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

Posted:
in Mac Software edited January 2014
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.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 52
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member
    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.
  • Reply 2 of 52
    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.
  • Reply 3 of 52
    parallels > vmware
  • Reply 4 of 52
    Not a big deal. No plans to switch from Fusion. I don't use the windows side very often, if at all.
  • Reply 5 of 52
    kp*kp* Posts: 13member
    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?
  • Reply 6 of 52
    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.
  • Reply 7 of 52
    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.
  • Reply 8 of 52
    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.
  • Reply 9 of 52
    Tried Parallels, tried Fusion, then I tried Virtual Box and never looked back.
  • Reply 10 of 52
    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!
  • Reply 11 of 52
    djrumpydjrumpy Posts: 1,116member
    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.
  • Reply 12 of 52
    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?
  • Reply 13 of 52
    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.
  • Reply 14 of 52
    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.
  • Reply 15 of 52
    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?
  • Reply 16 of 52
    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.
  • Reply 17 of 52
    This article needs some serious editing. It doesn't even read properly, and 3G gaming? Sigh.
  • Reply 18 of 52
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post


    Do they offer discounts to their existing users for upgrades?



    Parallels offers a crossgrade from Fusion, think it?s $40.
  • Reply 19 of 52
    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. I?m happy enough with Parallels 5 that I finally ditched Boot Camp, using an iMac i7 with 8 GB of RAM. I?m up and running XP in under 90 seconds, performance is very acceptable for the GIS work I need WinXP for.
  • Reply 20 of 52
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.