USB issues?? I've never had any USB issues with Parallels. In fact Parallels had the option to designate which devices work with each OS before Fusion. I remember having to tell Fusion every time I connected my Suunto watch (windows only) that I wanted it to open in Windows.
Passat 4-motion eh? I was a heartbeat away from getting the CC 4-motion but opted for 305hp nsf sh-awd on the Acura TL ;-)
I have all three. I have run Fusions since 1.0, and Parallels since 4.0. My day job is managing a very large VMware ESX Enterprise environment, so I know VMware products inside and out, and do love them. However these results on a Mac are dead on.
I have never had a show stopper with any of them. I do know or have read that Parallels 3.0 was buggy and that people that updraded over the top of 3 to 4 had problems as well. For me Para 4.0 ran great, faster than even version 3.0 of Fusion. 5.0 is just that much better. My test XP vm boots super quick, quicker than any PC I have used.
Fusion was never really bad, just odd stuff like railing CPU's when the VM was doing NOTHING. Unity on my Macbook Unibody is really slow especially with Aero on in a Win 7 VM. Its faster if you turn on classic mode but Para 5 with Aero in Cohesion is way faster and smoother. Fusion has alot of screen tearing with Unity. Full screen both run well, but Para is faster.
Para just has so many little nice features that Fusion does not have. Cloning, cloning to template, tweaking of many more features, way better sharing between OS X and VM. Plug in a USB device and Para will prompt you "Mac or VM".
For whom ever said Fusion is more mature, does not know what they are talking about. Fusion is newer on the Mac, Parallels has been around longer.
Virtual Box is very nice to be honest, especially for a free product. Its vmotion/transporter feature is simply amazing for a free product. The fact that its basically the same across PC/Mac/Linux is also very nice. I dont like that task bar in Unity mode (or whatever its called).
IMHO on a Mac I would go with Parallels, VB, and Fusion in that order. I also would NEVER upgrade any of these products. I would remove the old version, save my VM's and install the new versions after a reboot.
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.
Crossover for the Mac is simply a commercial version of WINE for which the mac version is still being updated by Mike Kronenberg under the name WIneBottler
WINE is still majorly limited compared to a virtual machine despite the improvements and can require a lot of tweaking to get some programs to simply run.
Products that don't have a strong financial backing don't have a structure for good developers to spend 60+ hours a week coding for it. Ergo, they are less likely to be better products than ones that are given away for free, relying solely on volunteer work.
That is true up to a point. Plenty of counter examples of free but good quality programs abound.
OpenOffice and its Mac sister Neo Office immediately comes to mind. OpenArena in the FPS gaming genre is another.
Then you have the fact that about every major browser you can think of is free.
Finally there is Darwin-the core of Apple own MacOS.
Just because it it is free doesn't mean that the quality is any less than commercial products. Sturgeon's Law is just as applicable to commercial software as it is to free stuff.
Besides some commercial products never see the light of day even after years of development. Can you say Duke Nukem Forever? I knew you could.
Then you have the commercial stuff that basically has you as beta tester (or given the quality perhaps that should be alpha tester). Age of Conan fits very nicely in this category.
I have all three. I have run Fusions since 1.0, and Parallels since 4.0. My day job is managing a very large VMware ESX Enterprise environment, so I know VMware products inside and out, and do love them. However these results on a Mac are dead on.
I have never had a show stopper with any of them. I do know or have read that Parallels 3.0 was buggy and that people that updraded over the top of 3 to 4 had problems as well. For me Para 4.0 ran great, faster than even version 3.0 of Fusion. 5.0 is just that much better. My test XP vm boots super quick, quicker than any PC I have used.
Fusion was never really bad, just odd stuff like railing CPU's when the VM was doing NOTHING. Unity on my Macbook Unibody is really slow especially with Aero on in a Win 7 VM. Its faster if you turn on classic mode but Para 5 with Aero in Cohesion is way faster and smoother. Fusion has alot of screen tearing with Unity. Full screen both run well, but Para is faster.
Para just has so many little nice features that Fusion does not have. Cloning, cloning to template, tweaking of many more features, way better sharing between OS X and VM. Plug in a USB device and Para will prompt you "Mac or VM".
For whom ever said Fusion is more mature, does not know what they are talking about. Fusion is newer on the Mac, Parallels has been around longer.
Virtual Box is very nice to be honest, especially for a free product. Its vmotion/transporter feature is simply amazing for a free product. The fact that its basically the same across PC/Mac/Linux is also very nice. I dont like that task bar in Unity mode (or whatever its called).
IMHO on a Mac I would go with Parallels, VB, and Fusion in that order. I also would NEVER upgrade any of these products. I would remove the old version, save my VM's and install the new versions after a reboot.
Hi bettieblue,
I've got a quick question, if you don't mind.
To free-up some hard drive space on my laptop, I plan to move a few infrequently used virtual machines I keep solely for troubleshooting and tech support reference purposes to an external hard drive; then, when needed, I'll open and run one of them from the external drive (via 1394b).
In this scenario, do you know if one virtualization product runs better than the other?
Thanks for any heads-up you might have.
ps - I'm choked they shutdown the 303rd Logistical Studies Group.
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.
No, VirtualBox can't virtualize a Bootcamp windows-partition. It would be nice though, and the development is going in such a pace that it wouldn't surprise me when it will support it in the near future.
I have all three. I have run Fusions since 1.0, and Parallels since 4.0. My day job is managing a very large VMware ESX Enterprise environment, so I know VMware products inside and out, and do love them. However these results on a Mac are dead on.
I have never had a show stopper with any of them. I do know or have read that Parallels 3.0 was buggy and that people that updraded over the top of 3 to 4 had problems as well. For me Para 4.0 ran great, faster than even version 3.0 of Fusion. 5.0 is just that much better. My test XP vm boots super quick, quicker than any PC I have used.
Fusion was never really bad, just odd stuff like railing CPU's when the VM was doing NOTHING. Unity on my Macbook Unibody is really slow especially with Aero on in a Win 7 VM. Its faster if you turn on classic mode but Para 5 with Aero in Cohesion is way faster and smoother. Fusion has alot of screen tearing with Unity. Full screen both run well, but Para is faster.
Para just has so many little nice features that Fusion does not have. Cloning, cloning to template, tweaking of many more features, way better sharing between OS X and VM. Plug in a USB device and Para will prompt you "Mac or VM".
For whom ever said Fusion is more mature, does not know what they are talking about. Fusion is newer on the Mac, Parallels has been around longer.
Virtual Box is very nice to be honest, especially for a free product. Its vmotion/transporter feature is simply amazing for a free product. The fact that its basically the same across PC/Mac/Linux is also very nice. I dont like that task bar in Unity mode (or whatever its called).
IMHO on a Mac I would go with Parallels, VB, and Fusion in that order. I also would NEVER upgrade any of these products. I would remove the old version, save my VM's and install the new versions after a reboot.
My windows XP installation in VirtualBox takes 20 seconds to boot! And that didn't change in time!
USB issues?? I've never had any USB issues with Parallels. In fact Parallels had the option to designate which devices work with each OS before Fusion. I remember having to tell Fusion every time I connected my Suunto watch (windows only) that I wanted it to open in Windows.
Passat 4-motion eh? I was a heartbeat away from getting the CC 4-motion but opted for 305hp nsf sh-awd on the Acura TL ;-)
Acura, what a boring car, every time you turn the key the car starts and runs like a champ. I prefer to live life on the wild side. You never know what's going to happen when you try start a VW.
I have only used Parallels and Fusion in trial mode. Okay, but not without troubles. I like VirtualBox. Something as simple as Windows Solitaire does not work. I use VB in both Mac OS Leopard and Windows 7 RC, via BootCamp. VB is an all-around better experience with Windows as the Host OS. It looks better in Windows, at least for me. There is an issue with audio running slow with most distros of Ubuntu. It is frequent when Mac OS is the Host OS. Once in a very blue moon, it happens with Windows as the Host OS.
Comments
Passat 4-motion eh? I was a heartbeat away from getting the CC 4-motion but opted for 305hp nsf sh-awd on the Acura TL ;-)
I have never had a show stopper with any of them. I do know or have read that Parallels 3.0 was buggy and that people that updraded over the top of 3 to 4 had problems as well. For me Para 4.0 ran great, faster than even version 3.0 of Fusion. 5.0 is just that much better. My test XP vm boots super quick, quicker than any PC I have used.
Fusion was never really bad, just odd stuff like railing CPU's when the VM was doing NOTHING. Unity on my Macbook Unibody is really slow especially with Aero on in a Win 7 VM. Its faster if you turn on classic mode but Para 5 with Aero in Cohesion is way faster and smoother. Fusion has alot of screen tearing with Unity. Full screen both run well, but Para is faster.
Para just has so many little nice features that Fusion does not have. Cloning, cloning to template, tweaking of many more features, way better sharing between OS X and VM. Plug in a USB device and Para will prompt you "Mac or VM".
For whom ever said Fusion is more mature, does not know what they are talking about. Fusion is newer on the Mac, Parallels has been around longer.
Virtual Box is very nice to be honest, especially for a free product. Its vmotion/transporter feature is simply amazing for a free product. The fact that its basically the same across PC/Mac/Linux is also very nice. I dont like that task bar in Unity mode (or whatever its called).
IMHO on a Mac I would go with Parallels, VB, and Fusion in that order. I also would NEVER upgrade any of these products. I would remove the old version, save my VM's and install the new versions after a reboot.
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.
Crossover for the Mac is simply a commercial version of WINE for which the mac version is still being updated by Mike Kronenberg under the name WIneBottler
WINE is still majorly limited compared to a virtual machine despite the improvements and can require a lot of tweaking to get some programs to simply run.
Products that don't have a strong financial backing don't have a structure for good developers to spend 60+ hours a week coding for it. Ergo, they are less likely to be better products than ones that are given away for free, relying solely on volunteer work.
That is true up to a point. Plenty of counter examples of free but good quality programs abound.
OpenOffice and its Mac sister Neo Office immediately comes to mind. OpenArena in the FPS gaming genre is another.
Then you have the fact that about every major browser you can think of is free.
Finally there is Darwin-the core of Apple own MacOS.
Just because it it is free doesn't mean that the quality is any less than commercial products. Sturgeon's Law is just as applicable to commercial software as it is to free stuff.
Besides some commercial products never see the light of day even after years of development. Can you say Duke Nukem Forever? I knew you could.
Then you have the commercial stuff that basically has you as beta tester (or given the quality perhaps that should be alpha tester). Age of Conan fits very nicely in this category.
I have all three. I have run Fusions since 1.0, and Parallels since 4.0. My day job is managing a very large VMware ESX Enterprise environment, so I know VMware products inside and out, and do love them. However these results on a Mac are dead on.
I have never had a show stopper with any of them. I do know or have read that Parallels 3.0 was buggy and that people that updraded over the top of 3 to 4 had problems as well. For me Para 4.0 ran great, faster than even version 3.0 of Fusion. 5.0 is just that much better. My test XP vm boots super quick, quicker than any PC I have used.
Fusion was never really bad, just odd stuff like railing CPU's when the VM was doing NOTHING. Unity on my Macbook Unibody is really slow especially with Aero on in a Win 7 VM. Its faster if you turn on classic mode but Para 5 with Aero in Cohesion is way faster and smoother. Fusion has alot of screen tearing with Unity. Full screen both run well, but Para is faster.
Para just has so many little nice features that Fusion does not have. Cloning, cloning to template, tweaking of many more features, way better sharing between OS X and VM. Plug in a USB device and Para will prompt you "Mac or VM".
For whom ever said Fusion is more mature, does not know what they are talking about. Fusion is newer on the Mac, Parallels has been around longer.
Virtual Box is very nice to be honest, especially for a free product. Its vmotion/transporter feature is simply amazing for a free product. The fact that its basically the same across PC/Mac/Linux is also very nice. I dont like that task bar in Unity mode (or whatever its called).
IMHO on a Mac I would go with Parallels, VB, and Fusion in that order. I also would NEVER upgrade any of these products. I would remove the old version, save my VM's and install the new versions after a reboot.
Hi bettieblue,
I've got a quick question, if you don't mind.
To free-up some hard drive space on my laptop, I plan to move a few infrequently used virtual machines I keep solely for troubleshooting and tech support reference purposes to an external hard drive; then, when needed, I'll open and run one of them from the external drive (via 1394b).
In this scenario, do you know if one virtualization product runs better than the other?
Thanks for any heads-up you might have.
ps - I'm choked they shutdown the 303rd Logistical Studies Group.
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.
No, VirtualBox can't virtualize a Bootcamp windows-partition. It would be nice though, and the development is going in such a pace that it wouldn't surprise me when it will support it in the near future.
I have all three. I have run Fusions since 1.0, and Parallels since 4.0. My day job is managing a very large VMware ESX Enterprise environment, so I know VMware products inside and out, and do love them. However these results on a Mac are dead on.
I have never had a show stopper with any of them. I do know or have read that Parallels 3.0 was buggy and that people that updraded over the top of 3 to 4 had problems as well. For me Para 4.0 ran great, faster than even version 3.0 of Fusion. 5.0 is just that much better. My test XP vm boots super quick, quicker than any PC I have used.
Fusion was never really bad, just odd stuff like railing CPU's when the VM was doing NOTHING. Unity on my Macbook Unibody is really slow especially with Aero on in a Win 7 VM. Its faster if you turn on classic mode but Para 5 with Aero in Cohesion is way faster and smoother. Fusion has alot of screen tearing with Unity. Full screen both run well, but Para is faster.
Para just has so many little nice features that Fusion does not have. Cloning, cloning to template, tweaking of many more features, way better sharing between OS X and VM. Plug in a USB device and Para will prompt you "Mac or VM".
For whom ever said Fusion is more mature, does not know what they are talking about. Fusion is newer on the Mac, Parallels has been around longer.
Virtual Box is very nice to be honest, especially for a free product. Its vmotion/transporter feature is simply amazing for a free product. The fact that its basically the same across PC/Mac/Linux is also very nice. I dont like that task bar in Unity mode (or whatever its called).
IMHO on a Mac I would go with Parallels, VB, and Fusion in that order. I also would NEVER upgrade any of these products. I would remove the old version, save my VM's and install the new versions after a reboot.
My windows XP installation in VirtualBox takes 20 seconds to boot! And that didn't change in time!
USB issues?? I've never had any USB issues with Parallels. In fact Parallels had the option to designate which devices work with each OS before Fusion. I remember having to tell Fusion every time I connected my Suunto watch (windows only) that I wanted it to open in Windows.
Passat 4-motion eh? I was a heartbeat away from getting the CC 4-motion but opted for 305hp nsf sh-awd on the Acura TL ;-)
Acura, what a boring car, every time you turn the key the car starts and runs like a champ. I prefer to live life on the wild side. You never know what's going to happen when you try start a VW.