Parrallels Desktop 3.0 Premium vs VMware Fusion 1.1

[edesignuk]

I'll soon be making the leap after many years to an Intel machine, and will finally be able to run Windows virtualized at a useful speed. I'm a Windows support guy so being able to do this at home will be very useful for me.

Anyway, I'm not interested in BootCamp. I'm all for virtual machines. VMware on Windows is excellent for this.

Of the current choices and versions, which do you favour and why?

I'll probably be looking to run VM's of XP Pro, Vista Ultimate/Business, and Server 2003.

Parrallels Desktop 3.0 Premium or VMware Fusion 1.1?

 

[Queso]

I've voted VMWare because all OSs, not just Windows, seem to have full support for the VMWare virtual hardware these days. With Parallels you're more dependent on the vendor.

Bit of a difficult poll to choose on though. Virtually everyone that answers will only know one of the options.

 

[edesignuk]

I've voted VMWare because all OSs, not just Windows, seem to have full support for the VMWare virtual hardware these days. With Parallels you're more dependent on the vendor.

Good point, hadn't even thought of that. You're right of course, VMware is extremely well established.

Bit of a difficult poll to choose on though. Virtually everyone that answers will only know one of the options.

Yeah, fair point. Suppose I'm hoping others have been through the pain and hassle of trying to find an answer to this question themselves, and can now save me the trouble

 

[Carrot007]

VMWare all the way.

Both are great options however having followed both parallels and vmware since the start vmware are more experienced and actually give support. Well no that parallels don't give support just that they don't have a very good record of doing so. VMWare also have been going much longer (and when I say from the start, for vmware I mean on windows/linux ages ago) so have much more experience.

However 99% of people will not need support anyway and you ain't going to get either company to write a specific feature for you so there is not much choice.

I will however say Parallels Desktop 3.0 Premium seems pointless. The extras are useless.

 

[Neil321]

As above have tried both but voted for fusion as ive found it to be more stable
both have a trial period so you can try them out for yourself(only YOU can decide which is the better
solution for YOUR needs)

 

[nikopolidis]

For me these two pieces of software seem to be like Mercedes and BMW. What would you choose? Whatever you choose most likely it will be the right choice because one has no obvious advantage over another, right? The same story about Parallels and Fusion.
I have chosen Parallels because they had nice offer for me. I've never used Fusion and I'm sure that I won't use it as I have Parallels Desktop that fully satisfies my needs.
There are some advantages of Parallels Desktop over Fusion:
- Parallels Desktop supports OpenGL
- You can get access to the guest OS files without starting it
- Built-in Parallels Transporter that provides migration of VMs
- Mirroring of files and folders
As you see they are not so evident but still... I'm sure that for someone these things make sense.
Another thing that doesn't make me feel sorry about my choice is that I can run some games through Parallels. I've recognized it recently. But most of all I use BootCamp for gaming, especially running games with high system requirements.

 

[edesignuk]

Well, I think I'll be going VMware. They practically invented virtual machines, and are very well established, if anyone can do it they should be able to.

 

[Sesshi]

I have both, which I rarely use as I have proper Windows machines. Given that relatively limited experience, until a short time ago I would have said Parallels but they seem to be running out of puff in comparison to VMWare.

Please buy VMWare. I'm waiting for Parallels to get desperate, stop caring about the "Apple relationship" and release a way to virtualise OS X under Windows so that I can run it on actually good machines

 

[edesignuk]

VMware installed and XP Pro SP2 up and running. Thoroughly, thoroughly impressed. Runs very quick with just the default of 512MB RAM assigned to Windows, Unity is utterly brilliant.

Intel Mac + VMware = Run just about anything amazingly, even side by side.

 

[Queso]

You think that's good, you should check out the VMWare appliances on their website. Ready built boxes tailored to function in just about any OS you can think of

 

[edesignuk]

You think that's good, you should check out the VMWare appliances on their website. Ready built boxes tailored to function in just about any OS you can think of

I've used VMware on Windows for years, I'm just impressed how well it runs under OS X...better than on my PC at work actually


http://up.*************/files/1/Images/Screen Captures/OSX_WindowsXPEdit_thumb.png

 

[g3ski]

VMware!

After using Parallels 2.5 and 3.0 for 6 months with XP Pro and Win2K, I just tried out WMware.

My conclusion is simple, WMware wins in all of the most important categories:
-faster boot time
-releases ram sooner
-lower memory foot print
-takes less system resources when in use and idle
-doesn't drag down overall system performance
-can access multiple processors
-WinXP and Win2K feel much faster

Parallels was a complete hog. I would only keep it open as long as necessary, and I would quit as many other apps as possible when using it to improve performance. WinXP felt as if I was using 900Mhz P3, not a dual core 2Ghz Core2Duo with 3GB of ram.

 

[spaceballl]

another bummer (for me, at least) is that parallels won't virtualize a 64bit OS.

 

[ayeying]

I'm guessing people choose VMWare more because of the fact VMWare has been in this game for a pretty long time and Parallels are just getting in here. Personally, I like how parallels somewhat integrates everything into the Host OS, making it seem like your just using one OS instead of two. Buit in terms of stability and performance, VMWare wins hands down.

 

[tuxtpenguin]

I've been using VMWare for several years and love it.