Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Fusion or Parallels!
- Thread starter Machorror
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
...If it ain't broke, don't fix it? 
If Parallels does everything you need and you like it, why are you concerned about Fusion?
If Parallels does everything you need and you like it, why are you concerned about Fusion? 
So true. Why mess with something that works....If it ain't broke, don't fix it?
Having said that, it's up to the individual to figure out what works best for them. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Overall, I think Parallels is better, but both are good. It all depends on your needs.
Have you done a search on the forums? There are other threads that have discussed this ad nauseum and will ultimately save you time rather than starting a new thread.
If I'm not mistaken Parallel's v4 will be out later this year.
As stated, why bother changing if you already paid for one? They both work great.
Besides, who knows what's in store for v4. If your license will allow a free upgrade, again why spend more money unless you just like spending it.
I used Parallel's first (since it was out first) and I had a free copy, I got free copy of Fusion to test, now I find myself going back to parallel's. They both work great.
As stated, why bother changing if you already paid for one? They both work great.
Besides, who knows what's in store for v4. If your license will allow a free upgrade, again why spend more money unless you just like spending it.
I used Parallel's first (since it was out first) and I had a free copy, I got free copy of Fusion to test, now I find myself going back to parallel's. They both work great.
Fusion's advantage is that VMware has a wider product offering. They have products that run under Windows and Linux too whereas Parallels is mac only. You can move a M you make under Fusion to Linux or the PC. VMware also has some server and enterprise products. But if you only have one computer and it is a mac this may not mater much
I like the idea that I can build a VMware image on my Linux machine at work, burn the file the a CD and run it under Fusion at home on my iMac.
This is also true with Parallel's. Parallel's will import (without any incident I have witnessed) a VMWare Fusion disk and an actual computer HD as a virtual disk.
I believe Fusion has the same ability but never experimented with it.
Parallel's I have, I've imported a Windows partition, BootCamp Partition, VMWare virtual disk, and all worked great. Again, I think VMWare will do this as well (with use of another VMWare tool) but never played with it. I have done the VMWare bootcamp partition, but not a PC Windows partition.
Is it really going to be released this year???
Do you know about new features that we are going to have in new v4?
I hope they will improve 3D support...
I've never tried Fusion because Parallels Desktop has always been everything I need...
But I'm sure that Fusion also works well. It is a question of individual choice so we shouldn't oppose them to each other, I think..You are extremely wrong because Parallels has a Windows & Linux solution.
Check this information about Parallels Workstation...
MM07 said:
What kind of research have you done?
Yeah, I also heard about this rebate.. I guess they just followed Parallels' marketing policy because it is well-known that Parallels does excellent and attractive offers from time to time for their potential customers...
But unfortunately they still do nothing to restrain their existing customers.. I hope they will think out something for us... Vista Home Basic/Premium supported yet?
I need to choose between Parallels or Fusion for my wifes Macbook Air in the next few weeks.
What I have researched so far is that there is a slight in-favour of Fusion because it uses less system resources and has the ability to use both cores of the Intel chip, which is great. BUT, I have realised that -- even though Microsoft has softened their stance on the use of virtualization software on Vista Home Basic/Premium -- Fusion does not yet support these versions of Vista. Maybe in version 2, but not the current version.
Does anybody who uses Parallels know if Vista Home Basic/Premium is supported and works?
Or is it just better to use Windows XP/XP Pro with Fusion?
I need to choose between Parallels or Fusion for my wifes Macbook Air in the next few weeks.
What I have researched so far is that there is a slight in-favour of Fusion because it uses less system resources and has the ability to use both cores of the Intel chip, which is great. BUT, I have realised that -- even though Microsoft has softened their stance on the use of virtualization software on Vista Home Basic/Premium -- Fusion does not yet support these versions of Vista. Maybe in version 2, but not the current version.
Does anybody who uses Parallels know if Vista Home Basic/Premium is supported and works?
Or is it just better to use Windows XP/XP Pro with Fusion?
Don't confuse compatibility with supportability. Almost any version of Windows (or even DOS) will run fine on VMware, including Windows Visa Home or Premium. However, since loading Vista Home or Premium in a virtual machine violates your EULA with Microsoft, VMware doesn't "support" it. Not "supporting" it means that you're on your own with issues in that environment, as VMware does't want to be caught in a legal issue helping customers break license agreements.
But it works the same as any other version of Windows Vista, 32-bit or 64-bit.
But that legal issue has now been lifted by Microsoft to allow virtualization of Vista Home Editions so then why doesnt VMware update their site to state that their current Fusion now supports these editions?
I'm glad that Parallels is here to give VMWare competition in the Mac market, but Parallel's Windows & Linux solution pales in scope to what VMWare's done with that market since the late 90's.
Part of my reason to go with VMWare fusion on my Mac was because we use their Workstation and ESX Server software at my job, and I regularly move VMs to my Mac and back, and I needed a solution that VMWare supports.
They also have their product in so many unique environments for so long (see below) that I think they're more likely to have already had (and fixed) issues that Parallels hasn't encountered yet.
VMWare is used by:
* 100% of the Fortune 100
* 96% of the Fortune 500
* 94% of the Fortune Global 100
* 92% of the Fortune 1000
* 85% of the Fortune Global 500
* 90% of the FTSE 100 (U.K.)
* 81% of the DAX 100 (Germany)
* 100% of the CAC 40 (France)
* 74% of the MIB 30 (Italy)
* 94% of the IBEX 35 (Spain)
* 86% of the ASX 100 (Australia/New Zealand)
* 80% of the Nikkei 225 (Japan)
VMWare's Fortune 1000 Customers:
* 15 of the top 15 U.S. Pharmaceutical Companies
* 18 of the top 20 U.S. Energy Companies
* 10 of the top 10 U.S. Diversified Financials Companies
* 16 out of the 17 U.S. Securities Companies
* 16 out of the 16 U.S. Aerospace and Defense Companies
* 9 out of the top 10 U.S. Airlines
* 19 out of the top 20 U.S. Chemical Companies
* 10 out of the top 10 U.S. Entertainment Companies
VMWare's Fortune Global 500 Customers
* 25 out of top 25 Banks: Commercial & Savings
* 9 out of the top 10 Aerospace and Defense Companies
* 7 out of the 7 U.S. Airlines
* 5 of the top 5 Chemical Companies
* 4 of the top 4 Diversified Financial Companies
* 4 of the top 5 Energy Companies
* 5 of the top 5 Entertainment Companies
* 12 out of the 12 Pharmaceutical Companies
* 5 of the top 5 Securities Companies
This is very true. VMWare has been in the virtualization market for a VERY LONG time. Parallel's is very new, both are new to the Mac world though. I liked VMWare very much. It was solid. Then again so is Parallel's. Both are just as solid and just as much with it's own flaws.
I'm giving Parallel's a little more room right now. I've tried it first since it was here first (in the Mac realm) and I'll see what works best for me. Both offer the same abilities and one has more than the other and visa versa.
VMWare however is a stable name in the virtualization market. I remember years ago going to a Linux convention and seeing one Linux box running 4 Windows XP guests and 2 Windows 2000 Advanced Servers and they seem to run pretty stable (granted that was one beefed up box at the time) but my point is they have virtualization down to an art.
It's nothing new, heck there are opensource VM's out there. But they're good at it. Still, I like competition and for now, giving Parallel's which has some aesthetics over VMWare a chance to prove it's worth for the needs I have.
I keep reading that on Mac web sites, however, I'm not sure that's true.
I just bought a copy of Vista, and the license clearly says no virtualization allowed. See for yourself, check the current Vista EULA on Microsoft's site.
Under the sections for Microsoft Windows Vista Home Basic and Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium:
You may have gotten a 'sitting on the shelf to long' copy as well.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080121-microsoft-relents-vista-virtualization-ban-lifted.html
This is a NON MAC specific site which has quoted MS as saying:
As you can see this story was published Jan of this year which was quite a few months ago.
This news was posted on more than just MAC web sites. We were waiting for this to be lifted to run Vista on WINDOWS machines so we kept watching ZDNet and others sites as well. When we (guys at work heard in Jan) we started testing Vista on some Dell servers to see if it would run our software.
Section 4 of the Vista SP1 Ultimate which also covers Home Basic states:
In the license agreement for Ultimate and Ultimate SP1 Supplemental Agreement it only has the following entry:
So it IS true they have lifted it a while back.
(The above are also available from the Microsoft Retail License Agreement Link)
Really?? God, I gave up on my Parallels. The crap ran way to slow on my computer and froze up every two or three seconds. Very frustrating because I have a good computer with Intel.
I have Parallels 2.0, but refused to upgrade to 3.0. At the time there were many claims with little proof about what it could do and I didn't feel like supporting that type of marketing. I've heard that support for Parallels is non-existent. Does anyone know if this has improved?
I've tried Fusion on a trial basis and was very happy with it. I've run my bootcamp partition from within VMware without problems, can this be done with Parallels? I recall that a previous version of Parallels could do it, but modified the partition, where Vmware ran it without any modification. I would rather it not alter my bootcamp partition.
I've tried Fusion on a trial basis and was very happy with it. I've run my bootcamp partition from within VMware without problems, can this be done with Parallels? I recall that a previous version of Parallels could do it, but modified the partition, where Vmware ran it without any modification. I would rather it not alter my bootcamp partition.
To answer the question, yes V3 does boot up the bootcamp partition just like VMWare does. In fact it says it on the Parallel's features page on their site.
So no need to buy x2 Vista, but can run virtual through Bootcamp!?
Ahh, that is what I wanted to hear!
I thought if I bought a copy of Vista that I had to choose whether to install it on Bootcamp OR through Fusion in virtualisation. So it is possible to install on Bootcamp and enter visualisation mode through Fusion without having to create two systems (or having to buy another copy of Vista to install)? And then I can choose to use either when I wished? Anybody else confirm that this is possible through their own experience? (I am looking to get Vista Home Premium)
One problem that was facing me was being able to watch DRM protected video through Windows Media Player via virtualisation as doesn’t Microsoft forbid this? The only way I thought this could be overcome was through Bootcamp, but then Vista has their strict control that only one copy of the OS can be made (and Bootcamp plus virtualisation would count as two).
Which is better at running virtualisation via Bootcamp -- Parallels or Fusion? Any help would be much appreciated!
Ahh, that is what I wanted to hear!
I thought if I bought a copy of Vista that I had to choose whether to install it on Bootcamp OR through Fusion in virtualisation. So it is possible to install on Bootcamp and enter visualisation mode through Fusion without having to create two systems (or having to buy another copy of Vista to install)? And then I can choose to use either when I wished? Anybody else confirm that this is possible through their own experience? (I am looking to get Vista Home Premium)
One problem that was facing me was being able to watch DRM protected video through Windows Media Player via virtualisation as doesn’t Microsoft forbid this? The only way I thought this could be overcome was through Bootcamp, but then Vista has their strict control that only one copy of the OS can be made (and Bootcamp plus virtualisation would count as two).
Which is better at running virtualisation via Bootcamp -- Parallels or Fusion? Any help would be much appreciated!