Shootout: Parallels outperforms VMware Fusion in many tests - Page 2

Sorry but I disagree with most of the posters here. I went back to Parallels today after using Fusion exclusively for over a month. It's faster then Fusion especially after a few tweaks (decreased RAM, changed to one processor). Copy and Paste between OSX and XP and keyboard shortcuts which is not always consistent in Fusion works better in Parallels. Parallels also uses less processor power idle then Firefox (which is a lot less then Fusion).

I use Windows at work for computer charting, which is done through IE. I also use it to connect to my office network and to a couple of hospital VPNs. Both Fusion and Parallels work flawlessly.

I'll go back and forth between the two like I've been doing from day one, but for the next few weeks I'll stick with Parallels.

I don't care if Parallels is 15-20% faster since it crashed constantly. I can't remember the last time VMWare crashed on me; it's been a long, long time.

This is a HUGE consideration for me, because it's one of two reasons i need to run an XP VM at all: (1) connecting to my corporate network using AT&T Global Network Client + XP Remote Desktop connection; (2) using MS Money.

What VPN client do you use? I'd be very interested to hear you elaborate...Thanks.

Isn't there a VPN client on OS X that will work? Why do companies use proprietary VPNs instead of industry standards like L2TP over IPSec or PPTP? Anyway, if you can get a VPN client for OS X, Microsoft have a Remote Desktop client for OS X here.

I'll check out the Remote Desktop client you pointed to; thanks. In terms of a VPN: I'm not sure I have an option. Seems like it's either (a) use the AT&T Global Network Client to connect througth the corporate firewall (which, coupled with XP Remote Desktop Connection, works fantastically well), or (b) use browser-based remote access, which is a significant degradation in performance (ie, "webbiness").

Hi all, Sean from Parallels here.

To phantom specifically, you may have already explored this, but there are different network settings for a VM. The "Shared" option lets Windows use the network connection that Mac OS X holds, and I believe it's on by default; so it would be interesting to see if OS X was even able to access the VPN while your Windows VM was experiencing the problem.

Where stability is concerned with Parallels Desktop 4.0 for Mac, I personally find it rock solid in my every day use, and I think the benchmark also speaks to that effect. After the 2,500 tests MacTech performed, it would be tough for Parallels Desktop 4.0 for Mac to have a major speed advantage if there were random stability problems. I'd say the same thing for memory efficiency as well - stability, speed and efficiency are all related when it comes to software.

Since the launch of version 4.0 last November, there's been a lot of feedback both in the way of feature suggestions and from some folks experiencing issues with initial release. This feedback has been an awesome help when working to make Parallels Desktop 4.0 for Mac better with each build we put out. To take advantage of that, users can update to build 3810 (or higher, depending on when you read this). There have even been graphical improvements since the version that MacTech tested in the benchmark, so many 3D games run smoother.

For those who are curious and want to try the latest version for themselves, there's a trial version HERE with all the features and functionality of the fully activated product. You'll even be able to back up any existing VMs before converting them, in case you already have one you'd like to test in Parallels. Cheers!