Those results are surprising to me. I own both, and found Parallels to be a lot faster in 3D than VMWare until I installed the 3.0.1 update and then I couldn't really tell them apart. But looking at the site they really did test 3.0.1 so maybe they just play more demanding games than I do under the VM. There are some I wouldn't even try.
Parallels 5 is definitely an improvement over 4. Aero is fully supported and the machine runs fast and start up quick. I did a trial of Fusion, but it did not click with me for some reason, but as always they one up each other with every release so Fusion 4 is gonna be better the parallels 5 when it comes out. Not much difference really, except for release schedule.
What about Crossover for the Mac? This is the most interesting of all the solutions. You don't even need windows to run programs. I would be interested in seeing a new review of it.
I've been using Parallels since version 3 and it's been able to run a Boot Camp installation as a virtual machine since at least then. In fact, that's how I've got my Mac Mini configured. IIRC, I think it spots you've got a Boot Camp partition when you install Parallels and offers to set it up as a VM.
I've never had a problem with USB devices either. When I plug one in, it simply asks me if I want to connect it to my Mac or the virtual machine. I've not found one that doesn't work yet.
I will admit I've not tried Fusion, but I've used VMWare Server on Linux and I much prefer Parallels. I suspect, however, that's not a fair comparison.
I've run a lot of quirky Windows stuff under Parallels, but I've not tried playing any games. Recently, I've had a hankering to reply some old classics like Half Life 2 and Halo. Given sufficient RAM and a Core 2 Duo processor, what are my chances of getting something like decent performance?
I've also looked at Crossover, but it doesn't seem to do very well when it comes to running Access, which is one of the dreaded Windows apps that I still need to run occasionally.
I dropped Parallels at version 3. It crashed regularly, and the last time I tried it it froze both the VM and OSX for 5+minutes, just thrashing disks in Windows. Eventually I rebooted.
And Parallels support is laughable - major bugs were being reported in their support forums (which were not linked to on their site) and they just ignored them. Ignoring bugs in favour of new features is not the way to build software (see: Microsoft).
Fusion has run flawlessly for me ever since, not a single issue in the 5 or so VMs I've created. I don't know what VMWares support is like as I've never had to use it.
For some reason, I get precisely opposite results during my own tests. VMWare Fusion is consistently smoother, faster, less memory intensive and more reliable in all operations than Parallels Desktop on the same converted virtual configuration (Win7RC).
And, by the way, CodeWeaver's Crossover runs ~245% faster than any of them, because it uses no virtualization whatsoever (thus gets native speed, like BootCamp), and as a bonus, requires no Windows license. As for software compatibility, while most properly designed software runs just fine, check the database at Codeweaver's or WineHQ (Wine being the runtime behind CrossOver's easy to use UI) for some tips.
Parallels naysayers remind me of the VW naysayers. Claiming that "VW's have electrical problems" based on old history. While I think Parallels was a little buggy in the begninnig, I have found Fusion wanting repeatedly. I've kept both products updated and continued to try Fusion because of the continued praise in Mac Forums. But you know what, I don't see it. Identically configured, Fusion is slower and uses more resources then Parallels. In fact at idle Parallels uses less processor then Safari so I don't even suspend it anymore. Other pet peeves, Fusion doesn't have a pause function. It's networking takes more tweaking, especially when switching networks on the fly or waking from sleep.
The final straw for Fusion came after I installed my Computrainer software onto Fusion. I have an external 32" monitor and fully intended acquiring an old PC to run the software. This program simulates hills and wind on a bike trainer and requires a minimal processor and Direct X support. I figured what the heck, I'd try it on my 13"MBP even though it lacks a dedicated graphics card.
Fusion could barely run the program. When I tried to play a DVD simultaneously the whole system choked.
I Installed the same program in Parallels figuring it was a hardware limitation. To my surprise Parallels ran the program without a hitch. Not only does it run the program flawlessly, I can watch DVDs or iTunes videos on the second screen. This is a MBP with integrated graphics! Parallels saved me a PC purchase.
To me the ONLY thing that Fusion has over Parallels at this point is their modified start menu.
I watched a co-worker spend a week on support with Parallels and never was able to get his existing Windows machine ported over to parallels from his Dell. He downloaded the VMWare trial and was up and running in one night.
I've moved 3 Windows boxes onto Fusion and it's been smooth sailing, no reason to move to parallels that I can see.
Seriously... Parallels is not as mature as VMWare's product.
… Parallels is not as mature as VMWare's product - for YOU.
Parallels has been working great and trouble free for me, for some 3 years.
Have I tried the others, to see if they might be better, faster or anything, no. But then, why try something else if it works for ME.
I will say, there is one annoying issue with Parallels, and that is, when in use, I can't get my open button to work for the CD tray, but that is a small issue, that hasn't caused my headaches.
The old saying goes "if it ain't broke, then don't replace it, or is it don't fix it"
I've been using Parallels since version 3 and it's been able to run a Boot Camp installation as a virtual machine since at least then. In fact, that's how I've got my Mac Mini configured. IIRC, I think it spots you've got a Boot Camp partition when you install Parallels and offers to set it up as a VM.
I've never had a problem with USB devices either. When I plug one in, it simply asks me if I want to connect it to my Mac or the virtual machine. I've not found one that doesn't work yet.
I did not mean using a USB pendrive for instance. I meant using USB dongles (copy-protected software) and --mainly-- also to control machines via USB with Windows software. Machines that capture data in the lab for hours or even days non-stop. There is the Fusion difference. I love it. Fusion never fails. Parallels auto-quits and even reboots the Mac, ruining the lab experiments. It is a real nightmare!
Ditto. These figures are interesting but I gave up on Parallels after all of my images were corrupted the last go around. (And the one before that.) How many times would you like to completely re-build your OS, Office and other apps not to mention lost data? Consequently I would never think of letting Parallels anywhere near my Boot Camp partition. Fusion works for me. Parallels has been way too needy.
I've used both since day one and at one time VMWare was better. I agree with the results, Parallels 5 is way ahead at the moment. The RAM comment is interesting as I have recently been adjusting on a MacBook and a Mac Pro to see what works best. I found 756MB is the sweet spot on the MacBook which only has 2GIGs and I am still trying to figure out on the Mac Pro which has 6 GIGs of RAM. I was running at 2 GIG in Parallels but I will try dropping it to 1 GIG after reading this and see.
Regarding rebuilding etc. xts33, I keep a copy of a perfectly set up and running Windoze 7 in Parallels and VMWare and any time the one in use gets corrupted I delete, duplicate the backup to ensure i still have one and run one of them. This only takes a few minutes and way faster than starting over. BTW by 'corrupted' I mean Windoze is screwed up not the VM as such, that has never happened to me using either VMWare or Parallels but XP and Vista is another story. 7 so far seems a lot better and I only use for two things, never surf the web or use Mail in M$ side so it is pretty clean.
I am still unsure if using 2, 4 or more cores is better or not on Mac Pro.
Parallels naysayers remind me of the VW naysayers. Claiming that "VW's have electrical problems" based on old history.
While that's true, I'm not prepared to shell out for a Parallels upgrade "just in case" it's better than it was, or "just in case" they are actually taking any notice of their support forums, any more than I'd buy a WV "just in case" they're not making crap cars any more. Plus, products' history stays with them, rightly or wrongly. Toyota are going to find that out in a few years' time....
Reports indicated that PD3 was even worse than 2 when it was released, which is when I jumped ship. I don't know if it's improved since then, but I've found Fusion a superior product and I'll stick with it.
As with so many other things different people have different experiences, but for me Parallels is a case of once bitten, twice shy.
We use VMWare Fusion with out corporate customers and it works perfectly. We use the entire range of VMWare virtualisation tools and at this time Parallels is of no interest to our customers.
Having used both VMWare 3 and Parallels 5 on an quad core xeon and dual quad core (nehalem) MacPro there is little performance difference however Fusion has proved far more stable in our lab tests where we have multiple xp clients running along with a server 2008 vm for application testing. (all running on the same Mac Pro)
Parallels seems to be targeted more towards the home user rather that corporate and this is reflected in their focus on running games etc.
Interesting. I use VMWare 3.0 because I can move my images between my Mac and my Dell ( Company Computer ). Hopfully, this will give VWMare a kick in the rear to improve performance....
I'm on VMWare 2 still, because I got a cheap offer for 1 and a free upgrade to 2.
To be honest, it does everything I need. I tried a demo of three, but having Aero there just seemed to make everything slower. I can live without it.
I'm not sure about that, but one of the nicest features of VirtualBox is the ability to install Windows on EXTERNAL drives, thus preserving Macintosh purity.
Why is it we never see VirtualBox compared head to head to Fusion and Parallels? Could it be because it's free and advertisers aren't paying for reviews?
Why is it we never see VirtualBox compared head to head to Fusion and Parallels? Could it be because it's free and advertisers aren't paying for reviews?
I don't think that many care about a product that is free but well behind on features and capabilities. You can always do your own test.
Comments
Parallels 5 is definitely an improvement over 4. Aero is fully supported and the machine runs fast and start up quick. I did a trial of Fusion, but it did not click with me for some reason, but as always they one up each other with every release so Fusion 4 is gonna be better the parallels 5 when it comes out. Not much difference really, except for release schedule.
What about Crossover for the Mac? This is the most interesting of all the solutions. You don't even need windows to run programs. I would be interested in seeing a new review of it.
I've never had a problem with USB devices either. When I plug one in, it simply asks me if I want to connect it to my Mac or the virtual machine. I've not found one that doesn't work yet.
I will admit I've not tried Fusion, but I've used VMWare Server on Linux and I much prefer Parallels. I suspect, however, that's not a fair comparison.
I've run a lot of quirky Windows stuff under Parallels, but I've not tried playing any games. Recently, I've had a hankering to reply some old classics like Half Life 2 and Halo. Given sufficient RAM and a Core 2 Duo processor, what are my chances of getting something like decent performance?
VirtualBox is, in my opinion, a great peace of software, in price value (FREE).
Of what I read in posts above, there are some people who forgot to install the 'Virtualbox Guest Additions',
when installed it will run 3D (not to well though) and it automaticly adjusts the resolution when you change the window size or go to full screen,
that meens it runs the native resolution of my external display (23" 1920x1080) and the native resolution of my MacBooks display (13" 1280x800).
VirtualBox Guest Additions also adds automatic mouse-over selection.
But it even adds more additions wich I'm not going to describe, it would be to long of a read.
When choosing support for the USB-ports in virtualbox's setup, it will run it great.
I use it to update en synchronise my navigation-system (windows only, Navman).
I use VirtualBox for almost 2 years now!
And Parallels support is laughable - major bugs were being reported in their support forums (which were not linked to on their site) and they just ignored them. Ignoring bugs in favour of new features is not the way to build software (see: Microsoft).
Fusion has run flawlessly for me ever since, not a single issue in the 5 or so VMs I've created. I don't know what VMWares support is like as I've never had to use it.
And, by the way, CodeWeaver's Crossover runs ~245% faster than any of them, because it uses no virtualization whatsoever (thus gets native speed, like BootCamp), and as a bonus, requires no Windows license. As for software compatibility, while most properly designed software runs just fine, check the database at Codeweaver's or WineHQ (Wine being the runtime behind CrossOver's easy to use UI) for some tips.
The final straw for Fusion came after I installed my Computrainer software onto Fusion. I have an external 32" monitor and fully intended acquiring an old PC to run the software. This program simulates hills and wind on a bike trainer and requires a minimal processor and Direct X support. I figured what the heck, I'd try it on my 13"MBP even though it lacks a dedicated graphics card.
Fusion could barely run the program. When I tried to play a DVD simultaneously the whole system choked.
I Installed the same program in Parallels figuring it was a hardware limitation. To my surprise Parallels ran the program without a hitch. Not only does it run the program flawlessly, I can watch DVDs or iTunes videos on the second screen. This is a MBP with integrated graphics! Parallels saved me a PC purchase.
To me the ONLY thing that Fusion has over Parallels at this point is their modified start menu.
I watched a co-worker spend a week on support with Parallels and never was able to get his existing Windows machine ported over to parallels from his Dell. He downloaded the VMWare trial and was up and running in one night.
I've moved 3 Windows boxes onto Fusion and it's been smooth sailing, no reason to move to parallels that I can see.
Seriously... Parallels is not as mature as VMWare's product.
… Parallels is not as mature as VMWare's product - for YOU.
Parallels has been working great and trouble free for me, for some 3 years.
Have I tried the others, to see if they might be better, faster or anything, no. But then, why try something else if it works for ME.
I will say, there is one annoying issue with Parallels, and that is, when in use, I can't get my open button to work for the CD tray, but that is a small issue, that hasn't caused my headaches.
The old saying goes "if it ain't broke, then don't replace it, or is it don't fix it
I've been using Parallels since version 3 and it's been able to run a Boot Camp installation as a virtual machine since at least then. In fact, that's how I've got my Mac Mini configured. IIRC, I think it spots you've got a Boot Camp partition when you install Parallels and offers to set it up as a VM.
I've never had a problem with USB devices either. When I plug one in, it simply asks me if I want to connect it to my Mac or the virtual machine. I've not found one that doesn't work yet.
I did not mean using a USB pendrive for instance. I meant using USB dongles (copy-protected software) and --mainly-- also to control machines via USB with Windows software. Machines that capture data in the lab for hours or even days non-stop. There is the Fusion difference. I love it. Fusion never fails. Parallels auto-quits and even reboots the Mac, ruining the lab experiments. It is a real nightmare!
Regarding rebuilding etc. xts33, I keep a copy of a perfectly set up and running Windoze 7 in Parallels and VMWare and any time the one in use gets corrupted I delete, duplicate the backup to ensure i still have one and run one of them. This only takes a few minutes and way faster than starting over. BTW by 'corrupted' I mean Windoze is screwed up not the VM as such, that has never happened to me using either VMWare or Parallels but XP and Vista is another story. 7 so far seems a lot better and I only use for two things, never surf the web or use Mail in M$ side so it is pretty clean.
I am still unsure if using 2, 4 or more cores is better or not on Mac Pro.
Parallels naysayers remind me of the VW naysayers. Claiming that "VW's have electrical problems" based on old history.
While that's true, I'm not prepared to shell out for a Parallels upgrade "just in case" it's better than it was, or "just in case" they are actually taking any notice of their support forums, any more than I'd buy a WV "just in case" they're not making crap cars any more. Plus, products' history stays with them, rightly or wrongly. Toyota are going to find that out in a few years' time....
Reports indicated that PD3 was even worse than 2 when it was released, which is when I jumped ship. I don't know if it's improved since then, but I've found Fusion a superior product and I'll stick with it.
As with so many other things different people have different experiences, but for me Parallels is a case of once bitten, twice shy.
Having used both VMWare 3 and Parallels 5 on an quad core xeon and dual quad core (nehalem) MacPro there is little performance difference however Fusion has proved far more stable in our lab tests where we have multiple xp clients running along with a server 2008 vm for application testing. (all running on the same Mac Pro)
Parallels seems to be targeted more towards the home user rather that corporate and this is reflected in their focus on running games etc.
I'm on VMWare 2 still, because I got a cheap offer for 1 and a free upgrade to 2.
To be honest, it does everything I need. I tried a demo of three, but having Aero there just seemed to make everything slower. I can live without it.
Can VirtualBox virtualise a Bootcamp partition?
I'm on VMWare 2 still, because I got a cheap offer for 1 and a free upgrade to 2.
To be honest, it does everything I need. I tried a demo of three, but having Aero there just seemed to make everything slower. I can live without it.
I'm not sure about that, but one of the nicest features of VirtualBox is the ability to install Windows on EXTERNAL drives, thus preserving Macintosh purity.
Why is it we never see VirtualBox compared head to head to Fusion and Parallels? Could it be because it's free and advertisers aren't paying for reviews?
Why is it we never see VirtualBox compared head to head to Fusion and Parallels? Could it be because it's free and advertisers aren't paying for reviews?
I don't think that many care about a product that is free but well behind on features and capabilities. You can always do your own test.
I don't think that many care about a product that is free but well behind on features and capabilities. You can always do your own test.
How do you know VirtualBox is "behind" if there's no feature comparison anywhere?