Parallels or VMware Fusion? - Page 2

**Giaguara** · #9 September 17th, 2007, 09:29 AM

Are you telling that 64-bit is worth only when you have 16 GB RAM, fryke??

**fryke** · #10 September 17th, 2007, 09:54 AM

Oh, you're right: 8 GB might be enough to see a difference. AFAIK at 4 GB or lower, 64bit doesn't make much sense. Or am I completely wrong? If so, educate me on the pros of 64bit-computer at 4 GB or lower...

bbloke · #11 September 17th, 2007, 12:00 PM

This sort of discussion is very useful for me. I'm currently considering ways of running Windows on a MacBook Pro, as I may have the occasional task that requires a specialist, Windows-only program. As far as I can see, the following methods are amongst the best known:

I'm primarily interested in virtualization methods, and VMware's and Parallels' offerings are the most attractive to me. Originally, I was thinking Parallels' software was the best. After having read some recent reviews, I'm now no longer sure.

Wikipedia has a page dedicated to comparing the features of the two

CNET Labs say Fusion has the performance advantage
(speed, multi-processor/multi-core support, resource usage, etc.)

Paul Lefebvre's weblog discusses the two

Chris Pirillo's weblog shows he favors VMware Fusion

Paul Stamatiou discusses a conference call

Review of Fusion by Lunapark6

It sounds like Fusion is the better performer and makes better usage of the Mac hardware, and people are impressed by the new release. I've heard a few people complaining about Parallels' customer service, but I don't know how much to make of that. Also, VMware has a strong history in the field of virtualization, so I would expect they are a strong bet for the future in this field.

I suppose I'm not sure what to think! I no longer believe it is clear that Parallels produces the better product, which is what I had originally assumed. If anything, I'm now leaning towards VMware Fusion. I'd be interested to hear about people's experiences with either package. The best situation would be to hear from people who have used both products in their current incarnations!

**chevy** · #12 September 17th, 2007, 01:00 PM

CNet test is very impressive, but how does it translate on "normal" iMacs (CNet test is made on an 8 core machine) ?

**fryke** · #13 September 17th, 2007, 03:41 PM

(and it's probably been made on the version pre-5160 which'd be different...)

bbloke · #14 September 17th, 2007, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fryke

(and it's probably been made on the version pre-5160 which'd be different...)

Quite possibly. Perhaps Parallels will make strides in optimizing Desktop, but, equally, perhaps VMware can squeeze more performance out of Fusion. We shall wait and see!

It will be hard to find reviews that compare the very latest version of each product at any one point. There will be leap-frogging that goes on, no doubt. Everything I've seen so far (reviews dating to August 2007) points to VMware Fusion being faster and more efficient than Parallels Desktop, and this is when comparing a 1.0 release to a version 3.0. As Desktop should surely be the more mature product, I found the lab results surprising and I can't help but feel this might be a sign of things to come.

I can tell you're keen on Parallels and not on Fusion...

I wondered a little if you were referring to an older version of VMware's software, when stating that Parallels' is so well integrated. From what I hear, Fusion has shadows too and works well in Exposé.

**fryke** · #15 September 17th, 2007, 06:58 PM

I'm a little bit of a fan of Parallels' that's correct.

... Okay, so I guess they're really about head to head now. Parallels still has the better file system integration (you can share home folders/profiles with Windows, should you want to) and might be a bit further on the 3D stuff (although that probably isn't really going to be anywhere near native-speed anytime soon on any platform...), VMware has the edge on performance etc.

But what I really, really, really wanted to hear more about was that 64bit vs. memory limit thing. Does _anybody_ have an answer whether 64bit support even makes sense on an iMac which doesn't push the 64bit-envelope?

**chevy** · #16 September 18th, 2007, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbloke

...
I can tell you're keen on Parallels and not on Fusion...

I wondered a little if you were referring to an older version of VMware's software, when stating that Parallels' is so well integrated. From what I hear, Fusion has shadows too and works well in Exposé.

This is the good part of macosx.com... people have opinions and preferences. Fryke likes Parallels, giaguara is keener on VMWare. So you see both sides... and then it's up to you to decide.