Parallels or VMware Fusion?

Memory addressing is not the only factor. Actual processing power is greater, too. A 64-bit chip can operate on larger data types (e.g., 64-bit integers) much more efficiently. You can use these data types on 32-bit chips, of course, but what goes on under the hood is different, and much more expensive.

As for whether this actually matters to most people....probably not, at least for now. 64-bit apps are rare, and most apps would probably not benefit greatly anyway.

I imagine scientific apps run significantly faster on 64-bit chips (I know Mathematica is optimized for 64-bit processors), and there is certainly potential in graphics and multimedia, as well. Real-world comparisons of equivalent 64-bit and 32-bit software on the same hardware are hard to come by, though.

On the other hand, even the G4 had AltiVec, which provides some of the advantages of 64-bit (and even 128-bit) processors, which could diminish the advantages of a "true" 64-bit processor. I'm not sure if the G5's AltiVec enhancements had anything to do with its 64-bit-ness.
 
With regards to 64-bit computing, I found three articles that may be of interest, although they may not directly answer your questions.

Geek Patrol has an article on 32-bit vs. 64-bit performance in the Mac world.

Geek Patrol said:
  • Mac Pro
    • Intel Xeon 5150 @ 2.66GHz
    • 2048MB RAM
    • Mac OS X 10.4.7 (Build 8K1124)
    • Geekbench 2006 (Build 208)
  • iMac (Late 2006)
    • Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.0GHz
    • 1024MB RAM
    • Mac OS X 10.4.7 (Build 8K1106)
    • Geekbench 2006 (Build 208)
  • Power Mac G5
    • PowerPC G5 @ 2.0GHz (two processors)
    • 1024MB RAM
    • Mac OS X 10.4.7 (Build 8J135)
    • Geekbench 2006 (Build 208)
Click to expand...
Geek Patrol said:
Mac Pro Summary
Overall performance in 64-bit mode is 5% higher than overall performance in 32-bit mode. However, a number of benchmarks that were slower in 64-bit mode than in 32-bit mode (like the Blowfish and Write Sequential benchmarks).

...
iMac Summary
Despite the fact that the Core 2 Duo and the Xeon share the same underlying architecture, the Core 2 Duo’s 64-bit performance is better than the Xeon’s 64-bit performance; overall performance for the Core 2 Duo is up 7% (compared to 5% for the Xeon). Plus, the only benchmark that was significantly slower in 64-bit mode was the Blowfish benchmark.

...
Power Mac Summary
Overall performance is down 10% in 64-bit mode. Hardly any tests are appreciably faster in 64-bit mode, and several are noticeably slower (such as most of the integer tests, as well as the dot product test).

...
It turns out the assertion that software runs faster in 64-bit mode than 32-bit mode is both correct and incorrect; Geekbench runs faster in 64-bit mode on Intel-based Macs, but slower on PowerPC-based Macs. I find this incredibly surprising.
Click to expand...

Also, there is an article on Ars Technica, although a few years old, which discusses the state of 64-bit computing... back then. In another article, Ars Technica talks about 64-bit computing with Leopard, and Apple's possible decision to not include 64-bit support in Carbon.


Back to virtualization, has anyone out there tried both VMware Fusion and Parallels Desktop, in their current forms, and been able to make their own comparison? I'm currently contemplating buying Fusion or Desktop, but am unsure of which to go for. I was originally going to go with Desktop, perhaps by default, but have been hearing good things about Fusion recently. It's a tough call, but my thoughts are also that VMware has a good history in the field and they've only just started with Fusion... I may be leaning towards Fusion now, but am undecided!
 
I think both can be tested. Why not install the same OS(s) in both solutions and make some initial testing before deciding? Before doing so, make a checklist of what you'd be doing on a regular basis with the system(s). Then, when testing, note what surprises you (positively and negatively). This way, you could write the perfect review for _you_. :) (And tell us, of course.)
 
Why not test both indeed. Both have a free 30 days version for testing working fully with the OS, applications and appliances you need, and once you have made up your mind, pick the one you want. :)
 
I'll try Fusion right now. I plan to use it with the Windows XP Pro that is installed on my BootCamp partition. I'll let you know.
 
First impressions: install is trivial, Excel starts like a breeze. But it could not run PF.

I didn't find a very simple way to start the explorer and I miss the Windows shortcuts bar at the bottom of my screen.

But it does the job.

I didn't restart on Boot Camp yet, I'll see how Windows accepts that later.
 
Ok, I restarted in Boot Camp and now back to Macos X. No problems.
 
Thanks for doing that, chevy.

I agree, fryke and Giaguara, that testing it myself would be the most direct option. It's a long story, but basically I may have Windows licensed through work (for work use) and so I'd probably choose a virtualization package first and get access to Windows second (!). Being given an installation of Windows in order to test a demo might not be agreed to.

I suppose part of the reason I ask about others' opinions is that I could draw upon a wider range of experiences, encountering things it might take me much longer to notice if acting on my own. I've also had a look at a few videos to see what both Desktop and Fusion look like in use. Not quite the same as using it myself, but it gives me some idea.

Ultimately, it might just be the case that both programs do the job nicely and it won't be the end of the world no matter which one I opt for! ;)
 
It depends on what you will be doing within Parallels or VMWare I think. I can't speak to VMWare, but I set my dad up with Parallels when he got his first Mac so he could continue to use his Windows Quicken files and access his old Micorsoft Works files. It performs wonderfully for that. I suspect VMWare would have no problem either. The benefit then becomes which one is more convenient, has a better integration with OS X, etc. At this point in time I think that is probably Parallels, but I'm sure VMWare will make improvements.

If you're looking for a test environment to assemble code, or need to run AutoCAD or something, then performance might be your higher priority, in which case VMWare would seem to be a better choice.

I think your usage will dictate which is better. In the end I think either will work, so you don't need to agonize over the choice. Parallels seems a little more refined right now, VMWare a bit more powerful under the hood.
 
Lazarus18 said:
I think your usage will dictate which is better. In the end I think either will work, so you don't need to agonize over the choice. Parallels seems a little more refined right now, VMWare a bit more powerful under the hood.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I think you are right. Both Parallels Desktop and VMware Fusion will do the job well enough, and I don't think I should agonize over the decision...

I'm likely to need to use virtualization for a small number of specialist Windows applications. There's the potential that they may be a bit resource hungry at times. I was originally going to go for Parallels Desktop by default, but I've started to shift towards VMware Fusion now.
 
VMWare is the way to go. I've used both, and it runs so much better. Doesn't bog down your Mac when your running it, you can leave it running in the background and go on with life. If also allows you to run only one processor as an option which is nice for keeping it contained.
 
VMWare feels snappier to me, but Parallels has some nice, polished features. Installing XP with Parallels was a breeze.
 
I've been debating this topic for quite some time..

I need to point out a very important topic not reaaally mentioned here about these two apps. First off, I have both installed on my Macbook Pro and new 20" iMac.

I day trade currencies/fx, and need reliable uptime for my windows installation right, however, I've experienced mixed issues with this.

VMWare: runs very smoothly without a doubt, even in UNITY mode, but networking craps out ALL the time, making it unreliable for me as a trader. I've configured it to bridge/nat/shared, everything, and still intermitten disconnects. I find the virtualization and memory/cpu allocation is amazing, very lightweight, however very weak on the networking side.

Parallels: not as great of coherence mode, doing certain functions in my trading software freezes, locks up everytime, but if i switch to regular os windowed mode, it works, I'm betting its a video/java issue with the coherence part of the software, its a real nuisance, BUT on the upside, the networking/drivers/connectivity is A+. Now the only thing different is on my macbook pro im using a slightly older version of parallels, haven't updated to 3.0 5160 yet, but on the iMac i Have, and haven't fully tested this crash issue I have. There are quite a few updates that would apply to my macbook version so, its just a matter of updating and seeing if it still crashes in coherence.

I will tomorrow evening, and will post results here.

I've been running both Parallels and VMware since they both came out, and they both have great features, however I think with the future integration of Intel and Parallels now a team, they will still be the better/more reliable choice, especially because they are focusing on VM solutions integrating with their chips.

stay tuned for results. (if anyones interested)
 
I've recently purchased VMWare Fusion and use it with Windows XP. I've been very impressed by the setup so far, I think it works very well. Perhaps I'll post about it at a later time.

For now, zynizen, have you tried the Fusion 1.1 Beta? I was wondering if it was any better for the issues you describe.
 
I'm hoping someone else has encountered this problem, since I can't find a solution anywhere:

I used BootCamp to set up XP on my MacBook. I then installed Fusion and use it to go into XP when needed.

However, now, when I first start my computer, I get no power to my USB or Firewire ports. If I plug a device into the USB, it tells me that there isn't enough power to charge it. If I plug a camera into my Firewire, it doesn't do anything.

To make them work, I first have to open Fusion, boot up XP. Plug in the device while in XP. Then shut down Fusion.
ONLY after doing all this can I then use the ports on OSX.

I was so fed up with it that I uninstalled the boot camp partition, only to discover that my ports no longer worked at all in OSX. The only way to get them functioning again was to do another full install of Boot Camp.

Any suggestions?
 
bbloke said:
For now, zynizen, have you tried the Fusion 1.1 Beta? I was wondering if it was any better for the issues you describe.
Click to expand...

No I haven't. But, for those interested I have updated my parallels to 3.0 5160 like I had mentioned above, and this has solved the crashing issue. I've tested this error every which way possible for about an hour to replicate the crash, and was unable to.

I'm happy! And still have 100% reliable networking.
 
I'd like to bump this thread and see how folks feel about VM vs. Parallels in Leopard environment. Feedback please?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top