Fusion or Parallels?

[Neil321]

I agree that it's debatable!!!

Everybody advise to try both! So what's question? Let run both and choose which is better for YOU!! It's like the perfume - somebody loves one smell, somebody another one, but they are both on the same level! So I think parallels and fusion are almost the same, only your own feeling will help you to make a right choice!!! I began with parallels, that's why I do not know anything about fusion! I like it, for me it's fast - no problem.

How can you highlight my post when you have clearly not tried both products
the main point of all these posts was to highlight the FACT that members who
have tried BOTH products prefer fusion to parallels FACT

Yes it's up to people to try both products thats the whole point of it or did you miss the the few
posts above your one

 

[Eric Piercey]

It's Apple's emulator and comes with all new Macs or as part of Leopard. As the name implies you boot into it, where as Fusion and Parallels run alongside OSX.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/bootcamp.html

Just for clarification, bootcamp isn't an emulator its a partition manager application that manages a separate drive partition on which you can install another OS. Whatever OS you install on the bootcamp partition is very much the real deal, installed in it's own native file format whereas an emulator pretends to be something.

I don't have Parallels or Fusion (yet) but I assume they run windows in an application window running under OSX- virtual machine style. What this basically means is the second OS doesn't interact directly with the hardware but rather a "virtual" simulation of the hardware. In other words the native OS is still calling all the shots. With that said, there will always be a delay in your apps on a VM as the native OS will always be the go-between. This hit may be negligible or crippling depending on the application, namely solo interactive apps (business, wordprocessing, spreadsheets, browsing) vs time critical apps such as MOG's.

 

[erickkoch]

I was a big Parallels fan until I upgraded to OS 10.5 , then it just got buggy and stopped working (yes, I upgraded to the latest 3.XX version), Googled and found others also having problems as well and complaining of poor support.

Tried Fusion and it works very well so that's what I'll stick with. I do prefer the interface in Parallels though.

 

[mshin.mac.pro]

I'll have to say VMware Fusion!

Recently completely removed Parallels from OSX.

Especially, since I just finished removing Parallels Tools on two VMs which I recently converted to Fusion.

Note: Parallels was just too buggy. (The same people that make Parallels, makes PLESK. Another software package which I am not too impressed with!)

 

[Flowero4ka]

How can you highlight my post when you have clearly not tried both products
the main point of all these posts was to highlight the FACT that members who
have tried BOTH products prefer fusion to parallels FACT

Yes it's up to people to try both products thats the whole point of it or did you miss the the few
posts above your one

I will not debate with you, ok? After your message I've wanted to try fusion too to compare both, then I'll tell what it's better for me. Parallels or fusion... OK?

 

[Neil321]

I will not debate with you, ok? After your message I've wanted to try fusion too to compare both, then I'll tell what it's better for me. Parallels or fusion... OK?

No ones getting into a debate or argument all i tried to do & others have also is to illustrate the point that members of this site who have tried BOTH fusion & parallels pefer fusion FACT Dont you think there is a reason for this?.

Of coure this will be down to the individual to make their own minds up and some will always decide that parallels meets their needs better maybe you will be one of them and thats your choice.But the fact remains MOST members of this site prefer fusion FACT

 

[skd]

if you need performance - use bootcamp......

 

[Neil321]

if you need performance - use bootcamp......

Not that anyone new that

 

[nikopolidis]

No ones getting into a debate or argument all i tried to do & others have also is to illustrate the point that members of this site who have tried BOTH fusion & parallels pefer fusion FACT Dont you think there is a reason for this?.

1. I think it is quite unfair to try to express everybody's points of view.. Express YOUR OWN POV! If people agree with you then they could tell us about it. You don't need to tell for them...
2. I am still waiting for some real facts from you which illustrates the advantages of VMWare Fusion over Parallels instead of your emotions.
I have one that tells us that Parallels is faster than VMWare. Check this article.

 

[Flowero4ka]

1. I think it is quite unfair to try to express everybody's points of view.. Express YOUR OWN POV! If people agree with you then they could tell us about it. You don't need to tell for them...
2. I am still waiting for some real facts from you which illustrates the advantages of VMWare Fusion over Parallels instead of your emotions.
I have one that tells us that Parallels is faster than VMWare. Check this article.

I agree with Nicopolidis.
Neil321, provide us with the real proves instead of your emotions... And not tell for EVERYBODY, please...
Maybe you work on fusion and that's why you protect their rights... I know a lot of people who tried both apps and now use Parallels. Simply, they do not visit the forums like us. You said "MOST members of this site prefer fusion". Ok, no problems, but this site is not all over the world

 

[sushi]

No ones getting into a debate or argument all i tried to do & others have also is to illustrate the point that members of this site who have tried BOTH fusion & parallels pefer fusion FACT Dont you think there is a reason for this?.

Not all of us!

I disliked Fusion, thought that it was unstable and buggy on my system.

Parallels works great.

Note, I am using Tiger as the host. Leopard may be another issue.

As I stated earlier, I may give Fusion another try due to all the positive comments. Who knows, maybe I did not install it correctly.

But if I had to choose today, for my needs it would be Parallels hands down.

 

[Neil321]

Fist of all i apologise for all the confusion over my posts this is a subject like i said right at the beginning we could go round and round which we have.Again i repeat its up to the individual to make his/here own minds up

nikopolidis not emotions just the fact that most people members of this site prefer fusion to parallels
not because of speed but stability & support

flowero4ka do you not know what www. is short for WORLD WIDE WEB its what you have to type at the beginning of this sites addresss

 

[sushi]

flowero4ka do you not know what www is WORLD WIDE WEB

I am sure he knows what the www is for after all he is on MR.

What I think he is expecting, along with others of us, is that you provide your source of support to backup your arguments.

Anybody can post on a board such as this, and state whatever they want, but where is the proof. Hope this make sense.

 

[JSpence]

I currently use fusion. I had a licensed copy of Vista (ugh I know... I think I might downgrade to XP) and when I installed it with Parallels, I was missing drivers, and my internet would not work, along with my network settings..? It was strange, and I couldn't configure the settings in the control panel at all. That's just me, and maybe a fix would've been easier than switching to Fusion, though I made the switch anyways.
I am running Fusion on a MB with 4GB RAM and it runs a lot smoother than when I had Parallels. It could just be something I did wrong, human error. .

+1 Fusion from me. To each his own.

 

[Neil321]

I agree with Nicopolidis.
Neil321, provide us with the real proves instead of your emotions... And not tell for EVERYBODY, please...
Maybe you work on fusion and that's why you protect their rights... I know a lot of people who tried both apps and now use Parallels. Simply, they do not visit the forums like us. You said "MOST members of this site prefer fusion". Ok, no problems, but this site is not all over the world

Sushi please read the end of this post as im sure he/she doesnt know what www is short for

 

[Flowero4ka]

I am sure he knows what the www is for after all he is on MR.

What I think he is expecting, along with others of us, is that you provide your source of support to backup your arguments.

Anybody can post on a board such as this, and state whatever they want, but where is the proof. Hope this make sense.

Thank you for the support, sushi.


PS: I'm not "he"

 

[bericd]

Parallels started off very well, with an open feel to it and they seemed responsive to customers. I have used it since pre-release and was very happy with it. Lucky really, as there was no fusion back then.

I have a few USB devices that were my need to use windows, and starting with the time they introduced coherence, these devices kept resulting in blue-screens-o-death - really annoying when you're trying to run a theater show special effects with them :-(

I downloaded the demo for fusion and never looked back.

I've not noticed a difference in speed, and to be honest, XP in fusion seems more reliable than XP native on any machine.

Try both, but really try them, try to stress the IO as much as you can, and see how the darg and drop from windows to osx works for you etc.

 

[Flowero4ka]

Sushi please read the end of this post as im sure he/she doesnt know what www is short for

I didn't know what www is short for, you are right. But I would like you to understand what I meant - MR is not WWW, is just a "little drop" of it. And you don't know what members from other sites think!

 

[jahala]

Graphics problems with Parallels 3.0 in Leopard

I just wanted to chime in this debate. I recently tested Parallels 3.0 and Fusion 1.1 on a Macbook with 2 GB of RAM, 2.0 GHz Intel Core Duo, and intel 950 GMA graphics running Leopard 10.5.1. The virtual machine was Windows XP with 512 MB of RAM allocated to it.

I saw no significant difference is speed or stability of the VM as a whole. Fusion came out the clear winner, though. The main issue was the handling of 3D graphics. I run SMS 10.0 which makes heavy use of OpenGL for the graphics. Fusion does not support 3D acceleration so when I started SMS I got a message to the effect that some things won't work and some things will be slower due the lack of hardware acceleration. After that, SMS worked as expected. It was a different story in Parallels. Upon launching SMS, I did not receive any warnings about no hardware acceleration, but as soon as I tried to use the program or open projects, SMS would crash.

I am not sure exactly why Parallels behaved as it did, but something is not right behind the scenes. I promptly removed Parallels and have been very happy with Fusion. Also, Fusion supports both cores.

That is my experience and reason for choosing Fusion. As other posters have mentioned, the best thing to do is download the trial of each and see which one works best for your use case.

 

[Bakey]

Personally speaking I prefer Fusion - I'm a paid-up member of Parallels and have just installed Fusion.

Although I prefer the way Parallels functions, for example when quiting Parallels it returns to the smaller launch screen (those that use it will know what I mean) - whereas Fusion sits there in all its glory occupying a vast amount of screen real estate. A little pedantic I know, but it's one of the things I prefer over Fusion!!

Anyway, Fusion ultimately cuts for me as I'm a Macromedia (it feels so wrong typing Adobe) Director developer who utilises "a lot" of API calls and when testing under Parallels for Windows they (the API calls) don't work! Whereas under Fusion they do... And for this fact alone I will be purchasing Fusion very, very shortly as my trial expires very soon indeed!

Hope this helps!

 

[Neil321]

I didn't know what www is short for, you are right. But I would like you to understand what I meant - MR is not WWW, is just a "little drop" of it. And you don't know what members from other sites think!

Flower please please please read my posts more carefully im not saying other
members of different sites agree or disagree,but members of this site prefer fusion
You have only got to read carefully threw all the threads above this one
to see that for yourself its pretty obvious

Oh and Macrumors is probably one of the most popular Mac discussion
sites on this planet

 

[thomanjones]

Parallels/XP Install getting stuck

I have 10.5.2 on a stock Santa Rosa 15.4"MBP 2.2 w/ 2gig of RAM and Parallels (build 3xxx, the one recommended from Parallels for Leopard), but I have been unable to complete the installation of XP SP2.

I get to the final bullet point in the install, with '5 minutes remaining' and the optical drive just revs up and stops at 'finalizing installation.'

After 30 minutes or so, it tells me to insert the XP install in drive D (it the MBP optical drive). I can click, try again, continue, or cancel, but the message just pops up again.

I have tried eject and reinserting the disc, but same error.

Any ideas (beyond trying Fusion - since I paid for Fusion before trying both :/ )?

Thanks!

 

[Neil321]

I have 10.5.2 on a stock Santa Rosa 15.4"MBP 2.2 w/ 2gig of RAM and Parallels (build 3xxx, the one recommended from Parallels for Leopard), but I have been unable to complete the installation of XP SP2.

I get to the final bullet point in the install, with '5 minutes remaining' and the optical drive just revs up and stops at 'finalizing installation.'

After 30 minutes or so, it tells me to insert the XP install in drive D (it the MBP optical drive). I can click, try again, continue, or cancel, but the message just pops up again.

I have tried eject and reinserting the disc, but same error.

Any ideas (beyond trying Fusion - since I paid for Fusion before trying both :/ )?

Thanks!

Im not sure the best one to answer your question as if your read any of the above posts you will know this,dont know anything about parallels used it for a while and gave up

But what i could suggest is you start another thread or do a search that way if you do have to make another post itll probably get more of a response and be top of the pile

 

[sushi]

PS: I'm not "he"

Sorry about the "he" bit.

but members of this site prefer fusion

From what I've seen, I would say neither one is dominate at this point in time. Both have their advantages and disadvantages.

 

[katejones]

I had my mind set on parallels before reading this thread, now im back to being undecided. I guess it all comes down to if you want coherance or not.