Fusion vs Parallels in Sierra. what is the best bet

[rockyromero]

I had parallels for a few years but it wasn't reliable enough so I'm on VMware Pro now, it's super stable and let's me talk to our clients rigs.

I'm also on VMware Fusion Pro.

Would you know of any comparison to VMware ESX1?

➰

 

[Freyqq]

Virtualbox works well on Windows 7 for MS Office and other 2D programs. Virtualbox and Windows 10 support is still limited.

 

[Gjwilly]

One neat thing about virtualbox is that you can set the scaling level independent of the scaling within Windows.
I haven't found that feature in Fusion.

 

[dvd]

Not exactly?

https://communities.vmware.com/message/2584420#2584420

Good to know, thanks

 

[Airslide]

I second VirtualBox. Not only is it free but its simplicity is a positive.

With Parallels, I used to find myself spending unreasonable amounts of time disabling all of the troublesome Mac/Win integration features. In my opinion a VM should behave as an independent machine with NO integration or cooperation with the host OS. This is just common sense security.

I use VMWare Fusion (mostly because I get it for free from my school) and it asks you when creating a VM whether you want it integrated or isolated (I too prefer the latter).

I used VirtualBox before, and Fusion blows it out of the water in terms of performance. Part of it may be poor configuration of my VirtualBox VMs because it does less hand holding, but it looks, feels, and performs better with minimal effort and is probably worth it if you use VMs extensively.

 

[sevoneone]

I'm also on VMware Fusion Pro.

Would you know of any comparison to VMware ESX1?

➰

All things considered, ESXi, Fusion and Workstation are very similar from a technology standpoint. The hypervisor at the core I imagine is pretty much the same. Whereas Fusion and Workstation are targeted at desktop visualization. One or more guest OSs run in hypervisor on top of the host OS, the host OS is what touches and controls the hardware.

ESXi runs directly on the bare hardware kind of like it's own OS. It requires very little overhead, so pretty much all the resources of the system are available to the virtual machines running on it. They call it a Bare Metal Hypervisor. It is primarily meant for server VMs since servers are not normally using the full potential of the hardware their installed on. For instance, my company went from 5 physical servers running 5 OSs down to 1 physical piece of hardware running 5 OSs under ESXi. Another key difference is Directed I/O, as long as the CPU supports it. That allows you give a VM direct access to specific hardware. So, in theory, one could build a system with 2 gfx cards, run two VMs and give each one direct access to it's own GPU, while still running a 3rd or more VMs using just virtual hardware. I say in theory because I have never tried it and I believe there are hurdles to get it working just the way you want it too, but the capability is there.

 

[rockyromero]

ESXi runs directly on the bare hardware kind of like it's own OS. It requires very little overhead, so pretty much all the resources of the system are available to the virtual machines running on it.

This may provide more value to me as my needs start to increase.

For now, my nMP is doing well with VM on Fusion 8.

The learning curve may take some time that I will do at a later date.

Thanks for your feedback.

➰

 

[foraging_ferret]

I second what Absrnd said. I got tired of Parallels forcing paid upgrades on customers every 12 months. Fusion all the way.

 

[martinocando]

Another fusion advocate here. One question: I was reading the news about 8.1.1 having graphics issues with Sierra, but then, after reading this post on VMWare's blog, it turns out that the Internal Error is generated trying to run the Sierra DP inside a VM. Does this applies to running a Windows 7 VM on Sierra?

So, does 8.1.1 have issues with Sierra after all or not?

I'm confused.

 

[dBeats]

Yes 8.1.1 has issues with all VMs (windows 7 and 10 included) with 3D accelerated graphics on. You have to turn it completely off (in the VM settings) for it to work.

 

[-BigMac-]

Is this mean four W10 partitions on a single license?

➰

Whats the meaning of the "➰"? Just really curious

 

[Phoenixx]

Personally, my suggestion is to pick up an inexpensive Windows computer. With what is charged for Parallels or Fusion each year, you might as well just take the plunge and get a proper machine. You can pick up a Windows PC for very little these days (especially a used machine) and it will avoid all the headaches of virtualization.
[doublepost=1469796693][/doublepost]

Just a heads up that Parallels always has a big fix to work on the latest Mac OS, and that is you have to buy the upgrade
otherwise you won't get the full function in Sierra.

Their trick is to have every body buy the latest version with discount, and you still have to buy the upgrade and makes is more expensive.

Parallels has the most paid upgrades I know of, I have stopped using it.

Parallels is effectively a subscription.

 

[HailstormX]

Fusion has been great! I hope we see a version 9. bummer about the layoffs. they did some great work

 

[martinocando]

Personally, my suggestion is to pick up an inexpensive Windows computer. With what is charged for Parallels or Fusion each year, you might as well just take the plunge and get a proper machine. You can pick up a Windows PC for very little these days (especially a used machine) and it will avoid all the headaches of virtualization.
[doublepost=1469796693][/doublepost]
Parallels is effectively a subscription.

Virtualization is not a headache, is a solution. I have a development environment on my MBP, that if it weren't for virtualization, I had to have another computer at my desk, with another monitor, keyboard, mouse, manage hard disk space, and forget about sharing files and clipboard seamlessly between the two. Not to mention that I couldn't take it with me and work from home.

Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[asharahmed]

In general, I support Parallels as their support is excellent and when I had an issue they gave me a free license to their Pro version for 2 years.

Fusion is good too but I don't trust VMWare with their layoffs...

 

[rdav]

The VMWare/Fusion Licence allows for multiple Macs utilised by the same user, whereas the Parallels License is restricted to just one. Which effectively vaults the price for many punters. (In addition to the more frequent paid updates from Parallels).

Is there any observed advantage to either Fusion(8)/Parallels(11) when running Windows on (one or two) external monitors from a single Mac? With all the various Aspect Ratio /HiDPI /Full-Screen issues etc. I get the impression that Fusion is more pro-friendly in this regard, but is that true?

 

[aced411]

I used Parallels for 3 years and switched to VMware Fusion about a year ago after Parallels introduced multiple ugly icons for every virtual machine running. Fusion is just as good as Parallels, is cheaper and looks nicer too (in my opinion).

I've spent hours coding in both (including the latest versions) and in my personal experience Parallels runs noticeably faster and cooler along with quicker bootup and shutdown times. Fusion runs pretty well but when I start pushing it my macbook gets toasty and performance in the VM starts tanking (16GB ram, quad i7). VMWare on the other hand is a better choice if you need it installed on multiple machines or need to be able to move VM's between different platforms (mac, windows, linux).

 

[Chrysaor]

Just switched from VMware Fusion 8 to Parallels 11 on Sierra. There's a significantly noticeable amount of difference in terms of performance and responsiveness in same VM configuration. Using for development running Visual Studio, it is actually usable now.

 

[i90rr]

Hi all, VMware Fusion 8.5.x user here.

Personally, my suggestion is to pick up an inexpensive Windows computer. With what is charged for Parallels or Fusion each year, you might as well just take the plunge and get a proper machine. You can pick up a Windows PC for very little these days (especially a used machine) and it will avoid all the headaches of virtualization.
Parallels is effectively a subscription.

+1: at the prices Parallels charges for their software if you are positive you will be running non-Mac software on a daily basis buying a second-hand laptop could be a real choice.
I'm a longtime VirtualBox/qemu/kvm user; the main reason I acquired Fusion is to be able to run OS X / macOS VMs. Said that, Fusion runs very well (actually better than VB) and I prefer it over the goofy, childish, bloated interface of Parallels.

 

[sidewinder]

Parallels.....

 

[Tech198]

Fusion 8.5 pro here. I really wish VMWare would start bundling their consumer products with activation ..