Head to head comparisons of Parallels & Fusion?

[fbx]

I want to read some good comparison reviews of these two products. Can anyone point me to such published reviews, either in print or on line?

Thanks.

[admin]

Is there anything specific you want to know about or want/need to do? Print reviews tend to be out of date, and most reviews I've seen aren't very thorough (it looks like they've used each for maybe a couple hours, or only tested one or two guest OSes or a specific task). We and Parallels both offer a free trial version, you could try both.

http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9760910-1.html

http://www.macworld.com/2007/09/reviews/vmwarefusion/index.php

http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/08/06/vmware.fusion.debuts/

[fbx]

Thanks, I have and am trying both. And I've bought both. But I like to read informed reviews as I'm certain I miss lots of details, tricks, tips, etc. I do appreciate the links and would appreciate any others, if there are others.

Cheers--

[BP9906]

My short story is Parallels started first, thus may have more "features" currently. Fusion, granted started a little later, was built on the same technology you've come to know and love from VMware Workstation, so you know its done right.

The technical aspect that I've seen is that Parallels VM technology doesnt seem to follow the "rules" of programming as well. Their 3D virtualization replaces some Windows system files, when you boot up Bootcamp from Parallels they do some odd things with modifying necessary boot files. I'm sure you've seen issues with these in their forums in the past.

Granted, I dont know if their technology has changed much since 3.0 came out, but I doubt it. They just seem to concentrate on producing features than stability. Having a good product needs the best of both worlds. Although Fusion is less feature rich now... they're catching up fast (as seen by Fusion beta's DirectX 9 support and Parallels lack of DX9 support).

A little byassed opinion from me, but some things that I've personally noticed and experienced.

[fbx]

Thanks. I've had Parallels screw up on Bootcamp Partition such that it had to be replaced. Could have been something I did in Parallels (3.0) but I was thinking it should not have destroyed my Bootcamp partition so completely that I had to reinstall Windows, and when that was done, some other problem emerged.

Still, sometimes Parallels seems faster than Fusion (although I've seen timings that suggest that Fusion is significantly faster than Parallels), and I haven't done enough work in either yet to give me a clear sense of preference.

[admin]

Since Parallels doesn't support ACPI, they have to replace several Windows system files, which one more thing that can go wrong. Fusion does support ACPI, so we don't have to fiddle like this. We do tell Windows to use Microsoft's own drivers for our specific virtual hardware (virtual hardware generally will not match native hardware).

This isn't to say Fusion users never have problems, but I suspect those are general Windows issues which could happen on any system.

[neilford]

I tsarted with Parallels first, since it came out first. I do a lot of 3D like Studio Max and Maya. The first version of Parallels I used was 2.5. Max and Maya worked with it. Then I upgraded to 3.0. It broke everything. I went back to 2.5 to get Max and Maya working. I tried to get help from the support and the forums. I received none from Parallels and little from the forum. When Fusion came out, I tried it and it worked and I got lots of help trying to do things. Also, I was able to take my fusion VM to my linux machine and run it. I am sold. I only wish I could get my money back on Parallels.

neilford

[rcardona2k]

.... I only wish I could get my money back on Parallels.

There's probably a decent aftermarket on auction sites. I don't think Parallels is tied to a username, but I noticed my hostname is the About box...that might be informational though. I've sold Virtual PC and other products and recovered usually half of current market value on used software.

[davidb2]

I have been using Parallels (2.5, build 3214) and just started trying Fusion 1.0. My needs are limited; I am only running Quickbooks, Firefox and IE (the latter two only to check Web site compatibility), plus of course the required AV, etc., software.

In my case, Fusion is faster to load, quit and suspend the VM, but not so much as to make me switch. So far the biggest difference has been being able to use Command+Tab as an application switcher even when "Enable access for assistive devices" is checked in System Preferences>Universal Access. The fact that Parallels did not recognize this as a problem was really bad.

The other major difference, as many others have pointed out, is the level of support. Just in terms of the level and tone of discourse on this forum, it's like going from a frat house free-for-all to a graduate seminar.

David

MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo 2.33 GHz, 3 GB RAM

OS X 10.4.10

VMWare Fusion 1.0

Parallels Desktop 2.5, Build 3214

Windows XP Pro SP2