- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 3
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 1
okay, just to clarify, i've read many threads on what seems to be a very lively debate on parallels vs fusion and this isn't a "which is better per se". I'm just hoping to gather as much information as I can for an unfortunately rushed decision.
i have recently (last week) purchased a macbook (2.0 ghz, 2gb ram, tiger 10.4). My original plan had been to test each of the two big VM players to see which I preferred (the favorite recommendation on EVERY forum I've read) for running XP.
of course, life managed to get in the way. the thinkpad which I'd been developing an Access database on decided to quit two days ago. to add to the fun, the seal on my toilet broke... as if i wasn't having enough hardware issues already!
of course, my deadline is tomorrow. hooray!
I'm paranoid about backups so really, i only need to make a quick decision on VM ware. The devil is in the details as they say, and I know one WILL be better for me... I'm just trying to make the best guess I can so I don't have to switch again in a week or two or purchase licenses for both.
I've read the links, wikipedia side-by-side and countless discussions, there really isn't a side-by-side breakdown in layperson terms on what seems to be a small amount of differences between the two. It also seems there are benchmarks that support each contestant as "the faster solution". And it's also unclear if Fusion tests are made using a single processor (as Parallels is limited to) or taking advantage of the multi processor... which if i understand correctly, is only an advantage on a system with a quad or greater core.
I understand I'd probably be fine with either, but I'd like to guess right the first time to avoid any XP license issues etc. There are only three Windows Apps I need to run on the macbook: Visual Studio, MS Access and Sony's Vegas Video. I read someone had used Vegas with Parallels and had no problems, but I haven't found any user posts from a Fusion user who used Vegas...
Am I digesting all the information correctly?
- Parallels is better integrating the two OS into a unified experience (launching apps from the finder and multitasking between the two apps).
- An informal tally seems more users have posted complaints about kernel panics with Parallels than Fusion.
- Fusion has better portability with other platforms because the company already makes software for Windows and Linux and a virtual machine made with fusion can be easily used and moved on the different products.
- Fusion seems to use/free resources more efficiently than Parallels does.
Am I missing an important distinction?
In a nutshell it seems Parallels wins if someone switches between the two OS to work on a particular project (i.e. Coherence seems to be better than Unity), but Fusion would be better if I wanted to work with more resource-intesive apps like Visual Studio and didn't care about switching between OS frequently.
Does the version of OS X (tiger/leopard) have any impact on which would be the better choice? It seems Parallels might run better on Tiger than Fusion.
Any thoughts or opinions or experiences would be greatly appreciated.
i have recently (last week) purchased a macbook (2.0 ghz, 2gb ram, tiger 10.4). My original plan had been to test each of the two big VM players to see which I preferred (the favorite recommendation on EVERY forum I've read) for running XP.
of course, life managed to get in the way. the thinkpad which I'd been developing an Access database on decided to quit two days ago. to add to the fun, the seal on my toilet broke... as if i wasn't having enough hardware issues already!
of course, my deadline is tomorrow. hooray!
I'm paranoid about backups so really, i only need to make a quick decision on VM ware. The devil is in the details as they say, and I know one WILL be better for me... I'm just trying to make the best guess I can so I don't have to switch again in a week or two or purchase licenses for both.
I've read the links, wikipedia side-by-side and countless discussions, there really isn't a side-by-side breakdown in layperson terms on what seems to be a small amount of differences between the two. It also seems there are benchmarks that support each contestant as "the faster solution". And it's also unclear if Fusion tests are made using a single processor (as Parallels is limited to) or taking advantage of the multi processor... which if i understand correctly, is only an advantage on a system with a quad or greater core.
I understand I'd probably be fine with either, but I'd like to guess right the first time to avoid any XP license issues etc. There are only three Windows Apps I need to run on the macbook: Visual Studio, MS Access and Sony's Vegas Video. I read someone had used Vegas with Parallels and had no problems, but I haven't found any user posts from a Fusion user who used Vegas...
Am I digesting all the information correctly?
- Parallels is better integrating the two OS into a unified experience (launching apps from the finder and multitasking between the two apps).
- An informal tally seems more users have posted complaints about kernel panics with Parallels than Fusion.
- Fusion has better portability with other platforms because the company already makes software for Windows and Linux and a virtual machine made with fusion can be easily used and moved on the different products.
- Fusion seems to use/free resources more efficiently than Parallels does.
Am I missing an important distinction?
In a nutshell it seems Parallels wins if someone switches between the two OS to work on a particular project (i.e. Coherence seems to be better than Unity), but Fusion would be better if I wanted to work with more resource-intesive apps like Visual Studio and didn't care about switching between OS frequently.
Does the version of OS X (tiger/leopard) have any impact on which would be the better choice? It seems Parallels might run better on Tiger than Fusion.
Any thoughts or opinions or experiences would be greatly appreciated.
