VMware Fusion VS. Parallels

smssoleimani · Dec 20, 2007

I don't really see a difference, is one better than the other, which one do you guys recommend?

Reel1 · Dec 20, 2007

I have tried Fusion, and returned to Parallels. The latest Parallels build has worked perfectly so far for me.

smssoleimani · Dec 20, 2007

Well I mean whats is the difference, if there is any. Does one run faster than the other, or does one work better, or has better appearance.

NolaWegs · Dec 20, 2007

i think it's more of a personal preference thing, you can d/l the trial versions of both and see which one you like more. I use fusion and love it, i think the interface in fusion is a bit easier to use but that just my opinion. both are wonderful programs

Reel1 · Dec 20, 2007

I didnt like the appearance of Fusion, but I guess you will have to make up your own mind. I think they will run at the same speed.

If you are undecided why not get the free trials and try them out?

http://www.vmware.com/products/fusion/

http://www.parallels.com/en/download/desktop/

Ramacher · Jan 29, 2008

I've tried both and read reviews on both.. I've settled down with VMware's Fusion. Its been so long ago that i made my final decision to stay with fusion that I've forgotten why.. haha

fleurya · Jan 30, 2008

I chose Fusion also. I read many reviews stating that it runs better/faster overall and OS X runs faster with Fusion running than with Parallels. Also, Fusion is capable of using both cores of a dual core processor whereas Parallels can only use one, so Fusion basically will beat Parallels in running Windows apps all the time.

giulio · Jan 30, 2008

The latest Fusion allows the VM's net interfaces to run in promiscuous mode. That's important to me. But if you don't know what that means it's probably not important to you =)

mrplow · Jan 30, 2008

Can Fusion use an existing Boot Camp partition in the same way as Parallels does?

cwa107 · Jan 30, 2008

mrplow said:
Can Fusion use an existing Boot Camp partition in the same way as Parallels does?

Yes.

fleurya said:
I chose Fusion also. I read many reviews stating that it runs better/faster overall and OS X runs faster with Fusion running than with Parallels. Also, Fusion is capable of using both cores of a dual core processor whereas Parallels can only use one, so Fusion basically will beat Parallels in running Windows apps all the time.

Can you assign a core to a particular VM? Just curious - a feature like that would make me switch off Parallels (although I have given them a TON of money between buying it in Version 2 and upgrading to 3 just a few weeks later -ugh!).

giulio · Jan 30, 2008

cwa107 said:
Can you assign a core to a particular VM? Just curious - a feature like that would make me switch off Parallels (although I have given them a TON of money between buying it in Version 2 and upgrading to 3 just a few weeks later -ugh!).

No, it's just a setting to make the client multi-processor-aware. When set to one, XP thinks you only have one. But you can see in activity monitor that both are being used equally.

cwa107 · Jan 30, 2008

giulio said:
No, it's just a setting to make the client multi-processor-aware. When set to one, XP thinks you only have one. But you can see in activity monitor that both are being used equally.

Still pretty intriguing - I may have to play around with the demo again.

jebu · Feb 2, 2008

mrplow said:
Can Fusion use an existing Boot Camp partition in the same way as Parallels does?

Yes, it can. In my opinion work Fusion better as Parallels with Boot Camp partitions and so too.

fleurya · Feb 3, 2008

cwa107 said:
Can you assign a core to a particular VM? Just curious - a feature like that would make me switch off Parallels (although I have given them a TON of money between buying it in Version 2 and upgrading to 3 just a few weeks later -ugh!).

From the reviews of Fusion I've read, it can make full use of a dual core processor whereas Parallels cannot. And this is the processor option you have in Fusion's settings: