Sorry but it's mostly filled with a fight between others and you where you keep repeating the same "better stability and support" without ever citing a SINGLE issue. On the contrary I'm saying I've tried
shortly both and found them to be equally stable but Parallels runs things a tad faster.
No offense but what is "false true" here?
this is the false true ( why parallel's maybe faster than fusion )
I actually don't like that article. ( It's not based on the actual differences between the speed of Windows applications themselves under Parallels Desktop vs. VMware Fusion. Instead, it's based on "productivity" differences where Windows applications are launched from OS X or vice versa (like opening Mac Excel from a Windows Outlook attachment, or opening Windows Excel from a Mac Entourage attachment). In this case, Parallels has a nifty feature that allows associating Windows applications with OS X files and vice-versa, VMware does not, and in the test they count the time in VMware to save the attachment, manually launch whatever version of Excel, manually find the file, and then open it to the actual application results.
For that reason, I think it's actually more a marketing tool to sell that Parallels feature (which is nifty) then a real comparison of the two. It'd be like a benchmark that relied on VMware's dual core support (where Parallels only supports one) and then built a suite of tests that relied on that dual core support to beat Parallels... it'd not really be a good comparison, but it'd be a great marketing tool. Or worse, a set of 64-bit Vista tests... oops! Parallels can't run that! And it wouldn't really be a test, would it?
These forums are for mostly posting issues, i dont have & never have had any issues with fusion so in my opinion and many others its stable & reliable
If i dont have any issues i cant post them
Did you notice the amount of people in the thread i linked that have tried parallel's
but then ditched it for fusion
