- Joined
- Dec 13, 2007
- Messages
- 125
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 18
- Location
- Taipei
- Your Mac's Specs
- Macbook Pro 15" (early 2008, pre-unibody), 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo, 4GB RAM.
Hi all! I've already learned a lot from this forum about the differences / advantages / disadvantages between running VMware Fusion vs. Parallels vs. Bootcamp, and I think the best advice I've seen so far is just to download the trial version of Fusion and Parallels and try them out for myself, which I totally plan on doing as soon as my MBP arrives (should be any day now!).
However I thought I'd ask if anyone had seen the MacTech.com virtualization benchmarks here, and also ask if anyone had seen any similar benchmarks on the current versions of both apps (the MacTech reviewer says that during the testing, new versions of both apps came out, but there's no date on the page, so I'm not totally sure when it was done).
Anyway, it's conclusion seems to be that Parallels was WAY better for XP while Fusion was better for Vista, but I wonder if that's true for the newer versions. At the moment, I'm still using XP, and don't have any particular need to use Vista instead.
A couple of points of comparison that I'm still a bit confused over after reading a bunch of posts here:
1)will Fusion run "seamlessly" with OS X, allowing you to drag and drop btw OSs or do they keep the two more separate than Parallels does?
2)Is Parallels still a hog with RAM and CPU usage the way I've heard some describe for the previous version?
Guess the best thing is just to try both out! Appreciate any help!
However I thought I'd ask if anyone had seen the MacTech.com virtualization benchmarks here, and also ask if anyone had seen any similar benchmarks on the current versions of both apps (the MacTech reviewer says that during the testing, new versions of both apps came out, but there's no date on the page, so I'm not totally sure when it was done).
Anyway, it's conclusion seems to be that Parallels was WAY better for XP while Fusion was better for Vista, but I wonder if that's true for the newer versions. At the moment, I'm still using XP, and don't have any particular need to use Vista instead.
A couple of points of comparison that I'm still a bit confused over after reading a bunch of posts here:
1)will Fusion run "seamlessly" with OS X, allowing you to drag and drop btw OSs or do they keep the two more separate than Parallels does?
2)Is Parallels still a hog with RAM and CPU usage the way I've heard some describe for the previous version?
Guess the best thing is just to try both out! Appreciate any help!