Parallels -vs- Fusion

ScottCT1 · Sep 29, 2007

Last week I became an Apple fan.

I purchased a Macbook Pro and I love it, I should have switched a long long time ago!

I have a question that the guys at the "Genious Bar" could not answer.

I presently have a demo version of Parallels installed on my mac, and it works well. I tried Bootcamp but didn't have good luck as my Windows XP install disk was SP1 only.

I then removed my Bootcamp partition and had Parallels install Windows XP for me. It went very well. I was able to activate my copy of Windows XP with no issues.

My Parallels trial is about the expire. And I am thinking about buying it.

However I was in the Apple store and saw they sold Fusion, and with the rebate it was $20 less then Parallels.

Here are my questions:

1) Which is better Fusion or Parallels?
2) Can Fusion install Windows XP SP1?
3) If I moved to Fusion would I have any trouble activting Windows XP again?

I am thinking I am better off keeping Parallels, it works for me, but I want to make sure I am not missing something with Fusion before ordering Parallels.

Any advice you can give would be appreciated.

illusionist · Sep 30, 2007

ScottCT1 said:
Last week I became an Apple fan.

I purchased a Macbook Pro and I love it, I should have switched a long long time ago!

I have a question that the guys at the "Genious Bar" could not answer.

I presently have a demo version of Parallels installed on my mac, and it works well. I tried Bootcamp but didn't have good luck as my Windows XP install disk was SP1 only.

I then removed my Bootcamp partition and had Parallels install Windows XP for me. It went very well. I was able to activate my copy of Windows XP with no issues.

My Parallels trial is about the expire. And I am thinking about buying it.

However I was in the Apple store and saw they sold Fusion, and with the rebate it was $20 less then Parallels.

Here are my questions:

1) Which is better Fusion or Parallels?
2) Can Fusion install Windows XP SP1?
3) If I moved to Fusion would I have any trouble activting Windows XP again?

I am thinking I am better off keeping Parallels, it works for me, but I want to make sure I am not missing something with Fusion before ordering Parallels.

Any advice you can give would be appreciated.

I haven't used Parallels, as I just installed the Eval version of Fusion today.

But according to VMWare, XP Pro SP2 and XP Home SP2 are supported. XP SP1 doesn't look to be supported, unless its a 64-bit copy of XP.

Windows needs to be reactivated whenever a hardware change is detected. So, yes, it needs to be reactivated when you install it on Fusion.

hope this helps.

tobywuk · Sep 30, 2007

I have never tried Fushion but i use parallels on my macbook and its very good. I have both a copy of windows XP and ubuntu installed within parallels and i can use them both with out any problems and it seems smooth and reliable as if i were just running the OS's straight from the hard drive.

I was so impressed with it that i even deleted windows and bootcamp off my macbook.

goobimama · Sep 30, 2007

I don't know why, I really don't, but I prefer Parallels... I find it smoother and...I don't know why. It just feels right.

moot · Sep 30, 2007

ScottCT1 said:
I tried Bootcamp but didn't have good luck as my Windows XP install disk was SP1 only.

FYI, you can still use Bootcamp. You will need to create a new XP install disk with SP2 built-in. They call this "slipstream"-ing a disk.

Here's the instructions I followed to convert my own disk:
http://www.theeldergeek.com/slipstreamed_xpsp2_cd.htm

BlackCivic · Sep 30, 2007

although this article from MacWorld is from February, 2007 it lists the differences between Vmware's Fusion and Parallels...

http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/02/21/vmwarevsparallels/index.php

Bruki · Sep 30, 2007

Hi,

I found a great new video podcast on itunes called macshow & episode 1 is pretty much a debate about fusion V parallels its very interesting great information, It might help you decide.

nakile · Sep 30, 2007

Check out the reviews of VMWare on the online Apple Store. Almost everybody says it's superior to Parallels.

Much better program support, more stable, easy to use. I would go with VMWare.

kfordham281 · Oct 1, 2007

I've used both Fusion and Parallels and I think Fusion is better.

Moot gave a link to slipstreaming sp2 to XP. I used this process to setup my bootcamp partition and the CD worked great.

kfordham281 · Oct 1, 2007

Here's the program I used to Slipstream SP2 to my XP SP0 CD; it's called AutoStreamer

http://www.ubcd4win.com/downloads.htm (middle of page)

Zoolook · Oct 1, 2007

Fusion will be recognized as a different VM, so XP may not activate without a call to MS.

I use Parallels, and the latest version is pretty strong. Fusion has the advantage of using both cores of your machine, but this means any OS X tasks in the background will be slower. Also, it has (slightly) better DX compatibility.

However, IMO, Parallels is more stable and a more mature product. Since Fusion was released, Parallels updates have been thick and fast.

BlackCivic said:
although this article from MacWorld is from February, 2007 it lists the differences between Vmware's Fusion and Parallels...

http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/02/21/vmwarevsparallels/index.php

6 months out of date... Parallels has moved on considerably since then.

kuchiki · Oct 1, 2007

I have to agree with most of the posts here...I have tried both and I also feel that Fusion is superior to Parallels.
as for your XP problem...there is a very cool tool called nlite with which you can integrate xp sp2 among other very useful tweaks. I highly recommend nlite but be sure to read tutorials and the help file.

kuchiki

jcruz1027 · Oct 1, 2007

I purchased Fusion just based on my experience administrating VM Infrastructure 3. Being familiar with something in this new MacWorld is very comforting.

opus_az · Oct 1, 2007

I use both. I'd say Parallels is easier to use for basic virtual machines. VMWare is more of a professional grade solution, and it's just recently come out of beta so it's still a version 1 product.

Already most testing shows VMWare to be faster than Parallels, which I think I agree with but it's hard for me to tell and I'd expect future VMWare fusion to really shine over Parallels. My Parallels has issues with external drives and sometimes with sleeping.

I prefer Parallels cohesive mode over VMWare's Unity mode, but again I'd expect VMWare's Unity to improve.

I'd say Parallels for ease of use, VMWare for stability and feature set.