Options

VMWare Fusion or Parallels

jdryan3jdryan3 Registered Users Posts: 1,353 Major grins
edited June 5, 2008 in Digital Darkroom
For all the Mac Geeks, it seems from some of the reviews I've read that VMWare Fusion is a better option than Parallels for running Windows on Leopard. Do you agree? Why?

Thanks!
"Don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to. Oh well."
-Fleetwood Mac

Comments

  • Options
    DonRicklinDonRicklin Registered Users Posts: 5,551 Major grins
    edited May 16, 2008
    I can't read your post. Please keep to recommended font colors!

    Don
    Don Ricklin - Gear: Canon EOS 5D Mark III, was Pentax K7
    'I was older then, I'm younger than that now' ....
    My Blog | Q+ | Moderator, Lightroom Forums | My Amateur Smugmug Stuff | My Blurb book Rust and Whimsy. More Rust , FaceBook     .
  • Options
    CatOneCatOne Registered Users Posts: 957 Major grins
    edited May 16, 2008
    jdryan3 wrote:
    For all the Mac Geeks, it seems from some of the reviews I've read that VMWare Fusion is a better option than Parallels for running Windows on Leopard. Do you agree? Why?

    Thanks!

    Fusion leans toward stability, Parallels leans toward rapid adoption of new features.

    What's your preference? Given I only use 3 Windows apps (Quicken and 2 related to bicycle power meters), I prefer stability :-)
    My Landscape Galleries
  • Options
    AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited May 16, 2008
    We love VMware fusion.

    deal.gif
    Andy

    Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
  • Options
    cmasoncmason Registered Users Posts: 2,506 Major grins
    edited May 16, 2008
    I asked this in another thread, and got a similar response. So let me tell you my experience:

    First, I found good comparison data hard to come by. Both VMWare and Parallels offer studies that show their solution performing better. I think they are very similar at the margins.

    I was leaning toward Parallels because it offered something that VMWare didn't: the ability to launch Windows apps from an associated file type on the Mac. This meant that if I clicked on a Word .doc file in the Mac, it would launch the Word for Windows. This was critical to me, until I managed to find an affordable way to replace Word for Windows with the Mac version, then it was no longer an issue. However, I think this feature also required the Windows VM to be running all the time, which I don't really need.

    I decided to trial VMWare, to see how big an issue this would be. I am very pleased: it installed easily, and ran perfectly. It makes little impact to my Mac (though I think 3GB has a lot to do with this). Other things that were interesting: Windows recognizes all the ports, networking, everything, without effort on my part: I just installed, and it works. Printers, USB devices, it all works. Even better, the Windows instance can 'see' files on my Mac, and drag and drop works between them. I can drag the Word .doc to the Windows screen and launch Word..simple. This may be the same as Parallels, but I am not sure, since I decided to buy VMWare.

    Why did I buy VMWare? 1) it worked and met my needs, and I didn't need the one feature that Parallels offered, and 2) there was a $20 off rebate :D.
    Photos
  • Options
    ruttrutt Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
    edited May 17, 2008
    VMWare is a very mature, industrial grade, product with a product base that stretches far beyond this particular issue. In fact, I believe that the running Windows apps on a Mac is a relatively small part of their business. Many of the web sites in the world run on VM virtual machines, which allow a single computer to act as host for many different clients without any chance of them being able to interfere with each other. Google for "vmware hosting services". It also is used for QA and technical service where an application can be tested on numerous different OS/Hardware configurations without having to have as many computers. It has also been used as a way for a (horrible) Windows server to be able to use more hardware than (horrible) Windows supported well (I'm not sure whether (horrible) Windows has overcome this shortcoming by now, but somehow I doubt it.)

    Initially, the Parallels design limited the virtual machines to using a single non-virtual core. What this meant in practice was that your virtual application was limited to single-processor performance at best. A virtualized (horrible) Windows PS even on an 8-core machine would run only as fast as it would on a single core machine without virtualization. I don't think this problem has been fully overcome, so if you care about this kind of performance from (horrible) Windows apps, this is a deal killer for Parallels. (There is a huge subtlety here about simulated multiprocessing vs real multiprocessing and that makes it hard to decode the Parallels press releases and product specs.) In any case, this particular capability was a design goal for VMWare from the beginning more than 10 years ago and it works great. That means, for example, that an 8-core Mac Pro can host a large virtual linux server and allow me to do huge software builds as fast as I can on the industrial grade Sun servers at work.

    Short story, VMWare is by far the best choice here.
    If not now, when?
  • Options
    cmasoncmason Registered Users Posts: 2,506 Major grins
    edited May 17, 2008
    One nice, if geeky, benefit of what rutt is saying is that VMWare gives you the capability of running not only Windows, but Linux and just about any OS you can think of: yes, Fusion does support other OSes. Havent tried it myself, but hey if you want to check out a Linux Distro, you can easily do it in a VM. In fact, many open sources OS are available for a VM download, so no install required on your part.
    Photos
  • Options
    CatOneCatOne Registered Users Posts: 957 Major grins
    edited May 17, 2008
    cmason wrote:
    One nice, if geeky, benefit of what rutt is saying is that VMWare gives you the capability of running not only Windows, but Linux and just about any OS you can think of: yes, Fusion does support other OSes. Havent tried it myself, but hey if you want to check out a Linux Distro, you can easily do it in a VM. In fact, many open sources OS are available for a VM download, so no install required on your part.

    Yes, but that's not exclusive to VMware Fusion. Parallels can run all manner of guest OSes as well... Linux, Windows (many versions), etc. It has always had that ability.
    My Landscape Galleries
  • Options
    ruttrutt Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
    edited May 17, 2008
    CatOne wrote:
    Yes, but that's not exclusive to VMware Fusion. Parallels can run all manner of guest OSes as well... Linux, Windows (many versions), etc. It has always had that ability.

    It's the general industrial strengthness of VMWare that set it apart.
    If not now, when?
  • Options
    mwgricemwgrice Registered Users Posts: 383 Major grins
    edited May 18, 2008
    rutt wrote:
    It's the general industrial strengthness of VMWare that set it apart.

    I have a new Mac and I've been leaning towards VMware. I've used it for years on Linux and I have some experience with their server products, so I'm pretty comfortable with them. I was hoping somebody would make a good case for Parallels, since I don't really know too much about the product.
  • Options
    CatOneCatOne Registered Users Posts: 957 Major grins
    edited May 19, 2008
    rutt wrote:
    It's the general industrial strengthness of VMWare that set it apart.

    No argument there.
    My Landscape Galleries
  • Options
    CatOneCatOne Registered Users Posts: 957 Major grins
    edited May 19, 2008
    mwgrice wrote:
    I have a new Mac and I've been leaning towards VMware. I've used it for years on Linux and I have some experience with their server products, so I'm pretty comfortable with them. I was hoping somebody would make a good case for Parallels, since I don't really know too much about the product.

    Ahhh... wondering if the grass is greener :-)

    My suggestion... if you're happy with VMWare and you trust it and it works for you... let not your mind wander or waver. You're in good hands; it's a good product.
    My Landscape Galleries
  • Options
    mwgricemwgrice Registered Users Posts: 383 Major grins
    edited May 22, 2008
    CatOne wrote:
    Ahhh... wondering if the grass is greener :-)

    My suggestion... if you're happy with VMWare and you trust it and it works for you... let not your mind wander or waver. You're in good hands; it's a good product.

    Yeah, that's basically what I'm going to do. I like to keep an open mind about these things, though.
  • Options
    1101101111011011 Registered Users Posts: 1 Beginner grinner
    edited June 5, 2008
    I've used both, had better luck with Parallels
    They both work pretty well. For what I do, Parallels has been my favorite. I found the install went smoother, and it even ran pretty well on my personal laptop (1st gen MBP with 1GB ram).

    That said, I'm having to buy my own copy instead of having a work supplied one, so I'm giving Fusion another try.

    In the end, they both have trial licenses, so I think it comes down to a matter of taste. If I were forced into one or the other, I don't think I'd have any real bitterness either way.
Sign In or Register to comment.