possible to install fusion when parallels is already installed?

[jjohnston62]

that's the question...

Thanks.

jon johnston

[palter]

that's the question...

Thanks.

jon johnston

Yes, it's possible. I've done it. And, I've even run both simultaneously. (Just be sure you have enough RAM to do that.)

[wilbur_harvey]

I have done it as well, and it seems to work fine. The only problem is that Parallels works much better. Hopefully VMware will have another beta which works better. I would like to share virtual machines between the mac and linux hosts.

[rcardona2k]

>The only problem is that Parallels works much better.

Sorry, this is about as vague as I wish "ice cream would taste better"-- huh? Vanilla, Rocky Road or strawberry? Can you much more specific as to features you're looking for?

I would like to share virtual machines between the mac and linux hosts.

This is another head scratcher, do you mean mean between OS X and Workstation 6 on which[/i] Linux distro? You're telling me Parallels for Linux is better[/i] than Workstation 6/Server? I've heard entirely quite the opposite!

[ca]

Parallels works much better than Fusion in nearly all ways. Speed, ease of use, device management, just all around. Of course, they've been working on the product for a long time, while VMware is just going into beta, so this is understandable.

[bgertzfield]

Hi ca,

I think you'll be extremely pleased with the speed of our release candidate. Internally, we're using it for performance evaluation, and it's quite speedy.

Please don't judge the final performance of VMware Fusion off the beta builds. They purposefully have lots of extra debugging code, logging, etc. to catch obscure bugs -- all that extra code is removed for the release candidate and final builds.

We'd love to hear your feedback on how we can make VMware Fusion easier to use! Are you talking about specific bugs you've run into, or are there some use-cases that you're finding difficult?

Thanks ahead of time,

Ben

[rcardona2k]

>Speed,

Since, again, this is not specific, let me address speed in terms of CPU, Disk and Net I/O using Passmark benchmarking. Caveat: benchmarking is not the end-all-be-all, but it is quantitative. The Fusion EULA forbids me to post actual numbers but let me characterize them.

Both products virtualize the underlying processor. Parallels only enables one core. VMware lets you enable two cores. Hmm...

I've benchmarked Fusion's Gigabit Intel e1000 NIC against Parallel's on a wired connection. While I can't give numbers Fusion debug beta is faster than Parallels RC.

Likewise I have benchmarked Fusion's virtual LSILogic SCSI adapter against Parallel's IDE adapter. It's no contest...

You decide.

>ease of use,

Pass -- as this is too subjective

>device management,

Fusion has a toolbar which shows which devices are present and connected. Many devices are allowed to connected and disconnected live. Last time I checked Parallels (3150) most things are static at runtime...

>just all around. Of course, they've been working on the product for a long time, while VMware is just going into beta, so this is understandable.

I'm not trying to argue ad infinitum. If you prefer Parallels, by all means stick with it. I admit I use my production VM in Parallels since my Fusion VM is disposable (well - backed up) during the beta. I've (ab)used my Fusion VM and it keeps on ticking.

[Linh_My]

In my experience, Yes.

Re: Speed differences. It is absolutely unfair to compare a shipping retail (as of today ver 3186) that you pay real money for or even Release Candidate versions of software to a heavily debug coded free beta version. That said, VMware Fusion and Parallels for Mac both seem to be solid and worth while products. I consider my money spent on Parallels to be well spent and expect to be rewarded at least as well by the Retail Fusion product when I buy a copy of it.

Now if you are doing any kind of serious work, DO NOT EVER USE A BETA PRODUCT. Beta software by definition is buggy and unreliable.