Fusion or Parallels?

[alexjdb]

Go with Fusion - I've messed up with parallels at first as it's the most popular option, but it was really unstable, and everything - Fusion really is the better option. Stable, fast, and reliable. It's even got some 3D Acceleration! (still in beta though, but it works quite good!)

 

[pastrychef]

This has not been my experience. Fusion was a touch faster with identical settings, but not much. It was definitely lighter on CPU and RAM, however.


Yes. Check the Windows HAL, you'll see it sees two CPUs. Run multiple CPU-intensive Windows applications or a single multi-threaded CPU-intensive Windows applications, when I do I get up to 200% CPU usage in a Fusion VM on my pre-2008 Mac Pro.

Hmm... I'll have to do some more testing... Thanks for the reply!

By the way, are you using Windows XP or Windows Vista?

 

[nikopolidis]

Go with Fusion...It's even got some 3D Acceleration! (still in beta though, but it works quite good!)

I think 3D Acceleration can't be Fusion's advantage. Parallels has it either. Fusion has a little bit better DirectX 9 support. But still if you run some 3D applications (not games) I guess Parallels Desktop works equally the same good as Fusion does.. Neither Fusion nor Parallels will suit for gaming yet (I mean good and "hard" games) with their 3D support.. Boot Camp will.