For the Mac users... Which do you think is better for running Windows: Parallels or VMware Fusion?
2 years, 3 months ago.
16 comments so far
according to Randal Schwartz, the long term viability of Parallels is in question. That may make the decision for you. go to this link : http://tinyurl.com/3bnc8t
and read the second paragraph in the article.
Mike Rose of TUAW said on last night's TalkShoe chatcast that he prefers Fusion as it doesn't seem to drag the machine down nearly as much. He owns both and has been using them for a while, both at home and in an office environment.
Aside from all of Parallels' flashy features, Fusion certainly seems to just work better for me too. Parallels, for example, can't install Ubuntu for some odd reason, Fusion just does it without argument.
I also noticed Fusion was a bit nicer to Mac OS X when running both XP and Vista, though I don't do any real work in either of them so I don't have a lot of experience just yet.
I still agree with Scott Bourne. If you really need to run Windows, I think just either buying or building a cheap system is better. That way, you don't have to infect your Mac with the Windows.
Cmon guys, let's keep a level head here. Your Mac will be just fine running windows in either virtualization software, and it won't get 'all icky' even if you run Windows in Boot Camp.
@kevanv - that's the vmware "standalone" product, which isn't really standalone. We're talking about VMWare Fusion here (runs under OSX, and has no linux parts).
Let's also consider that VMWare's been doing virtual PC's since 1997 (I bought a copy of v1.0). Parallels' main company was founded back in 1999, and only recently (within the past year if I remember correctly) came up with Parallels. At this time VMWare Workstation for Linux and Windows is up to version 5.0. I think VMWare has more going for it.
The VMWare appliances are also a nice feature. I hated the VMWare beta, but the Fusion release is actually very good. I'd say it's equal to Parallels certainly.
Hmm... Interesting. Maybe when I end up getting an iMac in the fall or early next year I'll get VMWare to test it out. Then I'll have Parallels on my current MacBook Pro and Fusion on the iMac. I keep hearing good things about VMWare, so I'm really curious to try it out...
16 comments so far
according to Randal Schwartz, the long term viability of Parallels is in question. That may make the decision for you. go to this link : http://tinyurl.com/3bnc8t and read the second paragraph in the article.
2 years, 3 months ago by maximmuir
Parallels. Just get plenty of RAM
2 years, 3 months ago by JNathan
Agree with JNathan.
2 years, 3 months ago by Pelon
Mike Rose of TUAW said on last night's TalkShoe chatcast that he prefers Fusion as it doesn't seem to drag the machine down nearly as much. He owns both and has been using them for a while, both at home and in an office environment.
Aside from all of Parallels' flashy features, Fusion certainly seems to just work better for me too. Parallels, for example, can't install Ubuntu for some odd reason, Fusion just does it without argument.
I also noticed Fusion was a bit nicer to Mac OS X when running both XP and Vista, though I don't do any real work in either of them so I don't have a lot of experience just yet.
2 years, 3 months ago by davidchartier
@ScottWilder: Nike+, that way, then your iPod will keep track of how far you run from Windows.
2 years, 3 months ago by krisguy
I use that. It's fun!
2 years, 3 months ago by fabsh
I still agree with Scott Bourne. If you really need to run Windows, I think just either buying or building a cheap system is better. That way, you don't have to infect your Mac with the Windows.
2 years, 3 months ago by dnecromancerr75
Cmon guys, let's keep a level head here. Your Mac will be just fine running windows in either virtualization software, and it won't get 'all icky' even if you run Windows in Boot Camp.
2 years, 3 months ago by davidchartier
I must say, VMware beats Parallels by far in Linux. You could run Ubuntu on your Mac and use that to run VMware to run Windows. How about that? ;)
2 years, 3 months ago by fabsh
A discussion about how VMware requires Linux to run
Third time lucky.... for those you saw the comment before!
2 years, 3 months ago by KevanV
@kevanv - that's the vmware "standalone" product, which isn't really standalone. We're talking about VMWare Fusion here (runs under OSX, and has no linux parts).
2 years, 3 months ago by merlyn
ahhh ok. Thanks for commenting on the differences :)
2 years, 3 months ago by KevanV
Let's also consider that VMWare's been doing virtual PC's since 1997 (I bought a copy of v1.0). Parallels' main company was founded back in 1999, and only recently (within the past year if I remember correctly) came up with Parallels. At this time VMWare Workstation for Linux and Windows is up to version 5.0. I think VMWare has more going for it.
2 years, 3 months ago by strredwolf
The VMWare appliances are also a nice feature. I hated the VMWare beta, but the Fusion release is actually very good. I'd say it's equal to Parallels certainly.
2 years, 3 months ago by ChiefTWiT
Nice article on fusion.vs.parallels, http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/08/16/fusion.vs.parallels
2 years, 3 months ago by MichaelHarp
Hmm... Interesting. Maybe when I end up getting an iMac in the fall or early next year I'll get VMWare to test it out. Then I'll have Parallels on my current MacBook Pro and Fusion on the iMac. I keep hearing good things about VMWare, so I'm really curious to try it out...
2 years, 3 months ago by mcconnell