Parallels or VMware Fusion?

U

untz

Registered
Hello there,

I need to install Windows Vista and Ubuntu Linux Feist Fawn 7.04 on my aluminum 24" iMac (Intel-based)...

Am wondering what the *BEST* virtualization software is out for these purposes?

Is it VMware Fusion or Parallels?

I already searched the web using Google and there's lots of mixed reactions and opinions. I also tried to search for this particular topic on this forum by using its search field but didn't find any similar postings (trying to display courtesy before asking a common question like this).

Should I wait for Leopard to come out?

My machine is equipped with four gigs of RAM and has a terabyte hard drive (one thousand gigs of storage space).

Kindest regards,

Unnsse
 
Parallels is more mature today. VMWare may be the future as they are very strong on other plateforms.
 
I can't speak for VM, but I've been using Parallels for a year and a half. I upgraded to V3 this summer, and it is outstanding, very smooth interface, and I can run all my business apps that are Windows. I'm very impressed with it. Caveat - if you're looking to play Windows gamers, it only supports DirectX 8.1 and below, therefore newer games won't go.
 
You may ask the same question to giaguara (super moderator on macosx.com). She knows VMWare quite well.
 
I haven't tested Ubuntu on Parallels, but it runs without problems in Fusion. Just install the VMware Tools on the guest system and it'll be smooth. Fusion with allow you to use more RAM for your guest OS than Parallels (since you have a nice amount of RAM, it might make a difference).

I sometimes end up using the same virtual machines with different operating systems too, so a good install of Ubuntu can be easily ported to Player or Workstation or Server on Linux or XP (if you would ever need to use them on a PC for instance).

Some of the guest operating systems come already with VMware Tools installed and preconfigured if you would want to save time from installation http://www.vmware.com/appliances/

Ubuntu Ultimate is a nice version as well. It will have way more packages installed, but save you time from downloading and installing all the applications separately.

Are you planning on using Vista with virtualization software only or with Boot Camp as well?
 
For Windows, it's a very _clear_ choice for Parallels today. They've managed to make Windows work like "Classic" did. Better even: Windows windows (sic!) have a drop shadow like Mac apps, and they work smoothly with Exposé. Integration is really, really nice. The newest version (build 5160) even handles CPU/memory better. It was nice from the beginning, but with version 3 and onwards, it has been a blast. No other solution comes even close so far.
 
One other thing that I forgot to add : Parallels does not support any 64-bit guest operating systems. And that is listed still on their 3.x version.

So if you have (or will want to use) a 64-bit Vista or Ubuntu or whatever else you'll want to run, Fusion.
 
As far as I know, the iMacs still don't offer the option to have 16 GB or more RAM, so that doesn't really matter. ;)
 
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...
 
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!
 
CNet test is very impressive, but how does it translate on "normal" iMacs (CNet test is made on an 8 core machine) ?
 
(and it's probably been made on the version pre-5160 which'd be different...)
 
fryke said:
(and it's probably been made on the version pre-5160 which'd be different...)
Click to expand...
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.
 
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?
 
bbloke said:
...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
chevy said:
This is the good part of macosx.com... people have opinions and preferences.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, I agree. :)

It's good to have a range of people from different backgrounds and with different experiences. I certainly was not criticizing earlier, by the way. We all have our preferred tools for each task, and it is good/useful to hear why people make the choices they do.

chevy said:
Fryke likes Parallels, giaguara is keener on VMWare. So you see both sides... and then it's up to you to decide.
Click to expand...
Argh, that's the problem... I'm not so good at making decisions! :D
 
If you plan on using end applications that are compiled for 64-bit, then running them on 64-bit OS will be more smooth.
("4) Use a 64-bit virtual machine with a 64-bit OS, if you have one available." Link)
Windows performance 32 vs 64
"The better performance with x64 OSes is only with x64 apps like autocad 2008, 32-bit apps run as usual." on AutoCAD.
Ubuntu: 32 or 64bits? Does it make a difference in Fusion? link
Would 64-bit be advantageous in a VM? link
Everything posted before early August 2007 in these links here refer to beta version, 50460. So with official release there should be even smoother performance.

If you need VMI paravirtualization or plan to run only 32-bit compiled applications, then it may be ok to stick to 32-bit OS. For now.

I guess one could find some 64-bit compiled audio, video or graphic editing software suite that uses resources, and measure the differences in the same tasks running it on 32-bit VM and on a 64-bit. Or just have a business need for a 64-bit ...
 
*cough* ... I still - after all these years of Apple promoting 64bit computing (remember the G5?) - haven't heard whether 64bit computing makes any sense *at all* on a computer with less memory than the bottleneck size of 32bit memory addressing. Maybe my _question_ is stupid, could very well be. But if 64bit mainly is about using stuff that can address RAM in excess of 4 GB, then what good does a 64bit virtual machine with, say, 640 MB RAM do on a machine with 1 or 2 GB of RAM do?

As I understand it (and I probably don't), in these "low" memory circumstances, 64bit will only add overhead and solve nothing, really. This is not a rant against vmware, btw., I wish Parallels would also support 64bit OSs, clearly. (And I hope BootCamp will out of the box, some day, as well.) But this thread is about an iMac with memory constrictions (up to 4 GB of RAM).
 
Okay. Wikipedia to the rescue... (maybe...):

A common misconception is that 64-bit architectures are no better than 32-bit architectures unless the computer has more than 4 GiB of memory. This is not entirely true:
Some operating systems reserve portions of process address space for OS use, effectively reducing the total address space available for mapping memory for user programs. For instance, Windows XP DLLs and userland OS components are mapped into each process's address space, leaving only 2 to 3.8 GB (depending on the settings) address space available, even if the computer has 4 GiB of RAM. This restriction is not present in 64-bit Windows.
Memory mapping of files is becoming less useful with 32-bit architectures, especially with the introduction of relatively cheap recordable DVD technology. A 4 GiB file is no longer uncommon, and such large files cannot be memory mapped easily to 32-bit architectures; only a region of the file can be mapped into the address space, and to access such a file by memory mapping, those regions will have to be mapped into and out of the address space as needed. This is an issue, as memory mapping remains one of the most efficient disk-to-memory methods, when properly implemented by the OS.
There may be other incidental advantages as a result of the transition - for example, in the case of x86-64 compared to x86, twice as many registers are available for programmer use.
The main disadvantage of 64-bit architectures is that relative to 32-bit architectures the same data occupies slightly more space in memory (due to swollen pointers and possibly other types and alignment padding). This increases the memory requirements of a given process and can have implications for efficient processor cache utilization. Maintaining a partial 32-bit model is one way to handle this and is in general reasonably effective. In fact, the highly performance-oriented z/OS operating system takes this approach currently, requiring program code to reside in any number of 32-bit address spaces while data objects can (optionally) reside in 64-bit regions.
Click to expand...

So it seems that _theoretically_ it could help with a computer with 4 GB of RAM, but I guess at anything lower, it simply shouldn't make much of a difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top