had a chance to look at version 6. As for upgrades, version 1 to version 2 was free. I don't know if there will be a free upgrade path from 3 to 4.

it needs to be faster than it is currently. it's slightly usable now where version 4 was barely usable. if version 6 boasts more speed improvements, i welcome them. crystal mode is also a godsend since version 4 had no multimonitor support at all.
Groupthink is bad, mkay. Think Different is the motto.
Reply
Groupthink is bad, mkay. Think Different is the motto.
Reply
post #10 of 53
Tried Parallels, tried Fusion, then I tried Virtual Box and never looked back.
post #11 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by KP* View Post

I've owned every version of Parallels and I am really disappointed with v.5. It runs like crap on my i7 MacBook Pro.

Every version they ask for another $50 and say it's going to make gaming awesome. I'd like it to be able to handle such graphically-intensive tasks as opening the start menu without lagging.

I have "only" 4GB of RAM, which is looks to me could help if it was improved, but 8GB is still more than I can afford right now. I don't think just running Windows with no apps open on either OS should be so slow with the machine I've got.

I have two questions about VMWare for people who are familiar with the current versions of both: is performance noticeably better, and do they charge as much for yearly upgrades?

co-sign!
post #12 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

I don't have any speed issues with Fusion 3.1 at all. It was always slightly slower than Parallels 5 and I haven't had a chance to look at version 6. As for upgrades, version 1 to version 2 was free. I don't know if there will be a free upgrade path from 3 to 4.

I tried both Parallels and Fusion, but Parallels didn't perform acceptably either the bluetooth and the IP stack for some reason. My IP phone was unusable although I don't know if it was bluetooth or IP related. Unfortunately it made the entire platform unusable for work.

The upgrades for Fusion were free as noted above, but the upgrade to 3.1 was not free. It was, however, at a reduced price of $39 dollars. Typically they don't charge existing users full price for any upgrade and sometimes give full version upgrades for free, depending on the feature set. Fusion 3.1 performs comparably to my old dual core 1.6 physical machine, but then again, this is on an i7 iMac (2 coprocessors assigned and 2 GB of ram), so I have no complaints there.

That is actually a concern if I switched to Parallels. Do they offer discounts to their existing users for upgrades?

I'll probably wait until real benchmarks come out, rather than hearsay however. I always find the product announcements for these a bit unbelievable in the way they are presented. If they turned out to be true, they would have the VM's performing better than a physical machine after any of them gets past version 2

The bulk of the new features already exists in Fusion 3.1 so no wins there, although the claimed performance improvements could be of interest should they pan out even somewhat.
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
post #13 of 53
all this bitching about speed and performance of windows in virtualization mode is depressing to me

the whole point of having a Mac is to get away from Windows and it's nightmares

thank god I don't need it at all in my life...I have it only because I had a copy of XP but outside of having it...I don't remember the last time I used it

but if you want to discuss the options Parallels has always been a better choice IMO because they seem to care...my only worry for those that need it on a regular basis is BLOAT...adding more and more features is a Windows thing and we all know how bad of an idea that is...lol

good luck to those that really need this software to be able to work or design etc...personally I prefer Crossover for Mac for those instances people really need PC software to be used...but it has quite a few limitations

oh well...2 cents left...may I have my change?
post #14 of 53
Might boot faster, but once I figure in the time it took to recover 2 separate corrupt VM files from parallels, it is kinda a wash.

Have been with VMWare for 2 years now, don't really use it a ton anymore, but when I do it works every time.
post #15 of 53
40% speed improvement is impressive and is worth investigating.

I started with Parallels when it first came out and went up 2-3 versions before moving to Fusion. At that time and since, every version of Fusion was rock steady while Parallels' updates regularly were associated with significant bugs or were running the fans like crazy.

So with this suggested major performance improvement, I think I'll try v6 and see whether Parallels has improved on their QA department. If not, then I value the steadfastness of VMware Fusion over faster blow ups and corruptions.
post #16 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by heardbefore View Post

Tried Parallels, tried Fusion, then I tried Virtual Box and never looked back.

I need Win to run RSAT. VirtualBox is all I need. Why pay for virtualization of windows?
post #17 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The new Parallels Desktop 6 for Mac has been shown on average to run 40 percent faster than last year's edition, according to people familiar with the matter. Those same people said that the upgrade -- expected to retail for the same $79.99 price as its predecessor -- will also feature Windows boot times that are roughly two times faster than version 3.1 of its primary competitor: VMWare Fusion.

I was sold on VMWare Fusion 3 because of my experience with ESX Server and VSphere, but I have never been happy with the performance of running VMWare Fusion with a BootCamp partition. For over a year I was irritated at 5-minute boot times and horribly slow disk performance. All those Windows updates were AGONIZING! Then at one point I needed a second VM using a virtual disk image instead of mapping Fusion to the Boot Camp partition and it was immensely faster. There's something about accessing the Boot Camp partition for Windows that makes it crawl.

Does Parallels suffer from the same problem? If not, I'm sold.
post #18 of 53
This article needs some serious editing. It doesn't even read properly, and 3G gaming? Sigh.
post #19 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

Do they offer discounts to their existing users for upgrades?

Parallels offers a crossgrade from Fusion, think its $40.
post #20 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranger_one View Post

I was sold on VMWare Fusion 3 because of my experience with ESX Server and VSphere, but I have never been happy with the performance of running VMWare Fusion with a BootCamp partition. For over a year I was irritated at 5-minute boot times and horribly slow disk performance. All those Windows updates were AGONIZING! Then at one point I needed a second VM using a virtual disk image instead of mapping Fusion to the Boot Camp partition and it was immensely faster. There's something about accessing the Boot Camp partition for Windows that makes it crawl.

Does Parallels suffer from the same problem? If not, I'm sold.

AFAIK, no. Im happy enough with Parallels 5 that I finally ditched Boot Camp, using an iMac i7 with 8 GB of RAM. Im up and running XP in under 90 seconds, performance is very acceptable for the GIS work I need WinXP for.
post #21 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by KP* View Post

I've owned every version of Parallels and I am really disappointed with v.5. It runs like crap on my i7 MacBook Pro.

Every version they ask for another $50 and say it's going to make gaming awesome. I'd like it to be able to handle such graphically-intensive tasks as opening the start menu without lagging.

I have "only" 4GB of RAM, which is looks to me could help if it was improved, but 8GB is still more than I can afford right now. I don't think just running Windows with no apps open on either OS should be so slow with the machine I've got.

I have two questions about VMWare for people who are familiar with the current versions of both: is performance noticeably better, and do they charge as much for yearly upgrades?

Really? I've owned every version of Parallels and 5 runs awesomely on my MacBook Pro 15" 2.4GHz 3GB. Well it did until I got the Parallels 6 beta which runs even better than 5 did.
post #22 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by macsyrinx View Post

I need Win to run RSAT. VirtualBox is all I need. Why pay for virtualization of windows?

Because as good as Virtual Box is it doesn't have anywhere near as many features as Parallels does.

For example dragging and dropping between virtual machine and Mac OS X doesn't work in Virtual Box but does with Parallels and VMWare.

I only use Parallels for Internet Exploder because our call systems only run on IE and will not work using IE under Wine as Wine uses Mozilla's engine to show webpages and our call system doesn't work in Mozilla browsers or Webkit browsers otherwise I'd have no need for Windows at all. But I also use Windows for Office because Mac Office is crap especially Entourage so until they fix that then I will use Office 2010 on Windows and trust me that runs like a dream under Parallels 6.
post #23 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by heardbefore View Post

Tried Parallels, tried Fusion, then I tried Virtual Box and never looked back.

Can VirtualBox virtualise a Bootcamp partition yet?

That's the only reason I'm on VMWare 2. VMWare rock solid reliable as well.
post #24 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorOwl View Post

This article needs some serious editing. It doesn't even read properly, and 3G gaming? Sigh.

"Parallels has exited since 2006"

"Parallels 6 is will sport compatibility"
post #25 of 53
Some people need to use Windows in order to use certain programs that aren't available on Mac OS X. For example, government CAC cards are only supported on Windows. There supposedly is a work-around, but I could never get it to work. Also, I use Quicken; the Mac version is a joke.
post #26 of 53
I find VM Ware a much better Windows virtualizer than Parallels. VM Ware is more stable, and does not have a butt-load of gimmicks that seem to cause issues all the time.

In my experience VM Ware gives you Windows and access to any ports and drives you want, when you want them, and it's all done very logically and without hassle. Parallels, on the other hand, is the opposite, it tries to assume many things for you, and I didn't find it stable enough for production purposes.

When I launch Windows in VM Ware, I feel like I'm using a full-blown PC. In Parallels I feel like using Mac with a Windows emulator.
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #27 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Parallels is expected to announce as early as Thursday the sixth major upgrade to its Windows virtualization software for Mac OS X

Would that not be the fifth? Version 2 would have been the first upgrade.
post #28 of 53
Of course it's 40% faster...when you run it on a new Mac.

I use it to convert files once in a while at work, but I no longer use it at home at all. And I've sworn off using Windows in an form for gaming; if a game doesn't have a Mac version I simply don't buy it. And I don't care if I can't play the latest and greatest.
post #29 of 53
I prefer VMWare Fusion. I have to run windows for my work ( all software is on windows ). I use VMWare Fusion 3.1 and it runs great. There was a big speed bump with 3.1 compared to the older versions. I mainly use Fusion because I can share images with my PC based work computers that also run VMWare without hving to covert them.

If Parallels is truly 30% faster than Fusion 3.1 ( I doubt ) it would be impressive indeed. I think Parallels is comparing their latest version with an older version of Fusion. All I can say is read the fine print on that claim....

I should also point out that they sid the new version would launch faster. After it boots is it any faster????

Of course if they can do it, more power to them....
post #30 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by sranger View Post

I should also point out that they sid the new version would launch faster. After it boots is it any faster????

Of course if they can do it, more power to them....

As many of the principled VMWare users might say, I disagree. VMWare is a known quantity, in terms of technology and reliability. If Parallels is making spectacular speed claims, they'd better have a spectacular explanation. I don't see anybody here asking any questions.

Cutting corners is not a great way to get speed improvements, especially if it ends up corrupting the disk or crashing OS X.
post #31 of 53
Not sure how anybody could play a "latest and greatest" game on Parallels.

It can't even render Myst III or IV properly in WinXP fast enough my machine (MBP 13). So how would it run a game 7 years newer....
post #32 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

I find VM Ware a much better Windows virtualizer than Parallels. VM Ware is more stable, and does not have a butt-load of gimmicks that seem to cause issues all the time.

In my experience VM Ware gives you Windows and access to any ports and drives you want, when you want them, and it's all done very logically and without hassle. Parallels, on the other hand, is the opposite, it tries to assume many things for you, and I didn't find it stable enough for production purposes.

When I launch Windows in VM Ware, I feel like I'm using a full-blown PC. In Parallels I feel like using Mac with a Windows emulator.

Gosh I sound like a commercial...
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #33 of 53
Well isn't this awesome news. I just paid $40 for the upgrade from 4 to 5 in July.......
post #34 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

I don't know about others, but I want *less* integration with the Mac side. I don't like programs that run 50 different daemons and hook their tentacles in to every aspect of my computer from the kernel to the filesystem to the USB ports.

The most urgent missing feature from these emulators IMHO is DX11 support so the latest games can be run.

Here, here! I totally agree.
post #35 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by sranger View Post

If Parallels is truly 30% faster than Fusion 3.1 ( I doubt ) it would be impressive indeed. I think Parallels is comparing their latest version with an older version of Fusion. All I can say is read the fine print on that claim....

5 was a major speed improvement over VMWare.

In Windows 7 run a PC score on Parallels and VMWare and then get back to me about performance. Parallels scores way higher than VMWare although I haven't got a Windows 7 VM setup for Parallels 6 so it will be interesting to see how that scores.
post #36 of 53
Can someone remind me if it is possible to try out version 6 without replacing version 5. I have a feeling that when I installed 5 over 4 I could not go back without delete/reinstall. Hopefully that would not be the case in 6.

Edit: Shit, yea it was parallels. They had to migrate the OS Virtual Disk, that's what it was. Perhaps I can make a copy (about 30 gigs) and store it inside the external drive.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #37 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by KP* View Post

I've owned every version of Parallels and I am really disappointed with v.5. It runs like crap on my i7 MacBook Pro. I have "only" 4GB of RAM, which is looks to me could help if it was improved, but 8GB is still more than I can afford right now.

For what it's worth, I just upgraded from a Penryn MacBook Pro with its maximum 4GB of RAM to an i7 with 8GB of RAM, and the difference with Parallels is pretty amazing. It used to take 15-20 minutes to resume a suspended Windows XP virtual machine, now it takes 1-2 minutes. I can also launch a second virtual machine almost as quickly (one for IE7, one for IE8 ... ugh). Launching Parallels to test a website in IE used to be so onerous that I often skipped it when I really should have done it ... now it's not a problem ... in fact that's my favorite thing about this new computer.
post #38 of 53
Sent me an email today pushing Parallel 5. Luckily I'm not a total schmuck oblivious to product cycles but Parallel Corp obviously thinks of their customers as losers and idiots... Buyer beware! This product will be on sale for $25 as early as next month.
post #39 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by arlomedia View Post

It used to take 15-20 minutes to resume a suspended Windows XP virtual machine, now it takes 1-2 minutes. I can also launch a second virtual machine almost as quickly (one for IE7, one for IE8 ... ugh).

The save/resume mostly depends on how much RAM you allocate to the VM. If you allocate > 1GB, you're better not using the suspend state at all as it will save and load a >1GB file every time you suspend/resume - instead just shut down the VM and it should take 15-30 seconds to boot. For testing websites, you only need 256MB allocated and this should take 5 seconds to suspend/resume.

Also, you can run IE6, 7 and 8 together in the same VM using IE Collection:

http://codecpack.nl/IECollection1702.exe

I used to use Parallels but I found it to be unstable and it sucked performance while in the background. VMWare is a little slower but idles very well in the background so you can leave it open and I've never experienced a crash or Windows blue screen with it. Parallels was better at local networking recognising Bonjour shares but you just type in the IP address in VMWare.

Drag to copy is also very fast in VMWare and performance is sustained during the copy.

I'd only use the VM for casual games, for everything else, Bootcamp is the only way and until VMs get full directed IO support (VT-d), after the vendors support it in hardware that's how it shall remain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tLzYqIJ7Q0

With the likes of AMD Fusion and Sandy Bridge, they might be able to control this better and naturally, AMD would be the preferred solution here.
post #40 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by KP* View Post

I've owned every version of Parallels and I am really disappointed with v.5. It runs like crap on my i7 MacBook Pro.

Every version they ask for another $50 and say it's going to make gaming awesome. I'd like it to be able to handle such graphically-intensive tasks as opening the start menu without lagging.

I have "only" 4GB of RAM, which is looks to me could help if it was improved, but 8GB is still more than I can afford right now. I don't think just running Windows with no apps open on either OS should be so slow with the machine I've got.

I have two questions about VMWare for people who are familiar with the current versions of both: is performance noticeably better, and do they charge as much for yearly upgrades?

I'm a huge fan of VMware Fusion. It's always worked great on my 2GB MBA and my 8GB i7 iMac. XP is a necessary evil since our development tools are only available for Windows. Version 2 was good, not great. Version 3 especially 3.1 introduced a huge improvement in performance. I certainly recommend VMware's offerings anytime as I've been using it for over 2 years.

In addition, their support (for me) has been first-class. When I've had issues, they have been more than helpful for me. What really impressed me about VMware was their ability to work with me to diagnose an XP-only USB hardware device that would not work in a virtual machine. They actually asked me to visit their lab in Palo Alto and bring the device in so they can test it on-site and debug it. No charge. I got to see how they run their shop and was very impressed. Try doing that with the other offerings. All at no charge.

When going to point-releases, I have not had to pay for anything. The upgrade from v2 to v3 did involve a minimal upgrade ($40+/-) but that was it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Parallels 6 to run 40% faster, launch Windows 2x faster than Fusion