[Macworld]

Post your comments for Parallels Desktop 5 for Mac arrives here

[MacHound]

Yay! Just hours ago I was sitting on the fence about switching to VMWare Fusion 3 versus Virtual Box. I didn't want to upgrade my Parallels 3 to P4 knowing P5 was in late beta testing. Now my decision is made easy!

[EbE404]

Thanks for the review, Rob

Are you guys planning on doing a comparison article contrasting Parallels and Fusion?

[Lord_Meroving]

Am i the only one who thinks that VMWare Fusion has better USB support than Parallels?

No matter what version of Parallels i've used (from v.2 to v.4) most USB devices i plug to my Mac never get recognized, but ALL show up and work with Fusion.

Recent example, i got an Archos 5 Internet Tablet with Android and ofcourse it isn't recognized on the Mac as an external storage device due to its ext2 file system (Linux). I tried Paragon's ext2 for Mac software but it's flaky or just doesn't work with Snow "Kitty" 6.1.

No problem, i fire up Parallels and still no dice, and i recalled never gettig USB devices to work properly in Parallels. I shut it down and remembered i also had Fusion.

I fire up VMWare Fusion and what do you know, like the champ it always is, it picked up the Archos instantly and i was able to drag and drop and so forth.

I stick with Fusion.

[pcharles]

Lord_Meroving, on 04 November 2009 - 04:06 AM, said:

Am i the only one who thinks that VMWare Fusion has better USB support than Parallels?

I stick with Fusion.

Yep, I think you might be!

I was a long time Fusion user, but have found that Parallels 4 gives me superior integration with the Boot Camp partition. The same may not be true with the file-based virtual machines, but there are a number of features that do not work in Fusion 2 or 3, and do in Parallels. One of those is that Fusion requires an admin password to load the Boot Camp partition, but Parallels does not. I have no idea why this is the case, but when I realized that Parallels did not require the password I moved over. I also find the loading in to Coherence/unity mode to be smoother with Parallels. I was never able to get Fusion to pass my Bluetooth GPS through to my Garmin Mobile, but Parallels seems to handle that OK as well.

Bit annoyed at the upgrade price, which is a premium over Fusion. Parallels 4 works perfectly fine with Windows 7 on BootCamp, so I will need more incentive to upgrade than just AERO.

[wtbard]

Great. They recently fixed a bug that's been there since the last rev change and now they have another rev change.

[EbE404]

Lord_Meroving, on 04 November 2009 - 05:06 AM, said:

Am i the only one who thinks that VMWare Fusion has better USB support than Parallels?

No, you are not the only one. I have seen general USB devices (cameras, flash drives, etc.) work just fine in both, but I regularly need to connect "niche" devices, such as audio interfaces, DSP processors, USB-serial adapters, etc. and I have found Fusion to be vastly superior in this regard. I have yet to find anything that would work natively in Windows that has not worked in Fusion, and I connect to some pretty weird stuff.

I have heard similar reports from colleagues and customers of mine.

I am not sure if this has improved in the new Parallels version, which is why I was a bit curious about a direct comparison article.

[tfrogh]

I just switched to Fusion from Parallels. For one, the Networking on my iMac just never worked right on my home network. My office uses Fusion and I have had zero trouble with Network set-up. Parallels just seemed flaky and cumbersome to configure.

What I find disturbing in the Press Release above (published as news) is that for all of the polishing and razzle dazzle they go on about, they make no mention of performance tweaks under the hood. Another reason I went with Fusion. Fusion is working to leverage the multiple cores inside our Macs for a better experience when running 2 OSes at the same time. At work, we are all MacPros and we want the best performance out of both OS environments.

An Apple Support Specialist I use advised me sometime ago, Parallels is for light users, Fusion is for power users. Seems to still be true. Let's see some benchmarks.

t.

[KPOM]

tfrogh, on 04 November 2009 - 08:50 AM, said:

I just switched to Fusion from Parallels. For one, the Networking on my iMac just never worked right on my home network. My office uses Fusion and I have had zero trouble with Network set-up. Parallels just seemed flaky and cumbersome to configure.

What I find disturbing in the Press Release above (published as news) is that for all of the polishing and razzle dazzle they go on about, they make no mention of performance tweaks under the hood. Another reason I went with Fusion. Fusion is working to leverage the multiple cores inside our Macs for a better experience when running 2 OSes at the same time. At work, we are all MacPros and we want the best performance out of both OS environments.

An Apple Support Specialist I use advised me sometime ago, Parallels is for light users, Fusion is for power users. Seems to still be true. Let's see some benchmarks.

t.

I downloaded the Parallels trial and ran the Windows Experience index. I still need to do some tweaking (Parallels took 1 CPU while in Fusion I assigned Windows 7 two CPUs), but Fusion gave a higher score for Aero (3.0 vs. 2.5) while Parallels gave a higher score for gaming (3.6 vs. 3.0). I'll do some "real time" testing but I get the sense that I probably won't shell out the $40 for the upgrade since I just did the same last week for Fusion.

YMMV, but I think the main thing is to find one that works and go with it. VMWare and Parallels are always playing leapfrog.

[lhudd]

Parallels lost a customer when they decided not to make my previous version compatible with snow leopard. That was quite a shock, actually... load new, optimized OS and boom, everything but parallels works. Some things worked (e.g., 1Password worked, but not as well as they would with a new version, but that's okay... and they had a free beta!) but only Parallels didn't. Needless to say, i was put off. I don't use the windows functionality much anymore. Formerly, i used it more often to run a linux VM for a work project. Now, if i ever need this again, i'll just go with cheaper Fusion.

[rwcooke88]

KPOM, on 04 November 2009 - 06:58 AM, said:

tfrogh, on 04 November 2009 - 08:50 AM, said:

I just switched to Fusion from Parallels. For one, the Networking on my iMac just never worked right on my home network. My office uses Fusion and I have had zero trouble with Network set-up. Parallels just seemed flaky and cumbersome to configure.

What I find disturbing in the Press Release above (published as news) is that for all of the polishing and razzle dazzle they go on about, they make no mention of performance tweaks under the hood. Another reason I went with Fusion. Fusion is working to leverage the multiple cores inside our Macs for a better experience when running 2 OSes at the same time. At work, we are all MacPros and we want the best performance out of both OS environments.

An Apple Support Specialist I use advised me sometime ago, Parallels is for light users, Fusion is for power users. Seems to still be true. Let's see some benchmarks.

t.

I downloaded the Parallels trial and ran the Windows Experience index. I still need to do some tweaking (Parallels took 1 CPU while in Fusion I assigned Windows 7 two CPUs), but Fusion gave a higher score for Aero (3.0 vs. 2.5) while Parallels gave a higher score for gaming (3.6 vs. 3.0). I'll do some "real time" testing but I get the sense that I probably won't shell out the $40 for the upgrade since I just did the same last week for Fusion.

YMMV, but I think the main thing is to find one that works and go with it. VMWare and Parallels are always playing leapfrog.

[rwcooke88]

rwcooke88, on 04 November 2009 - 08:30 AM, said:

KPOM, on 04 November 2009 - 06:58 AM, said:

tfrogh, on 04 November 2009 - 08:50 AM, said:

I just switched to Fusion from Parallels. For one, the Networking on my iMac just never worked right on my home network. My office uses Fusion and I have had zero trouble with Network set-up. Parallels just seemed flaky and cumbersome to configure.

What I find disturbing in the Press Release above (published as news) is that for all of the polishing and razzle dazzle they go on about, they make no mention of performance tweaks under the hood. Another reason I went with Fusion. Fusion is working to leverage the multiple cores inside our Macs for a better experience when running 2 OSes at the same time. At work, we are all MacPros and we want the best performance out of both OS environments.

An Apple Support Specialist I use advised me sometime ago, Parallels is for light users, Fusion is for power users. Seems to still be true. Let's see some benchmarks.

t.

I downloaded the Parallels trial and ran the Windows Experience index. I still need to do some tweaking (Parallels took 1 CPU while in Fusion I assigned Windows 7 two CPUs), but Fusion gave a higher score for Aero (3.0 vs. 2.5) while Parallels gave a higher score for gaming (3.6 vs. 3.0). I'll do some "real time" testing but I get the sense that I probably won't shell out the $40 for the upgrade since I just did the same last week for Fusion.

YMMV, but I think the main thing is to find one that works and go with it. VMWare and Parallels are always playing leapfrog.

I would agree with KPOM. I have used both Parallels and Fusion. They are both good products. I currently use Parallels but for no particular reason other than when I upgraded my two Macs that use it I could find my Parallels disk and sn and couldn't find my Fusion disk and sn. But I guess life wouldn't be life if people didn't have something to whine about. The notion that one poster made that Parallels is for light users and Fusion is for power users doesn't hold water in my book. I am a power user and I use Parallels and networking, USB, Snow Leopard Etc. all work fine and without issue for me. Software, particularly virtualization software like Parallels and Fusion, is very complex these days and at this price point I think both products do an amazing job. I plan to upgrade to Parallels 5.

[griffman]

EbE404, on 04 November 2009 - 03:47 AM, said:

Thanks for the review, Rob

Are you guys planning on doing a comparison article contrasting Parallels and Fusion?

Please note this wasn't a review, or even a First Look -- it was just a news item on the release. We are planning full reviews of Fusion 3, Parallels 5, as well as VirtualBox 3. All three apps have received major upgrades since I last looked a year ago. As part of that process, I'll also be comparing the three head-to-head for various tasks.

-rob.

[EbE404]

griffman, on 04 November 2009 - 09:10 AM, said:

EbE404, on 04 November 2009 - 03:47 AM, said:

Thanks for the review, Rob

Are you guys planning on doing a comparison article contrasting Parallels and Fusion?

Please note this wasn't a review, or even a First Look -- it was just a news item on the release. We are planning full reviews of Fusion 3, Parallels 5, as well as VirtualBox 3. All three apps have received major upgrades since I last looked a year ago. As part of that process, I'll also be comparing the three head-to-head for various tasks.

-rob.

See, this is what happens when I read my RSS feeds while my first cup of coffee is brewing

You're quite right, it's not a review, and I did not mean to characterize it as such.

Glad to hear you are planning a full feature on the "big 3".

Cheers