Parallels vs. Fusion

  • Posted: 08 July 2009 06:40 PM

    There seems to be varying information out there that suggests Fusion is better than Paralles, or vice versa.  Anyone here use either and willing to comment on their preference?  I am using a 2.13 GHz, 2GB ram MBA.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 08 July 2009 06:46 PM #1

    woodward - 08 July 2009 09:40 PM

    There seems to be varying information out there that suggests Fusion is better than Paralles, or vice versa.  Anyone here use either and willing to comment on their preference?  I am using a 2.13 GHz, 2GB ram MBA.

    I used the old version of Parallels. It blew up twice requiring the guest OS be reinstalled. The second time was during market hours.

    Parallels was fired.

    Since mid ‘07 I’ve been using Fusion. I’ve never had a problem. It rocks. I’m happy.

    Mac Pro, 6GB RAM.

    Signature

    Black Swan Counter: 9 (Banks need money, Jobs needs a break, Geithner has no plan, Cuomo’s grandstanding, .Gov needs a hobby, GS works for money, flash crash, is that bubbling crude?).

    For those who look, a flash allows one to see farther.

         
  • Posted: 09 July 2009 10:59 AM #2

    Ditto. Started with Parallels when it was the only one. Far better than Virtual PC ever was, but still had some problems (can’t remember what). When Fusion came out it just seemed like a much more robust, fully developed, professional product (as it should have done), and better integrated with OS X. Never had a reason to go back, so I can’t say what the comparison is now. I would assume the difference is much closer now. For whatever reason, Apple seem to promote Parallels more heavily.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 09 July 2009 11:09 AM #3

    I also bought a licence for Parallels and then dumped it for Fusion. However, I didn’t buy a licence for Fusion and when the one I had became invalid (can’t remember if it was a demo one, or a dodgy one I found floating around the web), I saw that Parallels wanted me to fork out more dough for an upgrade licence, so I decided to take a look at VirtualBox. That seemed to work OK for my purposes, which don’t really amount to anything other than very occasional usage. I came to the conclusion I didn’t want to buy another licence for something I would use rarely.

    Signature

    Throughout all my years of investing I’ve found that the big money was never made in the buying or the selling. The big money was made in the waiting. ? Jesse Livermore

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 09 July 2009 11:10 AM #4

    Ditto as well.  Parallels seemed slow and my mouse would always stop on the windows side.  Now I’m a Fusion guy and happy to report it works well. Coherence mode on parallels is a pretty cool feature which I am not sure if Fusion offers.  Allows for seamless integration of both operating system.  I vote Fusion.

    Signature

    NOBAMA / Carter 2012 - “Yes we can - we just figured out a way - it’s called the American deem”

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 09 July 2009 12:30 PM #5

    I have tried Fusion, but I stuck with Parallels 4.  It is fast for me and does what I want it to do.

    I think the layout of the virtual machine options is a bit clearer in my mind..

    But both work… I like having options even though I use P4.  I use it almost every day!

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 09 July 2009 12:46 PM #6

    At the risk of taking this topic off-path slightly, I have to say that even though I had a licensed copy of Fusion in a drawer just waiting for an Intel Mac to enter the room, once I got my 24” iMac last month, I immediately loaded it with Sun’s VirtualBox and haven’t looked back. http://www.virtualbox.org/

    It’s free to try. Oh, and free to use. It has Full Screen, Windowed, and Seamless modes. I use the windowed mode in a separate “Space”. It mounts shared folders like Virtual PC did. The only thing it doesn’t do that I’d like to see is auto launch a virtual machine when the program is launched.

    Anyone want to buy a copy of Fusion? grin

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 09 July 2009 12:51 PM #7

    Eric Landstrom - 08 July 2009 09:46 PM

    I used the old version of Parallels. Since mid ‘07 I’ve been using Fusion. I’ve never had a problem.

    Ditto.

    Signature

    Dave Barnes
    +1.303.744.9024
    WebEnhancement Services - Worldwide

         
  • Posted: 09 July 2009 02:11 PM #8

    I use VMware products on Windows and Linux as well as VMware ESX, so being able to bounce development VMs between these environments and my Macs makes Fusion a no brainer.  Fusion is an enabler for me so I can run my preferred operating system/platform instead of Windows or Linux.

    I have tried Parallels as well, but had troubles installing certain versions of Linux that worked without incident on Fusion.

         
  • Posted: 09 July 2009 02:28 PM #9

    woodward - 08 July 2009 09:40 PM

    There seems to be varying information out there that suggests Fusion is better than Paralles, or vice versa.  Anyone here use either and willing to comment on their preference?  I am using a 2.13 GHz, 2GB ram MBA.

    I also used the old version of Parallels, but version 4 has been nothing but a nightmare for me.  The installation went very poorly (good thing I had a backup of my drive image!), and I should have seen the writing on the wall at that point.  Performance (on a MacBook Pro and and new iMac) has been less than stellar, and certain keys stop working after a while (a common complaint it seems).  I ended up having to forget about Parallels and install Bootcamp instead.  I haven’t tried Fusion, but it can’t be worse than Parallels v. 4 can it?

         
  • Posted: 09 July 2009 07:38 PM #10

    I used parallels V3.x and moved to VM Fusion seemed faster, but would not work with Garmins software.  Could not see GPS.
    And the fix was to reinstall to much shit, so I stopped using.
    Upgrdted tp Parallel V4, its slower than VM fusion but everything I use works!!  Bought the latest version for VM, did not like!

         
  • Posted: 09 July 2009 11:44 PM #11

    Latest update of Parallels works fine for me.

    A comparison of the two: http://www.mactech.com/articles/mactech/Vol.25/25.04/VMBenchmarks/index-004.html  (I apologize for the length.)

         
  • Posted: 10 July 2009 05:20 AM #12

    Was using parallels, worked okay, but was slow. My version of windows xp never seemed to authenticate. Didn’t want to fork over the dough for the upgrade to parallels.  Switched to Virtualbox and have never looked back.  Have installed several OSes on it including Windows 7 and love the performance even on my Mac Mini.

         
  • Posted: 10 July 2009 05:24 PM #13

    We purchased Parallels first. We are operating in a legal environment in which we use a database that is only available for Windows. We use this for everything we do with regard to document production in the practice. One attorney uses a Mac Laptop. I use a Dell but I have close to 25 years of experience using MACS (my preferred environment). Despite all this experience, Parallels was a nightmare.

    We had failures on a daily basis and spent hours on the phone trying to resolve the problems. Basically, Parallels would not remember our settings; we had to install and reinstall and re-reinstall the tools, the program—everything.

    Finally, our frustration gave way to resignation and we bought VMware Fusion. End of story. With a rare burp, we function totally and completely the way we need to function. NOW, if only we could get Outlook to sync properly with his iPhone, we’d be all smiles.

    My own iPhone syncs without any problems whatever EVER. However, the attorney MUST sync on the Windows side and this is not problem free. ‘nother story, I guess.  grin

         
  • Posted: 10 July 2009 07:33 PM #14

    We’ve been running Parrallels for many years, and with the problems mounting considered switching to Fusion. This was just before Parallels 4 was released. After doing a fair amount of due diligence, we stuck with Parallels. The difference between v3 and v4 was quite incredible, in both performance and integration. For us, we wanted a more seemless environment between the Mac OS and the Win OS, and Parallels delivers. This is not to say Fusion wouldn’t have been competitive, and in some areas might have been a better performer. It just wasn’t the right choice for us. Of all the various reviews, I found this one to be most informative <http://www.mactech.com/articles/mactech/Vol.25/25.04/VMBenchmarks/index.html>. Hope this helps,

    ACBW

         
  • Posted: 11 August 2009 11:34 AM #15

    slightly OT but related question:

    Do any of you who use windoze on Mac know how to turn off all automatic updates?
    I’ve been re-installing my Mac:
    - Leopard 10.5.8
    - Parallels 3
    - Win XP/SP2
    The auto-update was already a pain in the butt w/SP2 constantly asking to phone home.
    In reading the SP3 EULA, I noticed that MS now says they can phone home, get and install software in the background without my permission and without asking me or even notifying me.

    I ONLY use windoze to run chart software (not live). I ONLY connect it long enough to get the data and then unplug the ethernet cable to look at charts. No e-mail. No web browsing. No opening of any files.

    Without ascending my soapbox for a serious MS rant, my relevant questions:
    1. How dire are the security issues addressed by SP3 if I don’t update?
    2. How can I totally disable SP2 from phoning home (after initial activation)
    3. If it’s necessary to upgrade beyond SP2, are there any ways to disable phoning home in the later upgrades?
    4. are there other questions I should be asking?

    After years of taking Macs for granted, I really hate dealing with this crap all over again.  :evil:

    Thanks much.  grin

    Signature

    “A man who’s not a liberal when he’s twenty has no heart. A man who’s not a conservative when he’s 40 has no brain.” - Winston Churchill