Fusion or Parallels

Regardless of what ive said before on some of my threads im coming round to the idea of a full switch. Basically the more I play and learn the more I love.

Im looking at full switch but still need some windows software and boot camp is not convenient enough.

looking at fusion or parallels to run vista or XP if required. Has anyone any experience.

Also one of the business packages that i use in windows allows me to generate reports directly into MS word. I wonder how this sort of scenario would work on a dual systems. Will the report link into Mac word or Windows word ???

Some feedback would be great. Thanks

I always recommend VMware. It has more robust support all around including DX9 and seems to run faster. It also will make for easier transitions if you ever feel like moving your VM from your mac to a different machine and want to run it with VMware server or workstation on say a PC.

Unity mode in VMware also works better then the parallels equivalent for me.

I have (and use) both.

I used to find Fusion to be better, but the latest version of Parallels has narrowed/extinguished the gap.

Parallels only supports Vista and XP, while Fusion supports them and Win 2000, 98, 95 etc plus Linux, Solaris etc.

I have not used both products so I can't comment on which one is better, but I have been using Parallels for a little over a year now and have had only a few minor issues with it, and no issues at all recently.

I would like to point out though that Parallels does indeed support more than just Win XP and Vista. I have it running Win2K, XP, Vista, Fedora 8, Ubuntu, and OpenSUSE.

As I said, I can't give you an opinion on which is better, I can only tell you about my mostly positive experience with Parallels.

I am evaluating Fusion at the moment as I've seen so many recommendations for it here. In comparing the two side-by-side, Parallels is certainly more refined - particularly in terms of how it handles screen resolution changes and transitions. Although Fusion claims to support DX9, none of my games seem to think it does, despite the fact that I enabled it in the VM config. I'm guessing there's something going on with the driver, but in Parallels, enabling 3D support is as simple as checking a box.

So, right now, I'm leaning toward letting the evaluation expire. I was really hoping to see better game support and superior performance (particularly since it supports 64-bit and multi-core processors), but I'd say they're about even, and in some cases Parallels is more refined.

I use Parallels 3 for XP, Ubuntu, and Solaris and have not had a problem. It was the first one I tried and (I believe) the first one out for Intel Mac's VM users.

At this point I think the debate has gone the direction of Canon v Nikon...use whichever one you particular find useful. I doubt you could go wrong with either.

Kat

OK guys..... thanks. I think ill go for an olympus then. LOL

MacKat said:

I use Parallels 3 for XP, Ubuntu, and Solaris and have not had a problem. It was the first one I tried and (I believe) the first one out for Intel Mac's VM users.

At this point I think the debate has gone the direction of Canon v Nikon...use whichever one you particular find useful. I doubt you could go wrong with either.

Kat

Click to expand...

I agree with this - I started with Parallels, used the VM Fusion 'trial' but stuck with Parallels. Fusion has a few advantages, in regard to using both cores etc, however Parallels is a little easier to get to grips with and I prefer its coherence mode to anything on Fusion.

I use it for XP SP 2 and SuSE Linux.

I just started using Parallels 3.0. It took three attempts before XP finally installed without freezing. I had some problems initallly with Photoshop Elements 4 when it was first installed. It appears to be fine now. XP recognized my Brother printer as an HP. It also appears to work regardless of the mis-identification. I am very happy with how Parallels manages two OS's at the same time as with how XP loads faster than it does on my PC. I have not tried any other products to compare.

quantumdrift said:

I would like to point out though that Parallels does indeed support more than just Win XP and Vista. I have it running Win2K, XP, Vista, Fedora 8, Ubuntu, and OpenSUSE.

Click to expand...

My mistake - sorry.

I have never gone past Parallels first screen for installing a new OS, so did not read it correctly.

Vmware

I've read a number of posts pointing out the more favorable licensing terms of VMware, if that matters to you.

I use Fusion and am quite happy with it expect for the following pet peeves:

1. Audio is choppy when played in Fusion. My MBP has 4 GB RAM of which 2 GB is allocated to running Vista within Fusion.
2. No support for external Firewire drives.

Do both require "full retail versions" of XP? I have Enterprise copies at work and I can't use them with bootcamp and I chatted with a VMWare person last night and she said I need FRV for Fusion. Does Parrallels require this as well or can I use an Enterprise copy of WinXp with Parallels?

Thanks.

I tried both Parallels and Fusion and settled on Fusion. Seemed easier to use and faster to me. I think Unity mode and Coherence are about the same. But YMMV and, for all practical purposes, they are essentially even. I don't do gaming so will leave that to others (and if I did, would use bootcamp anyway).

Re the last post, I used an OEM copy of XP. Our enterprise product key would not work (but who knows, yours might). In any case, an OEM version of XP works fine and is much cheaper than the retail version.

Cheers

After digging around and considering these replies I think they seem about even. Although the consensus seems that Parallels takes more resources.

For me the decision is based on which one will allow me to also run windows natively also for games performance etc.

SO can any one anwswer this do they both allow a native opertion of windows ???

Sotry to be clearer.
Im asking which will allow a native opertaion via boot camp.

maccernow said:

Sotry to be clearer.
Im asking which will allow a native opertaion via boot camp.

Click to expand...

They both have the ability to boot from an existing Boot Camp partition.

I guess I'll throw my 2 cents in also. I purchased Parallels before I bought my iMac because I'd demo'ed it at an Apple store and was very impressed with it. Up until then, I didn't even know you could run Windows on a Mac. After hanging around these forums for a while and reading the "which one is better?" threads, I started seeing LOTS of posts endorsing Fusion. So last night, I installed the demo. I'm not using a Boot Camp partition (for either Parallels or Fusion). I'm using the same copy of Windows XP; I just haven't activated it yet. I'll do that when I make a final decision.

My initial impression of Fusion is that I like the interface; it looks like a Cocoa application ("Mac look and feel"). One thing *really* like is the ability to hide the Windows task bar and launch applications from the OS X menu bar. I think it needs some refinement so that the menu tree can be rearanged so that folders can be listed before or after individual programs. Maybe that's already possible. I don't know....

I think Parallels is a little more customizable. It might seem silly, but I prefer the way the screen transitions to and from Full Screen mode in Parallels (the rotating cube) as opposed to the "dissolve" mode in Fusion. I also like the way you can choose how it transitions (cube, flip, etc.). Granted, all these things are relatively unimportant compared to how well Windows programs run within the virtual environment. In this respect, I think they're about even.

My biggest disappointment with Parallels is their support. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the Parallels support forum is where questions go to die. While there are some threads that get a lot of attention, many (most?) just languish for a long time with many views and no responses. The last time I had a problem, I posted detailed a detailed description of the issue and we're now up to 104 views and no responses. It kinda leaves a sour taste in your mouth, knowwhatimean?

Anyway, after all that rambling, my advice would be to download the demo for each, install each without using your Boot Camp partition (this way they remain separate files), use the same copy of Windows for each (you can use it for 30 days before activation is required); install some light programs and just play around with each to see which you prefer. Sorry for being so verbose.


James

Thanks jamesdmc that was a clear response.